Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
This page says it was Queen Tuarii of Raiatea. I'm guessing it is the same Tuarii pictured here with Teraupoo (the original name of that image means "Chief Teraupoo and Queen Tuarii [at] Avera").--Cam (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that recent history would show that entering into a dialogue with various communist/totalitarian regimes has proved successful in moderating and even toppling them. USSR, China, Vietnam, Burma etc. With these successes loudly proclaimed by the US Government, who do they continue to insist on the absolute isolation of Cuba? Surely if they want to change the status quo on that island, they should copy previous models and open dialogue, trade links, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.161.190 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obama has moderated what his administration considered to be stupid sanctions (such as stringently limiting visits to Cuba by people who have relatives living there), while keeping in place the basic U.S. overall carrot-stick policy -- which means the regime doesn't get the rewards until it commits to substantial reforms. It really has not been too different with Burma. The USSR and China were/are major world powers that the U.S. has to deal with whether or not we like their governments, but that's not the case with Cuba... AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding, perhaps wrong, is that the entire difficulty of the Cuba problem comes down to the political power of Cuban exiles in Florida, and the role of Florida as a key "swing state." If Florida was not up for grabs every Presidential election, we'd probably have a more sensible Cuba policy by now. As it is, Florida has a lot of anti-Castro Cubans, a lot of electoral votes, and a lot of variability from election to election. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world did it prove "successful" that the U.S. entered into dialog with the USSR and China? Did Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping want to reform their countries because the US said so, and not because they genuinely thought socialism could be reformed and went for it? I think you're giving the US too much credit for domestic regime changes forced by economic malaise.
I highly doubt that the US cares about changing the status quo island, considering how much respect for democracy it has shown in the past. Most recently, it was on the wrong side of history in the Middle East, as a long-standing ally of Egypt's dictator. Its blockade of Cuba is also a policy that the rest of the world condemns. In 2011, for the 20th year in a row, the UN voted to lift the embargo, this time by 186-2. Those 2 were, predictably, the US and Israel. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean to imply that even with a vote like 186-2, even when almost every country in the world votes against the US, including the most loyal NATO allies, that's not representative of world opinion? Somehow a conspiracy is afoot that forced those 186 countries to vote against their will? I'd like to see your justification for that. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The UN General Assembly is place with a rather more squalid and ignominious history than seems to be contemplated by you (such as still going through the motions of a number of meaningless annual rituals dating from the bad old days of the 1970s alliance of petty despots and tin-pot tyrants against democracies, and the hegemony of "third-worldist" ideology -- two ways of saying pretty much the same thing). The whole idea of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly has been partially motivated by some of the structural hypocrisies of the General Assembly, and a desire to insert some much-needed democracy into the UN (because the General Assembly certainly has nothing to do with democracy...). AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course in a world where most countries are tinpot tyrants, you're going to get a General Assembly that's dominated by tinpot tyrants. I'm not sure where I expressed surprise or ignorance about this. This still does not change the fact that world opinion is overwhelmingly against the embargo, especially because nearly every country, including tinpot tyrants, democracies, and everybody in between, voted against it. And if you think condemning the US over the embargo every year is a "meaningless annual ritual", that's a value judgement which is irrelevant to the question. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is, if you want to take the moral high ground, or in fact appeal to moral concerns in any way whatsoever, then you should not try to support your position by reference to the UN General Assembly, because you only end up sabotaging yourself... AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All 140.180 stated was that the 'rest of the world' condemns the policy. Pointing out that virtually every government in the world (more specifically, every widely-recognised government except the US, Israel, and some tiny Pacific states) has repeatedly expressed opposition to the policy in General Assembly votes is a perfectly valid way of demonstrating that - I don't see what your feelings about the General Assembly have to do with anything. 130.88.99.217 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The US opening talks with communist/totalitarian regimes doesn't have that great of a track-record. The USSR is gone, true, but Russia seems to be only democratic in name. Similarly, China now has much greater economic, political, and military power, but is as anti-democratic as ever, and continues to occupy Tibet and threaten Taiwan. The US also tried negotiations with North Korea, with rather poor results. They remain an enemy and now have nuclear weapons, too. It's too early to determine if Vietnam and Burma will ultimately become democratic, or even respect basic human rights, in the case of Burma. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep in mind how unimportant Cuba is to the US. Cuba isn't a military threat, and if they ever tried to develop nuclear weapons, the US would just invade. The benefits of a renewed trading relationship would be much greater to Cuba than the US. Politically, Cuba doesn't have much pull, either. StuRat (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...how unimportant Cuba is to the US"? I ask again "So is the USA still more interested in hurting a regime they don't like than in helping the people of Cuba?" Especially a country that now has quite a few relatives of its citizens in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The official US position is that the best way to help the people of Cuba is to keep pressure on their government to reform, such as by allowing real elections. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And again, all of this is mediated through the realpolitik of domestic American politics. It's not about Cuba anymore; it's about Florida. Nobody with half a brain thinks that the embargo has achieved its original goals or has any chance of achieving them. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, right. I'm not sure it did that at all. Cuba still got to trade with everybody else, was able to field troops in foreign wars, and managed to put together a pretty crackerjack foreign intelligence service. They're still a big power in Latin America. For a country of their population size, I'd say they're pretty powerful in their own sphere. They are (and were) a primarily agricultural island with only 11 million people on it. I'm not sure how powerful you'd expect them to be if there wasn't an embargo. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cuba, being a large tropical island right off the coast of the US, would be a tourism gold mine if the US allowed it, which would provide billions of dollar to the Castro brothers to foster communist revolutions throughout the Americas, Africa, etc. If you haven't noticed, Cuba's not been all that successful in doing so with it's current, rather limited, economy. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the US has no problems with cooperating with the USSR or giving 1.2 billion Communists in China MFN trading status, but somehow its top priority is to oppress people on a small island. That might have made sense during the Cold War, when Cuba could have served as a base for the USSR, but it doesn't make sense now. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that a trade embargo on Russia or China wouldn't have worked, owing to their sizes, distances from the US, different economies, etc. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how much of this agenda is actually domestic. Legalizing tourism to Cuba would mean that many Americans would fly right over the expensive beach resorts of Florida and visit pristine beaches a short distance southward instead. I suspect the embargo will remain until Cuba is perfectly capitalist, and by perfectly capitalist I mean, "when those beaches are owned by Disney World". Wnt (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Placing the right hand over the heart during the playing of a national anthem?
I saw a video of the Singapore national football team in a match against Malaysia, and during the playing of their respective national anthems, both teams placed their hands over their heart. But according to our article on Singapore's anthem, they are only required to stand. Indeed, the audience members were only standing and waiving banners. Here in my country, we are required to salute the flag either with the military salute or the civilian salute (hand over heart) and most people follow that rule, but in other countries, are the salutes of civilians consistent? I'm not saying they should not though, but shouldn't it either be all will stand only, or all will salute? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew10:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, if anyone didn't stand for the National Anthem they'd be roughly hauled to their feet by their neighbours. Conversely, if they put their hands over their hearts, they'd get some funny looks. We don't do such things over here. It's bad form to publicly display that sort of emotion, only colonials do it... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be assault and battery in the UK - or more accurately in England and Wales as Scotland has no specific battery offence - (on the basis of the contents of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 article - I am not a lawyer). I'd also add a definite "citation needed" against TammyMoet's comments. In my experience, the National Anthem is very seldom played in public in the UK nowadays except at very formal events where the attendees have already bought into going along with the ceremony so it's quite hard to gauge what the reaction of the average Briton would be to a person who did not stand up. However, I'd expect that even most ardent patriots would do no more than tut loudly. Valiantis (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really seen as a display of emotion in the States. It's just what you do, because they taught you to do it as a kid. For most people I think it's a fairly empty gesture, which is not to say that most Americans don't love their country, just that they don't really put that much meaning in these rituals. I could be wrong; maybe most people are more affected by it than I think. --Trovatore (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Australia any government that tried to tell the public how to behave during the national anthem would be laughed at. Most people stand when it's played. In fact, I think more stand now that we have our own than used to in the latter days of using the one the Brits still use. Some sing along but a lot don't know all the words. Never seen anyone salute or put their hand on their heart. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually associate the practice with the U.S., it doesn't seem to be common in other countries (although I have seen videos of football players from Vietnam, Nepal, Malaysia and the aforementioned Singapore do it). My country (the Philippines) seems to be the exception not the rule, although we were once an American colony. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew10:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said putting the hand over the heart was actually quite common in Australia. FWIW here's a photo of Socceroos Mark Schwarzer and Lucas Neill doing it, here's one of almost the whole team doing it, and another image hit on Google images with a broken link shows an Olympic squad doing it. I believe many in the crowd do it these days as well, and I'd say it's getting more common, especially if the hands aren't otherwise occupied. No one would salute though (except perhaps military personnel, and I can't say that for sure), and as HiLo says there certainly isn't any compulsion for civilians to do anything. An announcer may request that "All rise...", but if you wanted to stay firmly planted on your seat, keep playing with your iphone, or even drop a one fingered salute, then that's your business. --jjron (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously don't watch enough soccer. And I know this will annoy some fans, but I don't think what soccer players do can be said to be representative of the rest of a country like Australia where it's not the top football code anywhere. Again, from this thread, is this practice more of a soccer player thing than a national thing? HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checking some anthems on Youtube from AFL Grand Finals etc you could have a point about it being a real soccer thing. And given that almost all Socceroos players are based in Europe there's some validity to the notion that it's not entirely representative. Going on the videos it's actually less widespread than I thought, like I knew that most/all AFL players didn't do it, often standing with arms around each other's shoulders, but I thought a considerable number of fans did it these days. However in the rather brief shots of the crowds from several events I couldn't actually notice anyone with hand on heart. I'm sure I've seen it at times at the Olympics with medal winners, but maybe my memory is also biased from watching too much Socceroos and World Cup, and from watching American sports. --jjron (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, in context of this discussion I was also interested to hear that the announcer at the Grand Final actually says: "Ladies and gentlemen, we invite you to stand..."; sure most people do, but there's an answer as to whether it's considered compulsory. --jjron (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I hear the term "underground warfare", I do not actually think of literal underground warfare, but rather, warfare done in secret. Nevertheless, if it is what you are looking for, then the above articles may be of interest to you. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that non-Muslims aren't allowed to enter Mecca and Medina, and I do know it was because of Muhammad declaring them holy cities, but why are only Muslims allowed to make the hajj? I know before Muhammad's time, people of all races and religions made the pilgrimage. I respect their decision because I'm tolerant of all faiths, but what if a Jew or Christian wanted to make the hajj? Not as a publicity stunt or for fun, but as an actual act of faith, to encourage good relationships between religions? Christians and Jews are People of the Book, and they have a special place in Islam (even if they have not always been in good terms with each other). Besides, non-Christians may visit the Vatican anytime, and they will be welcome there. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure I understand your question - you started by saying you know why only Muslims are allowed to enter Mecca and Medina, but then you asked why only Muslims are allowed to take part in the Hajj (a pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina among other places). Perhaps you interested in some of the other places that Muslims visit during the pilgrimage? Anyway, I don't think this kind of restriction is unique to Islam, for example, Mount Athos only allows male visitors for religious reasons. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure your question is sincere, but it would not at all be likely to be looked on favorably by the Saudi authorities. In any case, some Christians who take their religion seriously would object to the fact that the Muslim pilgrimage ritual includes elements taken over wholesale from former pagan rituals (such as stoning the "devils" etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but the things you mention are decorative folkloristic accretions to Christian holy days, and not a central part of actual Christian worship ceremonies on either Christmas or Easter. By contrast, pagan survivals are an obligatory part of the official Muslim pilgrimage rituals. Whether or not you think that it's hypocritical for Christians to complain about it, it's a fact that some Christians have complained about it.[2] -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make the hajj if you can't enter Mecca and Medina. You can't enter Mecca and Medina if you're not Muslim because they are considered holy cities. Ergo, you can't make the hajj if you are non-Muslim. What's the confusion, here? If you're asking, "isn't this a bit discriminatory on the basis of religion?," the answer is, "um, yes, explicitly so." If you're asking, "why don't they ease up a bit in the name of tolerance?," the answer is, "um, well, they obviously don't value that form of religious tolerance enough to make that change." Nearly all religions have limits to how much tolerance they actually have, despite any lip-service. Ditto societies in general. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr.98's answer but that said, it's not that hard to convert... If you are really and strongly interested in visiting the cities for a legitimate reason you could spend some time (=months or years, not days) learning about the religion, learn to say the Shahada, convert and make it formal at a government office in a more tolerant Islamic country. If you decide you don't like Islam you can always convert back, or just keep your credentials in case you want to give it a second chance. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, a Christian holy experience that is forbidden to non-Christians that would be a (very) rough equivalent is the Eucharist. Specifically the case of the Catholic church, where not even Protestants can share in it, let alone Muslims. Also, non-Mormons are not permitted in Mormon Temples. Heck, practically no one was allowed in the Holy of Holies, Jewish or not. It's not exactly rare. Mingmingla (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the OP is thinking not just about the destination, but the whole journey from wherever he lives. Even though international travel is much quicker now, the hajj is surely still just as much about the journey as it is about the destination. Traditionally this would have taken many months in some cases, which is why it was only required adherents do it once in their lives. If he lives in the USA, for example, he could do whatever an American Muslim would do, in terms of travelling to Saudi Arabia, and go as far as he could, as long as he accepts he's barred from entering the holy cities. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the OP think is the reason for racism, sexism, apartheid, slavery, genocide, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or The Inquisition? It's simple: ignorance and hatred, and religion, which justifies the worst human tendencies and shields them from critical examination. Even a trained torturer might feel sympathy for his victims, until he justifies to his own satisfaction that he's doing something holy and that God commanded the persecution.
It's important to note that Saudi Arabia is much more fundamentalist than most other (all other?) Muslim countries. See Saudi Arabia#Women in Saudi society. Women are treated not just like second-class citizens, but like slaves who can't even get admitted to a hospital without her guardian's approval, and can't freely mix with men. On the issue of religious freedom, non-Muslims are forbidden from worshipping in public, and have even been beaten and threatened with death while worshipping in their own homes. Distributing non-Muslim material like the Bible is illegal, while converting to another religion carries the death penalty. I hardly think not being allowed to make the Hajj is even comparable to these other restrictions on religion. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the Old Testament include prophesies that people from all over the Earth (and not just converts to Judaism) would come and worship the God of the Jews in the Jerusalem Temple? And during Jesus' days in Jerusalem, weren't foreigner (non-Jews?) allowed in an outer courtyard of the Temple? Edison (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Jewish temple, there were a series of spaces each less widely accessible than the previous one (the outermost was for everybody, then one for Jews, then for Jewish men, then for Levites, then for priests, until the innermost holy of holies was only visited by the High Priest once a year). Jerusalem was not forbidden to non-Jews, but there were constant frictions with the Romans about the Romans publicly displaying what the Jews considered to be symbols of heathen idolatry there (such frictions seem to have contributed significantly to bringing on the First Jewish Revolt). -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh @ "obscure thespian". That neatly allows me to share what John Gielgud once said, ostensibly about Burton, but actually about someone else: I don't know what's happened to Richard Burton. I think he married some terrible film star and had to live abroad. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that nowadays it's not like it's always easy for Muslims to make the Hajj. Quotas means some may have to wait years [3]. Considering that, even if we ignore intolerance and all that, I don't think it's particularly surprising if non-Muslims for who it usually won't have religous meaning have great difficultywould be very severely restricted. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Joseph M Reagle, Bill Thompson, BBC digital culture critic, wrote “Wikipedia is flawed in the way Ely Cathedral is flawed[4]. So I tried to read Wikipedia's article on Ely Cathedral, but could not find anything particularly flawed, so what does Bill Thompson mean ? Teofilotalk19:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the full quote reads "Wikipedia is flawed in the way Ely Cathedral is flawed, imperfect in the way a person you love is imperfect, and filled with conflict and disagreement in the way a good conference or an effective parliament is filled with argument". I'd say that there is strong evidence that Ely Cathedral has had its imperfections - the tower collapsed at one point - and it seems to have received a bit of a battering during the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Architecturally, it is thus somewhat of a mixed bag, and arguably, even a work in progress. An affectionate metaphor, and on we should take as a complement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(after EC) Cathedrals are big churches, designed to impress. Ely Cathedral rises astonishingly out of the flat and dreary fens. The comparison, as I read it, is that Wikipedia is an amazing creation, which has arisen out of seemingly nothing (ten years ago). Compare (in auto-antonym):
An apocryphal story relates how Charles II (or sometimes Queen Anne) described St Paul's Cathedral as "awful, pompous, and artificial", meaning in modern English "awe-inspiring, majestic, and ingeniously designed."
Tower collapses seem to be more of a rule than an exception. However, if the simile is architectural, it's worth pointing out that not only is the building stylistically inconsistent, but that it isn't symmetrical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of architectural woes that aren't mentioned in our article: "Apparently inspired by the octagon (the lantern that replaced the fallen main tower), the Norman west tower was expanded by the addition of an octagonal belfry with four turrets in 1392. Its great weight soon caused the tower to sink significantly, and has proved a challenge to architects ever since. It was also around this period (the date is not known), that the northwest transept fell down, giving the cathedral's west front a lopsided appearance. It has never been rebuilt."[5]. So the "flawed" argument does seem to have a grain of truth behind it. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this website a reliable source ? I am suprised not to find any mention of this leaning tower in 'City of Ely: Cathedral', A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely: Volume 4: City of Ely; Ely, N. and S. Witchford and Wisbech Hundreds (2002), pp. 50-77. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=21891 Date accessed: 16 January 2012 . I found The Norman west front of Ely Cathedral overhangs its base several inches in an old book (1861). Teofilotalk15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The case of the Great West Tower is admitedly less straightforward, but I found Handbook to the Cathedrals of England by Richard John King, 1862: "The tower, originally the work of Bishop Geoffry Riddell (1174‑1189), was much altered and strengthened during the Perpendicular period; when the transition Norman arches were contracted by those which now exist. The zigzag moulding above marks the extent of the original arches. The work, after the erection of the upper or Decorated story of the tower had probably shewn signs of weakness; and the fall of the central tower in the preceding century no doubt led the monks to apply a remedy to this one in due time." (pp 177-178). Some later strengthening is recorded in Ely Cathedral Handbook by CHARLES WILLIAM S TUBES, D.D., DEAN OF ELY... 1904"1870 Restorations continued under Dean Merivale... Western Tower braced with iron bands." (p.22) Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a primary source, but this newspaper article says of Ely: "Imagine a huge dreadnought that has survived a dozen battles and emerges from the smoke with part of its superstructure shot away and its hull a patchwork of running repairs: from some angles it seems about to sink, from others it's a vision of beauty and power. This is the story of Ely Cathedral - an extended chapter of dramatic accidents, excessive ambition and the struggle against time and the elements.". Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This last quote explains Bill Thompson's idea about Wikipedia quite well doesn't it? I've added one sentence about the north-western transept in the article diff. Teofilotalk02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I like this 'Dreadnought Wikipedia' idea. With Admiral Jimbo on the bridge looking smug, if not entirely sure why he got the job, the admins yelling orders (usually ignored), and a motley crew (Shanghaied from every port the ship has visited) she steams once more into battle - with the stokers piling verifiability-not-truth into the boilers, the gunners ramming rounds of reliably-sourced armour-peircing citations into the breeches of the guns, and the inclusionists and deletionists running around below decks polishing the brass and stealing the fittings. Behind, in the wake, lies a trail of deleted articles, vandalism and grammatical errors. Nobody knows quite where she is going, or who the enemy is, but we're darned sure to put up a good fight when we get there - if we haven't sunk on the way... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During my trawl of the web for sources about the stability or otherwise of the West Tower, I came across something in the "Quite Interesting" category: the unfortunate cae of architect George BaseviFRS"He died on 15 October 1845, aged 51, after falling through an opening in the floor of the old bell chamber of the west tower of Ely Cathedral while inspecting repairs. His remains were buried in Bishop Alcock's chapel at the east end of the cathedral under a monumental brass."Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which cities of Canada have previously hosted the Liberal Party of Canada convention, either leadership convention or conventions dealing with proposals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.64.57 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There are many. Each state and the federal government have at least one. There are lots of specific laws concerning murder, murder of political leaders, murder of police or of court officers, murder of witnesses, murder in pursuit of a continuing criminal enterprise, murder in a large-scale drug operation, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, because of federalism, it's typically not the U.S. government which criminalizes and prosecutes murders/homicides, but rather the State governments. The Federal laws pertaining to murder aren't against murder/homicide per se, but rather things like "crossing state lines to commit a homicide", or "homicide of a Federal official" (e.g. FBI agent or the President), or "homicide in a non-State jurisdiction" (RudolfRed's linked section only applies "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States", which, as I understand it, wouldn't cover most of what people think of as the U.S.). This is typical; the vast majority of criminal acts are prosecuted based on violations of State, rather than Federal, laws. The Feds typically only get involved when a crime involves multiple states, the federal government, or foreign countries. (Though the Commerce Clause gives it quite a bit of leeway in defining "involves multiple states".) -- 71.35.113.131 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not odd. It's the concept of state sovereignty, a fundamental building block of the USA. It's not one country divided into provinces or departments; it's a collection of individual states united into a federation. It's kind of like what the EU wants to be. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some would say we live in an odd place legally, in the UK. We have several fundamentally different legal systems, with no separate overarching legislature (the UK Parliament can legislate for any or all of the constituents of the Union, though in recent years it has devolved some powers to subordinate assemblies), we have no written constitution, and many of the laws (of England and Wales anyway, I don't know about Scotland) have never been codified in statute but exist only in common law. --ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really true to say we don't have a written constitution. We don't have a single written document that is called "the constitution" but a lot of consitutional things are written down. Magna Carta, the Act of Union, etc.. A lot of constitutional things are handled by unwritten conventions, though, so it is a bit confusing. See Constitution of the United Kingdom for details. --Tango (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that § 1111(a) is a definition of murder (that reads like a bar review course... it's the classic common law description). The statues that criminalize it follow. § 1111(b) criminalizes maritime murder (which is specifically under the purview of the federal government); § 1114 applies to federal employees; § 1115 applies to negligent ship operators, etc. Due to federalism, Federal criminal law is limited in its scope to things that are within the enumerated powers of Congress. That definition is today quite broad, but at least in theory there are some limits on it. Typically most murders are prosecuted at the State level. I hope the IP's comment of what "[a]n odd place you live in" is glibly joking... let's not get sidetracked on trans-Atlantic one-liners. The 71.* ip gives an excellent answer. Shadowjams (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using Illinois for an example, Illinois Compiled Statutes[7], section 9, defines first degree murder; second degree murder; Voluntary Manslaughter of an Unborn Child; Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide; Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide of an Unborn Child; Drug-induced homicide; and Concealment of homicidal death along with aggravating factors for many of those crimes. Note that only Drug-induced homicide and reckless homicide are called "homicide" (it consists of killing someone while doing something dangerous but possibly legal with a automobile while involuntary manslaughter is the same type of thing done - without a car.) Rmhermen (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
