Humanities desk
< October 11	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 13 >

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.

October 12[edit]

Why isn't the US in the Inter-Parliamentary Union?[edit]

Why isn't the US Congress a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union? If I understand correctly, any legislative branch of a federal government that is composed entirely of the people's democratically-elected representatives meets the definition of a "parliament" (and that's a stricter-than-necessary condition, since voters only indirectly influence the composition of the Senate of Canada via the Prime Ministers' appointments); is that wrong, or is Congress not interested in joining the IPU for some reason?

Because the IPU is an "international organization of the parliaments of sovereign states". The Constitution of the United States of America does not include formation of a parliament, even if one attempts to redefine the term (Canada does indeed have a parliament); cf: Congress of the United States of America. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations was a tough-enough sell. Why would the U.S. join something that looks even more like a "global government"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US policy at the time was isolationist, we already have mechanisms in place by which to conduct international negotiations. We were already well on our way to becoming the largest national economy in the world. And which party would it have benefitted to do so? Party politics and the filibuster have prevented a lot of things that you might think would happen. For instance, the US would have been able to voluntarily annex or buy much land in the Caribbean and what is now left of northern Mexico. There was also strong desire to claim what is now British columbia. But doing so would have upset the balance of power between the free and slave states, so either of the factions, which were well enough matched, could block negotiations, war for or purchase of these lands. Both parties would have had to seen a large benefit. Plus, why bother, we were one of the world's oldest Republics, with the oldest constitution. It would be like Mr. Jones wanting to join a club consisting mostly of Mr. French's wards and Victoria's children. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above responses are just weird in light of reality. A quick search for 'ipu united states' finds [1] which links to this Congressional Research Service report. That says that the US was one of the original participants in 1889 although admitedly they didn't formally join until 1935. They stopped attending meetings in 1994. And left in 1999, at least partially for financial reasons (although I'm not sure this is the primary reason for their reduced participation).

I'm not denying that there would be opposition to the US participating nowadays, [2], and I'm sure there was at the time. But clearly talking about the US's isolationist stance at the time or the US not joining something because it looked like global government or the UN being a tough sell is just weird. As per the dates given earlier, the US was participating when the IPU was founded way before even the League of Nations and formally joined after the LoN but significantly before the United Nations or most start dates for World War 2. Similarly the comment about the US not being eligible because they didn't have a parliament.

While our article doesn't mention the US once being a member, it does give a big clue in that 3 of the meetings were held in the US. While I'm sure they don't require their meetings be held in member states, in fact 2 of the 3 were held in the US before they formally joined, it would be a little weird to hold their meetings in a place which was thoroughly disinterested.

That said, even the OP's original comment seems a bit weird. While I only quickly glanced through the statutes, I don't see anything about the parliaments having to be "democratically-elected representatives" or even elected. [3] The main critireon appears to be that they the parliament are formed in accordance with the laws of the state whose people they represent. (One of their goals is to promote democracy, but that's a different issue.) As the member lists show, countries like North Korea, Cuba and China are members [4] although I believe nominally all 3 do have elections for their legislatures whether or not you call them democractic.

I found the federal government comment a bit strange too, since one thing from above that is correct is that France and the UK (or the British Empire if you want) were the main founders and neither of these have or had federal government. But I guess the OP was just mentioning that they require the national parliamentary equivalent of sovereign states (albeit with some recognition of statehood ambitions), and the statutes in particular mention this means only the federal parliament can join in the case of a federation.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EU's CEFR English Profile availability and licensing[edit]

Hi. Is the English Profile (http://www.englishprofile.org/) going to be available freely under an open content license, or will there be fees and/or restrictions? I can see the vocabulary profile preview (http://vocabularypreview.englishprofile.org/staticfiles/about.html) but where can I find the grammar skills descriptions and functional skills listings in development? Thanks for any help. 76.88.167.15 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be freely available to teachers and educationalists. I don't know about other people though.Whereismylunch (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Does anyone have a reference (e.g., URL or document/page) saying so? 76.88.167.15 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When, Where and Who ?[edit]

Many years ago, around 1980, there was a news item on a massive bank burglary that occurred I believe in Italy, where a gang had tunnelled somehow into a vault and made off with so much loot they had to leave their equipment behind. A few more years later, about 1985 or so I saw in a section of the Christchurch Star called the Oddspot - about unusual or striking news, that some of those who did the deed were consulting on a Movie to made about them - something perhaps not so unusual these days with the kind of 'Natural Born Killers ' sort of Culture of the Bandit that exists today. So the men were caught, but for the life of me, and I did look on Google and here, I could not find the exact deed. I do not believe it is the 1976 French vault burglary I later saw portrayed on one of those Discovery Channel type shows with the reconstructions, where they welded the vault door shut from within and left a message in the vault for when it was opened eventually on the Monday. Those men were also caught. I think the job I am asking about occurred perhaps in Rome in about 1979, but cannot be sure, and I think the robbers were Italians. If anyone remembers this, please let me know. In addition, I once watched a TV Movie about a group, of all people, police officers - or at least some were, who did a similar thing. I think some time in the eighties, in Southern California, they broke into the Vault at a bank on a Labor Day Weekend - although it could have been July 4. If anyone knows this Movie, any help would be appreciated. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 10:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of this sound like The Bank Job, a film about a bank vault robbed via tunnel that was based, somewhat loosely, on historical fact, but that was set in London, not Italy or California. John M Baker (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't quite meet the criteria but Albert Spaggiari did something similar in Nice, France during the Bastille Day long weekend in 1976 which inspired the film Les Égouts du paradis.[5] Hack (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank You for those. I recall The Bank Job, with Jason Statham, who himself was four at the time of the real robbery. This event, in 1971, also inspired an episode of 'The Sweeney', starring John Thaw. The Albert Spaggiari job was the one I referred to, where they welded the doors shut, but I think they also left a lot of their equipment behind, which led to their eventual deserved capture. Yet I am sure that the one I am thinking of did take place later, at a time I would have watched the News, which I did not in 1976, being only eight, since I am sure most eight year olds unfortunately do not watch the News. This occurred in Italy, but since I understand a minimum of Italian, it would be hard for me to try the Italian Wikipedia. I might give it a go anyway, if I can work out the words for robbery and such. Also, still wondering about the American movie of the cops doing a bank job themselves - think I saw it up to 15 years ago, but could have been as few as nine, so the movie itself might be a minimum of ten years old, and I believe the events took place in about 1985 or so, but I cannot be sure. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I did find, when I worked out the Italian word for robbery is rapine, is there was a robbery at the Chase Manhattan Bank in Rome on 27 November 1979, by those known as Banda della Magliana, who seem to be linked to the Mafia, but I cannot be sure. This depends on what they mean by robbery, since the original news story I remember is the men in question snuck into the vault after hours as they needed equipment, and took so much loot they had to leave the equipment behind. This could be the one I am after, but if anyone else has any other leads, that would also be good. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South America[edit]

Which South American countries are crossed by the equator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.241.233 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Equator. The countries are Ecuador, Colombia, and Brazil. The northernmost point of Peru is 4.5 km south of the equator. Tevildo (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Francis Edward Stuart[edit]

Was it ever considered to raise James Francis Edward Stuart as a Protestant?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considered by whom? From the article you linked, probably not. Within six months of being born, his mother took him to France to be raised in the (very Catholic) court of Louis XIV of France. It seems unlikely that his mother considered raising him in the Protestant faith considering her actions in his infancy. Of course, there were likely many people within the English government who considered raising him a Protestant to be a good idea, however they didn't see that as happening, the Glorious Revolution was precipitated by the birth of James and the subsequent spiriting off to France. In reality, the Glorious Revolution was precipitated by James marriage to the Catholic Mary of Modena, though the fact that Mary had no living sons with James during the first 15 years of their marriage forstalled the Protestants for sometime. But James II had already formally converted to Catholicism himself, and the birth of a son to two avowed Catholic parents meant the son was going to be raised Catholic. Thus, the Glorious Revolution. --Jayron32 17:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Study and practice of modern medicine in China between 1940-1985?[edit]

Is it possible to get statistical figures on the number of Chinese women who earned MDs and became medical doctors/physicians during that period? What were the socioeconomic status of these women during this Communist era? Were they paid better than their unskilled labor counterparts? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will find it hard to get good statistics. Note that your period begins in the middle of the Second World War and goes through the Chinese Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Hundred Flowers period and the Cultural Revolution. Chinese government policy was extremely varied, to say the least. From 1949 the urgent priority was to train enough doctors. They did collect figures for that,, and there should be international comparisons on density of doctors per head of population. You can assume that there was no legal bar for women to enter the profession. Official salary scales may be available and will show that China applied a system of differentials so that doctors were paid more than most other categories of workers. Only starting points, I'm afraid. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]