Humanities desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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.

June 24

How long do average national leaders hold in power?

Usually how long do national leaders hold power on average? By how many inaugurations and elections. Some national leaders is short lasting John Kufuor, Ali Hassan Mwinyi, Benjamin Mkapa only ran for two elections. Some national leaders stay for a L-O-N-G time. Paul Biya is still planning to run for 2011 election, Abdoulaye Wade still plans to run for 2012 election. Do countrys run elections every 4, 5, 6, 7 years or the shifts changes sometimes? Is this possible for a guy to still hold power past 90 years old. Alot of people wants Robert Mugabe to leave, but he is so stubborn about not to hand power to somebody else, this is why he is still here. --69.229.243.248 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend largely on the constitution of the nations. Many constitutions limit presidential terms to two max, and on the other hand of the political specter you have constitutions like the constitution of former Yugoslavia that have articles making certain people (Tito, in case of Yugoslavia) lifelong presidents. A lifelong president could, of course, well be president even after he/she turns 90. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to some of your other questions, some national leaders are elected on a fixed-term election and/or with a maximum number of times (US is two four-year terms, for example). If the length between elections is fixed, it is only rarely changed due to consitutional reasons - France did change from 7 to 5 year terms. If the time between elections is not fixed, there is usually a maximum - eg., the UK where elections must happen within 5 years and one month of the last. Generally, the elected person/party can chose when the election is. Of course, some leaders benefited from the suspension of elections during wars, etc. For balance here, some leaders stay on a long time, but are popular and successful - Stalin to a fair extent, and most obviously FDR in the US. Technically Mugabe is where he is because he did well enough in the election his opponent formed a coalition, therefore largely legalising his position. If the leader resigns, both he and the incoming leader with have obviously odd term lengths, since it won't be a multiple of electoral terms. In general, the population, good or bad, gets bored of any leader in a democracy. You can run for power at 90 in most places, I believe. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 07:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether the Papacy is the only elective office that has a maximum age for the voters. —Tamfang (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Parliment taxes

Having read the articles at Scottish Parliament, Scottish devolution referendum, 1997, Scotland Act 1998 and Tartan tax, i still havn't discovered what happens if Scottish income tax is varied from the UK. I understand it hasn't ever been done, but surely the procedure is known. I want to know:

If Scottish income tax was raised or lowered from UK levels, does this affect the amount of tax revenue allocated for spending in Scotland in particular (eg. Would lower taxes give worse services in Scotland beyond the change the whole UK would feel)? Or do all the income taxes for the UK get pooled and then split as normal, regardless of what each region paid?YobMod 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page 29 of this research paper says "If the basic rate of income tax has been increased for Scottish taxpayers, the Revenue is required to pay into the Scottish Consolidated Fund an amount equal to the estimated yield of this increase from Scottish taxpayers" (and likewise for a decrease). Sections 73,74, and 75 of the Scotland Act 1998 are the relevant ones, although (like all acts) it's difficult to read practical effects out of the legal language. On the face of it, if the Scottish Government were to raise taxes, that tax increment would be raised from people "ordinarily resident" in Scotland, and would be spent entirely in Scotland; likewise a reduction would result in lower funding for Scottish services. But that ignores two important matters: firstly the Scottish Consolidated Fund receives a block grant from central government (conceived, in part, as compensation for oil revenues); and secondly there are a number of powers (and thus expenditures) that are reserved for Westminster - chief (for this purpose) is defence. I don't believe there's any legislation which determines whether that block grant would be reduced, and right now if the Scottish tax rate were varied that would be passed on entirely to Scottish expenditures (there wouldn't be a pro-rata deduction or addition to the UK defence budget). Should the time arise, these issues will have to be settled by politicians, rather than courts. Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that answers everything, thanks! I finally understand why the Scottish parliament hasn't simply gone for a lower tax rate.Yob Mod 11:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Standards

Why is everything smaller in Europe or conversely why is everything larger in the US? As the world globalizes are countries moving towards american standards? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by everything? Mountains in Europe are bigger then most of the mountains in America, if you don't count the ones in Alaska. If you are referring to things like cars, I suspect that the main contributing factor is fuel economy, since the price of gasoline has historically been 2x higher then the price of fuel in the US, or even more. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your insight, but I think it's pretty clear I'm not refering to mountains...Yes you can pick apart people's words but it doesn't really benefit anyone TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, er, what did you mean? I feel it would be helpful if you explain what you mean by 'standards' here. (And why you think bigger is better.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are bigger in the US. Cars, meal servings, high school sports stadia... --Tango (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The United States uses pounds, ounces, feet, yards, gallons, etc... as standards. The rest of the world is not reverting back to such ridiculous standards. -- kainaw ™ 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, the British pint and the European metric pound are both larger than their US equivalents. So is the standard international size of writing paper. Algebraist 15:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A4 paper is longer but narrower than US letter-size. —Tamfang (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm asking in regards to size of homes, cars, seats, anything people physically occupy. It seems like americans allow more physical space for their person than other cultures. I'm wondering why in europe there isn't the same trend considering the standard of living is on par with the US in Western Europe. (And don't tell me Europeans are shorter (the Dutch are taller) or thinner (just a bit but they're catching up quickly). TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe's much more densely populated than the US. You couldn't physically accommodate the population of England at the density of even some suburban areas of the US, or Australia for that matter. And because land is scarce, it costs more, so most people don't have the economic freedom to try living at such densities. Most measures of standards of living don't regard having very large houses, cars, armchairs, etc, to be significant. Most Europeans don't miss those things, I guess. Many of us don't own cars at all, because our public transport is better - which is effective because of the higher population density - and many of us live in apartments or in terraced houses, because those dwellings lie conveniently close to the places we work and play. New Yorkers take a similar approach, so it's hardly a uniquely European way of life, either. Your question implies that larger is better, and that's an opinion - one not shared by lots of people. Also, you're confusing 'international standards' - a phrase with known meanings - with standards of living internationally - a wholly unrelated concept. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, mate I said standards of living and never said bigger was better. You seem to be reading a lot of deeper meaning into a relatively straightforward question. I'm just curious as to why historically this is the case and if there is any noticible trend in increased living space. Anyway, the rest of your answer is interesting. Anyone else have any insight to offer? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more insight, ask a specific question. Excess is common in the United States. That is a given. But, it is not universal. American adults have a hell of a lot less comic books (er... graphic novels) than Japanese adults. American cities have a hell of a lot less disco bars than Brazil... well, just Rio. If you want to nitpick one specific point, then name the point. Don't use generalities and try to spur a discussion. This is not a discussion forum and attempts to start a discussion are often considered trollish. -- kainaw ™ 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, not trying to be a troll ;) Specifically what I'm wondering is if there is evidence that as countries gain more material wealth the objects citizens physically occupy (cars, houses, chairs, etc.) increase in size? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After living for a while in Europe, I returned to the U.S. for a visit and went to a steakhouse with family. Having gotten used to European portion sizes, I got full after just the salad! Then I decided to walk home like I always did in Europe. It took me 45 minutes to walk what took five minutes to drive, during which I only passed maybe 50 houses and five businesses. In Europe, you can cross an entire city of 500,000 in 45 minutes on foot. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in a US city of half a million and trust me, if I wanted to walk across it, you are talking at least a 5-6 hour trek. And our public transport options are terrible too. That is why so many Americans own cars. Without them, you can not really get around in a medium sized city. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the second question: There is obviously a correlation between a person's material wealth and the size of the person's house, car, swimming pool, etc... This is not American. It goes back long before any white people stepped foot in the New World. No need to trudge through all the history of castles and palaces. In the United States, there was a "you've got credit" craze through the 80's and 90's. It made it very easy and very normal for a person to live well beyond his or her means. So, the possessions of a person did not accurately reflect the person's personal wealth. The economy is paying for over 25 years of mindless consumption now. I expect the days of having a Hummer and a three-car garage on a $25k/year salary are over for a while. In other countries, it is possible for the debt craze to start up and do the same thing. They aren't copying American standards. They are just being self-indulgent, which is a human standard. -- kainaw ™ 00:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about the money. A European house of the same value will be smaller than an American one (by quite a lot) and same size houses will be on a smaller lot in Europe. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are comparing suburban U.S. houses to urban European houses. That is not a fair comparison. -- kainaw ™ 13:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that we Americans tend to be fatter than the rest of the world. We need bigger stuff to accommodate our larger posteriors. --Nricardo (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

army

what is the largest army recorded in the Bible?

Both Cyrus the Great and Darius I are mentioned in the Bible / Tanakh, but I do not recall the size of their armies being mentioned. Does that count? --Dr Dima (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about some of the Armageddon stuff at the end? That sounds promising. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, once the numbers go above a thousand or so, then the vast majority of reports of the sizes of military forces found in ancient and medieval sources are quite unreliable. Ancient rulers almost always propagandistically inflated or deflated the numbers of their forces in their inscriptions, in order to make themselves look better, while almost everybody else was pretty much just guessing... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember the Bible giving any figures for very large armies, so AnonMoos' warning may not be needed, but it does for two very small ones that I recall: Abraham's army that he used to rescue Lot (318 men, Genesis 14:14) and Gideon's exemplary use of "shock and awe" tactics with just 300 men. (Judges 7:7) --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Exodus 7:4 "But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies..." you'd be into billions - frogs, biting flies, a multitude of infectious agents, locusts, hailstones, etc. Fouracross (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad translation (is it KJ? too lazy to check). The text is clearly referring to the children of Israel (being brought forth out of Egypt). Better translations would be "hosts" or "multitudes". The verse continues and explains the word "...my people, the children of Israel...". But nice try! --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is KJ, but the point stands: when God is on "your side" the size of the army is unfathomable, since he is unrestrained by the earthly requirements to enlist, train, feed and deploy troops. A bit of shouting and trumpeting was all that was required at Jericho ( and look what happened to Ronald Lacey, Paul Freeman, Wolf Kahler and all those Nazis when they opened the Ark). For "human" armies the numbers are vague too. Depending on the translation, 1 Chronicles 21:5 talks of approximately 1.1 - 1.6 million in Israel and Judah that "draw the sword" (whether that makes them an army or not you must decide) and 2 Kings 25 makes several mentions of the "whole Babylonian army" which is presumably huge - according to Jeremiah 46:23 the army of Nebuchadnezzar that defeated the Egyptians at the Battle of Carchemish was "more numerous than locusts", though I don't believe there are any extant records of the actual size of the army under Nebuchadnezzar. Fouracross (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really answer the OP's question in any meaningful way, though. Just saying "God is on my side" doesn't give you an infinite army. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I wrote. The Old Testament presents an omnipotent partisan God, so in any encounter where God intervenes the size of the army potentially available to "God's side" is beyond measure. If the question is which of the historical armies mentioned in the Bible was the largest, then hopefully the second part of my answer goes some way to helping the questioner. Fouracross (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life in Frederick II's Sicily

How was life in sicily during Frederic II reign?

 - food (arabian? byzantine? other?)
 - music (minstrels? chamber music?)
 - games, customs

EmanueleSan (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start with Frederick III of Sicily (yes, I know you said Fred II, but they're one and the same, strangely). Also check out Kingdom of Sicily, Medieval cuisine, Medieval music, Medieval household. Middle Ages will also give you an overview of the period and provide links to articles which you might find interesting. If you have any questions following this initial research we would be happy to answer them. Gwinva (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Arab-Norman culture in medieval Sicily; the original creator of the article is a bit suspect if you ask me, but it's a valid concept. There are lots of good books about medieval Sicily and Frederick II; the work of James Powell springs to mind, but I will have to check further when I get home. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case the OP actually meant Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor he may want to read there and decide whether or not he meant the Sicilian Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily, and first Frederick II or Frederick III of Sicily, who was really the second King of Sicily named Frederick. Confused yet? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intented subject was what the middleman of sicily did in these ages. the articles Medieval cuisine, Medieval music, Medieval household talk about France, Spain and Britain and in a very wide era. but anyway i would propose a simpler question: did the commoner in middle ages do anything different than working, eating and praying? the answer doesn't seem trivial.

EmanueleSan (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do also have a History of Sicily which has some information, again in broad strokes, and not really focusing on the peasant history of the island. There ARE, however, several print sources listed at the end of the text, with ISBN numbers. Perhaps you can track these books down via your local library? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frances and Joseph Gies wrote an excellent book Daily Life in Medieval Times, which provides fascinating insights into the lives of the average man on the street, which might be of some interest. It covers the whole of Europe, but should provide a good overview, and might offer some specifics. Gwinva (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Population in Victorian London

Were there any Indians in London during the Victorian Era? I had always assumed that there would be some kind of population, but I can't find any information on the subject. Was there a community (small or otherwise) or are there any famous London Indians during that Era that I should be aware of? Any help would be greatly appreciated 68.55.104.114 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Historical immigration to Great Britain#Asians, there were tens of thousands of Indians living in Britain, many of whom seem to have lived in London. Algebraist 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dadabhai Naoroji was MP for Finsbury Central from 1892 to 1895. I'm sure there are plenty of other famous Indian Londoners from the Victorian era, but he sprang to mind. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonstone, written in 1868, mentions Indians in England. And there are some mentions in Sherlock Holmes stories. But they're usually written in (what we would now consider) racist pejorative terms. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sherlock Holmes story The Adventure of the Three Students has an Indian student studying at Oxbridge, and is not conspicuously racist (though the character is minor). AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least one Holmes story carries a significant anti-racist message. I think Doyle's depictions of Indians and South Asians generally reflect a little colonialism and a desire to thrill readers with exoticism (which is also apparent in his depiction of, for example, Mormons) but not racism. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It attempts to give a kind of anti-racist message -- an attempt which is somewhat undermined by Doyle's credulity in the old myth that if a white person marries a person with some black "blood", then it's possible for a child born to the marriage to "revert" to full blackness. Robert Graves recounts in Good-Bye to All That how someone tried to discourage him from marrying his first wife by telling him that she supposedly had some remote black ancestry, and therefore any child of hers might well turn out be "coal-black"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to AlexTiefling, an Indian who went on to become extremely famous took up his place at Harrow School in 1891, some 10 years before Queen Vic died. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An even more famous Indian was a law student at UCL from 1888 to 1891, and founded the Bayswater chapter of the Vegetarian Society. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanaian presidential election

Do Ghana allow national leaders to stand as long as they want or they only allow people to run two elections only. Jerry Rawlings and John Kufuor only ran for two terms. I was surprise to hear John Kufuor left office. Did somebody make him quit, or he himself want to quit, or by law he have to quit. Since he's only 70, if I was in Ghana, I would want John Kufuor to stay for 2009 election. I personally think JA Kufuor is a wonderful leader. Just only John Kufuor himself can only run for 2 terms or nobody is allow to run over two terms in Ghana. Similar thing is happening in Tanzania. 3 national leader changes between 1985 and now. We switch from Ali Hassan Mwinyi to Benjamin Mkapa to Jakaya Kikwete. The first leader stay for 20 years, then anyone else only stay for 10 years. Did Tanzania by law only allow poeple to run for 2 terms? Not many country in Africa limits two term elections.--72.219.133.45 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President of Ghana says the term is "Four years, renewable once" Carmangled (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Bible translation for Catholic Lectionary

What English translation of the Bible is used in the Roman Catholic Lectionary? Neon Merlin 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Revised Standard Version, usually. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New American Bible --Nricardo (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things to add. The New Revised Standard is only used in Canadian lectionaries. There are also three editions of the New American Bible used in lectionaries due to the Vatican's concerns over gender-inclusive language. See more here: [1], [2]. - Thanks, Hoshie 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Jerusalem Bible has seen official Catholic use here in the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]