Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 23

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< April 22 << Mar | April | May >> April 24 >
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.


April 23 edit

online psychopath test? edit

is there a test I can take online to see if I have the proclivity to be a murderous psychopath (like Hitler, Stalin, etc). Thanks. 84.153.204.118 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably joke tests that do something like that. However, if you want a real psychological evaluation, you need to see a real psychologist in person. In other words, make an appointment with a properly trained psychologist and ask for a proper evaluation. One should never self-diagnose oneself based on random stuff found on teh itrewebz, and one should also never ask for nor believe any medical advice one gets on teh interwezb either. --Jayron32 00:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is "murderous psychopath" a proven diagnosis for Uncle Adolf and Uncle Joe? Or is it just demagogue-haters blowing smoke? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, neither Adolf nor Joseph ever killed anyone. It's called personal responsibility. They may have facilitated tens of millions of deaths combined, but I can't account them indecent for their facilitation of death. Perhaps that is just what made sense in the world they inhabited. Vranak (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a comment once, possibly an urban legend, that an American reporter somehow once asked Stalin, "When will you stop killing people?" and his answer was, "When it is no longer necessary." Truth or fiction, I expect that was both Stalin and Hitler's view of the situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selmer Bringsjord worked on simulating psychopathy with a computer, and developed some criteria.[1] I don't know if there is an online test. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking the question, you're probably not. Sociopaths (the correct term you're looking for) think that they are more or less normal, and are generally unconcerned about behaviors that society defines as aberrant. from what I've read, they usually think that they are just more honest than most people, doing things that everyone else would do if people weren't such sheep. true psychopaths, by contrast, usually are aware that they are disturbed, and have bizarre behaviors that would make it impossible for them to survive the kind of scrutiny that people in positions of power get. --Ludwigs2 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Hitler nor Stalin were phycopaths. Hitler, unlike phycopaths, could feel empathy, and he didn't get an pleasure out of killing. He simply believed what he was doing was right. Stalin was immensely paranoid and killed hundreds of people for just appearing suspicious, because he feared them. He was the least of Lenin's politburo, and would probably have been the last of them to become Lenin's successor had he not killed them all except Trotsky. He was terrified for his life from the moment he took power. Yet he believed what he was doing was right a well. He thought communist. gave people a great quality of life, and most of his people led ok lives even if they could have been much better off.--92.251.185.187 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of fugitives from embassy properties? edit

We all know that police from country A are never allowed to follow fugitives into an embassy of country B. However, are there any restrictions at all on country B's diplomats being able to expel said fugitives if they so desire? For example, let's say a person is convicted of murdering French citizens in the USA and (for some crazy reason) flees into the French embassy; is there any reason that the embassy staff wouldn't be allowed to hand him over to the D.C. police? Moreover, let's say that the embassy staff are allowed to hand him over but find themselves physically unable to remove him from the building; is there any reason that they wouldn't be allowed to call in the D.C. police and have them remove him? The closest parallel I can imagine is the Japanese embassy hostage crisis, but our article seems to suggest that the Japanese government didn't permit Peruvian troops to go in with the use of force. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Physically unable"? I don't get. Obviously, major acts of terror are unique and governments are extremely cautious of consequences. But, apart from a major armed incursion, I cannot see anything that will prevent the embassy guards from seizing the trespasser. "Physically unable" may be the case of a very small embassy (which then needs to call in local police, example: Iranian embassy in Washington, 1963), not the French embassy to the U.S. There are definitely no restrictions on expulsion of seized trespassers. NVO (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Countries without capital punishment (like France) typically won't extradite anyone to countries with capital punishment (like the US), unless they are given a guarantee that the extradited person will not be subjected to the death penalty. See also the death of Yvonne Fletcher for one example. Gabbe (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything that specifically states this in either extraterritoriality or diplomatic immunity, but I'm sure that embassy officials can invite the host authorities in to make an arrest if they wish. Certainly they can waive diplomatic immunity for an individual - see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2228/whats-the-story-on-diplomatic-immunity. --ColinFine (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gabbe: The French were criticized for being selective in applying their standards [2]. "Guarantees" are fine for unique high-profile cases, not hungry mobs. Perhaps it needs more research. So far all significant recent cases of embassy trespass occured on the territory of a third country (that is, North Koreans storming Spanish embassy in China). I still haven't found cases of North Koreans storming an embassy in North Korea, which would place the diplomats and the trespassers in a far worse scenario. American embassies in similar circumstances give away the trespasser without much hesitation [3]. NVO (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where in those articles does it say that France extradites people who are likely to be subjected to the death penalty? Gabbe (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, French was the first country that came to mind. Take any tiny country that may not be able to have much of any guards and whose entire embassy staff is a few diplomats that may not have much more than a few muscles, and let's have our intruder be a very strong man who is able to resist being carried out of the building. My point was to emphasize that I mean a simple criminal, not someone who was likely to be seen as a potential political prisoner. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in that case the embassy would likely ask the appropriate authorities of the host country for assistance. Gabbe (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, but you don't have to reach for the death penalty when using France itself as an example — under French law, France does not extradite French citizens for any reason (see Roman Polanski), whether the penalty is death or a 5 year prison term. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My example was intended to be an American individual. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Irani example; this is a perfect example of what I was asking about — someone goes into the embassy against the will of the diplomats, diplomats call in local police, police arrest, and there's even a court case agreeing with the legality of the situation. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As referenced in the other question below the treaties that apply are the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations and the two on Consular Relations.
None of those require a countries diplomatic or consular representatives to protect a fugitive and they can be handed over to the authorities.
Embassies and significant consulates would normally have an organic security organisation, smaller consulates or trade missions may not and would depend on the host nation for protection, there is nothing in the treaties that prevents the host nation security or policing force entering the premises.
ALR (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it inappropriate for children to sleep with their parents? edit

Considering that so many children have a fear of the dark, why is it considered inappropriate for children to sleep with their parents? When did this peculiar "moral" develop? It couldn't always have been this way; I can't imagine any parent 20000 years ago leaving their children alone during the night, when predators were everywhere. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inapproprite for children to sleep with their parents. It's inappropriate for children to "sleep with" their parents. See Co-sleeping for the less icky kind. --Jayron32 05:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you in North America? Here, it IS inappropriate for parents to "cosleep", even with seven-year-olds. Obviously, it's not more disgusting than incest. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lived in North America for all 33 years of my life. Never heard that its inappropriate for parents to sleep with small children. It would not be unusual for, say, a seven year old who had a bad dream to spend the night in mom and dad's room. Never heard of that being a problem. --Jayron32 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know a woman who was afraid of the dark and slept in the same room as her parents till she got married at the age of 20. I wouldn't consider this normal at all!!!! It's OK for small children up to a certain age, then they need to learn self-reliance, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OP asked about small children. Yes, at some point, it becomes wrong. I think 19 year olds sleeping in mom and dad's bed every night is probably not looked upon favorably in most Western cultures, but for small children, its probably less of an issue. --Jayron32 05:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point was had this woman been sent to sleep by herself after a certain age she wouldn't have continued with her neurotic fear. It took place in Italy. Parents need to draw the line at about 8, I think. I slept on my own when I was very small, only sleeping with my parents after a nightmare.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, in Australia, it's common for infants and occasionally toddlers to sleep in the same room as their parents. After that, it's expected that they'll spend most nights in their own bedroom (which may be shared with other siblings). It's not unusual for children to go to sleep in their parents' bed until perhaps 7 or 8, maybe even 10, but they wouldn't admit it to schoolfriends or anything. It would be considered shameful for a school age child to admit doing it. Steewi (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think when people say it's "inappropriate", they mean that it's a social taboo. They don't mean that it's inappropriate in any kind of ethical or judicial sense. So, if you're wondering why it's taboo for children to co-sleep with their parents, I believe the answer is that it seems too close to incest, which is one of the biggest taboos in North American society. This might seem illogical, but taboos are not always grounded in reason and common sense. Gabbe (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a combination of the incest taboo (especially for children nearing puberty), coupled with the desire to see children attain developmentally appropriate independence from their parents. Many women who breastfeed keep their children in the same room; often in the same bed, for convenience purposes. However, as childen age, there is an expectation of growing independence; I suspect this has a greater effect than does incest fears, especially for younger children. --Jayron32 06:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment. It's also considered inappropriate for siblings of different sexes to share a room after puberty, although, here in Italy it is done, because most of the houses have only two bedrooms. My teenage son and daughter do have their own bedrooms, however. Being an American, I happen to think it highly inadvisable for different-sex siblings to sleep in the same room after puberty.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. There's something to be said for keeping desperate people out of situations where their foresight and wisdom isn't fully engaged. Although, people can deal with just about anything, in the last resort. Vranak (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed in the Uk with Council houses (Public housing to others?) there are rules around the maximum age different sex siblings can be 'forced' to share a room. That is to say if you are a 2 child family in a 2-bed council-house, if you have 1 boy and 1 girl you will be higher priority for moving into a 3-bed house than a family that has 2 boys. By way of anecdote I shared a room with my brother pretty much up until he left home (he left when I was about 14) and my sisters did the same. Not ideal but needs-must and all that. In terms of 'sleeping' with parents it would seem surprising if at some point in a child's life they haven't ended up in mum & dad's bed because of a bad-dream or whatever...even if it's just until they get to sleep and the dad carries them back to their own bed. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I've always heard is that it's inappropriate for the parents to have sex while the child is in the room. It tends to upset even infants who are too young to have any idea what's going on--they seem to think that something bad and violent is happening, and they try to make the parents stop. I've never heard there was any problem letting the child in bed with the parents as long as nothing was going on but sleeping. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parents should never have sex in front of their children, even if they are just infants. When a baby is sharing the parents' room, the parents need to wait until the child is fully asleep before engaging in sexual activity. This is why kids need their own bedrooms as early as possible. For their own sake and that of their parents' privacy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeanne - while many people might agree with your last statement, until you give some references it remains no more than a personal opinion, and not an answer to the question in reference desk terms. --ColinFine (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should there be a reference to say that it's wrong to have sex in front of kids?! I would have thought that was just common sense. It's like providing a source when one says that day follows night.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the outside possibility that having sex in front of your children is a good thing (good for the children), a source couldn't be a bad thing. Bus stop (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's at all obvious that parents shouldn't have sex in front of infants; the kid's not going to remember it, so what's the harm? And frankly, though it's a minority opinion, there are some who believe that kids should be exposed to sex earlier than they are now. Buddy431 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Wayne Tucker (A United Methodist Pastor!) doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Buddy431 (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And "Wayne Tucker's" opinion should matter why? Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus Stop: I was just pointing out that it's not universally accepted that parents shouldn't have sex in front of their kids, and thus it is appropriate to ask Jeanne for references supporting her assertion that "Parents should never have sex in front of their children, even if they are just infants", as ColinFine did. Buddy431 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that sources are more than welcome. My comment was merely meant to convey that your source was not all that authoritative. It may be hard to get an authoritative source on this, so I give you credit for finding at least something relating to the topic. I did read it. But I am not convinced that the issue is put to rest. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Children aren't always exiled from the "family bed" because of some morality-based reason. They are often exiled because they kick and elbow the parents in their sleep, and toss and turn all night. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Dr. Phil has to say about the subject: [4][5] which I found by googling ["dr. phil" children sleeping with parents]. He generally opposes it, and says why, but he also lists arguments for both sides. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In North America there's generally a distinction between regular sleeping with the parents and the occasional instance. Regular co-sleeping generally ends around the time nursing is finished, while the occasional run for mommy and daddy's bed after a bad dream or a "sleepover" as a special event is up to the family's discretion until the child reaches puberty. Even then, the case of a mother and a pubescent or post-pubescent daughter sometimes sleeping together would probably only raise a couple of eyebrows. A pubescent boy who still wanted to sleep with mom and dad would face a huge amount of societal pressure to stop, while a pubescent daughter sleeping in the same bed as her father (and the two are alone) might net a call to a children's services outfit. With regards to never having sex in front of an infant, etc. I think this is largely from a position of affluence and circumstance. Certainly poor folks crammed into a single-room tenement still find the time and place to make more little ones, likewise with various non-tenemented peoples such as hunter-gatherers, nomads, etc. Further, long houses have been used for centuries all over the world - and they typically have no interior walls... Matt Deres (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proponent of the "family bed" on Salon once stated that the parents found it exciting to sneak around and find an opportunity for sneaky sex with one another, when the children normally slept with them. I guess it made them feel like they were teenagers again getting it on the the basement rec room or a parked car somewhere without getting "caught." I expect that most Americans would think it was perverse for parents to have sexual intercourse with children present in the room, and that the judicial system would regard it as inappropriate. Edison (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Babies sharing a bed with their parents apparently increases the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (which is a catch-all term for sudden unexplained infant deaths and, in this case, is just a nice name for parents rolling over in the night and accidentally smothering their children). That doesn't really apply from toddlers upwards, though. --Tango (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere that in premodern societies, in which families and sometimes strangers shared beds (or straw mats), bedsteads were not thought of as places for sexual interaction. Instead, in those societies, people typically had sex in hidden spots outdoors. In colder climates, people would remain mostly clothed while having sex, except for necessary unwrappings or unbuttonings. It is the sexualization of the bed that brings up issues of incest when parents sleep with children. Marco polo (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] on all of this stuff you read somewhere. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

embassy guard question edit

Are guards in embassies permitted to carry fully automatic weapons if such weapons are illegal in the country proper? Are there bilateral agreements on these things, or do the laws of the country who "owns" the embassy in play and they can do whatever is permitted in their nation of origin? Googlemeister (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been to US embassies in three different countries where it is illegal to carry weapons and in all three emabssies the Marine guards were armed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That embassies are "part of" a foreign country and subject to their laws is a myth; the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations protects diplomats from prosecution and missions from intrusion, but it also requires diplomatic missions to obey the laws of the host country. Therefore, whether guards can carry weapons will be a matter of agreement between countries. Note that the convention also requires host countries to provide security, so external security at US embassies is performed by local police, not by US Marines.FiggyBee (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly one referenced view, but most books at Google Book Search disagree, and state that an embassy is the sovereign territory of the nation represented. See [6], [7], Statement by President Carter in 1980 that embassies are sovereign territory of the country whose embassy it is, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], Sec of State George Schultz stated the US Embassy in Moscow was US "sovereign territory", [13], [14] states that the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was its "sovereign territory"], [15], [16], [17], [18], but on the other side there is just (seems to go with the argument that the embassy is the sovereign terriroty of the receiving not sending country). Your statement is too broad and absolute, and might better be stated as "according to some sources" or "technically speaking." It is generally accepted that the opposite is true. Edison (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and your sole "on the other side" reference seems to be the only one which is actually a legal opinion, rather than a politician or author playing loose with the language. If embassies really were the sovereign territory of their states, then they would be allowed to do whatever they like; never mind semi-automatic rifles, they could put machine guns on the roof and anti-aircraft missiles on the lawn. But they're not. They're allowed to run an embassy, that's it. What's "generally accepted" to be the case by the general public is irrelevant. FiggyBee (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call Presidents and Secretaries of State "the general public." Edison (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither would I. FiggyBee (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
US government lawyers have given many opinions which have since been widely disputed, such as saying torture is ok and calling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and not authoritative, so I do not accept that such writings as the only valid view, when President Carter and Secretary of State Schultz (a Democrat and a Republican) have made statements regarding sovereignty of embassies contrary to the legal dicta. Edison (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, the officers of SO1, who provide embassy security in London, are among the few British police officers who are routinely armed. FiggyBee (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Convention requires that diplomatic missions obey the laws of the host country when outside the embassy/consulate grounds. The embassy/consulate is not the property or soil of the host country, so their laws do not apply. Woogee (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. It says;

Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.

That's it. No "unless you call base" caveat. Furthermore, it says,

The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of

the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by

any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State.

Doesn't sound very "sovereign territory" to me. FiggyBee (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All embassy guards I've seen use semi-automatic weapons. However, an anecdote that may help: At the U.S. Embassy in Bogata, Columbia, the guards carry semi-automatic rifles. When I was deployed into Columbia, I could only carry a handgun, not a rifle. My shadow, a Columbian guard, carried a semi-automatic rifle. The restrictions on what could be carried by the Marines changed once they left the embassy. -- kainaw™ 15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although that doesn't answer the original question, whether they were allowed rifles within the embassy by agreement, or because Colombian law didn't apply. I expect it was the former. FiggyBee (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much been answered above, the legal position is covered by the various embodiments of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations. These are multilateral treaty arrangements and the details are enshrined in national law.
The basic premise is that the Host Nation grants access and autonomy within the diplomatic or consular facility however the laws of the Host Nation remain applicable unless revoked through local arrangements, either bi-lateral or as a matter of policy. The implication of that is that embassies or consulates will have bar facilities and the like where the HN is ostensibly dry.
The embassy or consulate must be protected by the HN, so what you'll normally see is local security or policing forces outside, national security inside who may or may not be armed subject to the local laws or other arrangements.
The example of London has already been cited, but in the case of the US Embassy the USMC security team are not permitted to be armed in transit to the embassy but may be armed with a sidearm inside. The legislation covering that is the more general HN agreements related to US basing in the UK.
ALR (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's possible that, even if they are subject to local gun control laws, embassy guards/staff may elect to ignore those laws and arm themselves anyway. In the case of Iran after the overthrow of the Shah, for instance, the Iranian government was in collusion with those who took the US embassy hostages, so relying on Iranian government protection would have been/was a serious mistake. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible however in normal circumstances would be a serious breach of diplomatic protocol and could reasonably lead to significant operational difficulty for the ambassador and supporting staff. Essentially if embassy staff arm themselves in breach of their countries treaty obligations the Host Nation could reasonably eject the mission.
Diplomatic relations are very carefully managed.
ALR (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Reservation edit

What reservation is the wealthiest in the US? The poorest? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the richest, but I believe the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota is the poorest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A book about the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, which owns the Foxwoods Resort Casino, is entitled Hitting the Jackpot: The Inside Story of the Richest Indian Tribe in History. —Kevin Myers 14:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are richest per capita, being a small tribe with a large casino. But, do they also have the highest total wealth of any tribe ? StuRat (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They very well may likely be the richest in terms of total wealth as well. Foxwoods is a huge casino that makes massive amounts of cash, I can't find proof that it is the richest ever in terms of absolute cash, but I would not be surprised if it were so. --Jayron32 15:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even poorer than Rosebud may be the Crow Creek Reservation, also in South Dakota — its boundaries are mostly equivalent to those of Buffalo County, the poorest county in the country, while Rosebud is mostly equivalent to Todd County, which is "only" the fifth poorest. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Osage County, Oklahoma, coterminous with the Osage Nation Resevation, has a median income of $34,000. I'm not sure how that compares with other reservations. There are quite a lot of mineral rights agreements on the grounds. Woogee (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our article seems to be Reservation poverty - it has several references at the end that you can also check. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS re more references - the US statistics sites are baffling me, but perhaps if you are an American you'll have better luck understanding the proper search terms. Here are some starting points:

US of A (counties) edit

How many counties are there in the US including Hawaii and Alaska, what is the average size there of and how is it administered? Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Census Bureau lists 3,140 counties or county-equivalent administrative units in total. Average area of 1200 square miles, population a bit under 100,000. County (United States) does a good job answering these questions. Googlemeister (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as adminitration goes, it varies greatly state to state. In some places (New England for example) counties are essentially meaningless. They have no governmental administration, or nearly none, in most of New England. However, in other states, counties are the primary form of local administration, and only the largest cities are given home rule while the county provides services and administration for most people. So the answer to "how are counties in the U.S. administered" the answer is, it varies A LOT from state to state. --Jayron32 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the northern New England states, counties do something, especially in areas that are not parts of towns; however, counties have been entirely abolished (except for the purposes of geographical reference) in the three southern New England states. Conversely, in Hawaii, there is absolutely no government at all except for counties (Honolulu County and the city of Honolulu are consolidated) and the state government. In Alaska, many county-equivalents have no governmental power: the Unorganized Borough is divided into census areas that have absolutely no official purpose except for statistical analysis by the United States Census Bureau. Alaska's boroughs, on the other hand, are also county-equivalents, but they have significant governmental power. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of New England county government, read Part 1 of Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated; there are many links to subsections, but you can realise that almost all of the subsections are one or two sentences. You'll notice that most of the county officials are either judicial or purely administrative. Chapter 1, which deals with the counties themselves, includes only (1) a list of counties in the state, and (2) a list of the cities, towns, and gores in each county. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not accurate that counties are meaningless in most of New England, or even in all of southern New England. Counties certainly have fewer responsibilities anywhere in New England than they do in most other parts of the United States, but there are county-level responsibilities and at least vestigial county governments in four of the six New England states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and my own state, Massachusetts. Connecticut and Rhode Island have abolished county government. In those two states, below the state government, there are only municipal (city and town) governments. However, in those two states (and in Massachusetts) every square inch of the state is within the borders of a city or town. New England towns also cover rural areas. In Massachusetts, county governments are presided over by several elected officials who run a county-level court system, sometimes one or more county-level schools, and repositories of public records, particularly the registry of deeds. I believe that county governments in the northern New England states have similar functions. Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right; I'd forgotten that a few (is it five?) of the Massachusetts still have governmental existence. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little more complicated than that. Every Massachusetts county still exists as an administrative district, and each has elected officials whose election district and whose area of responsibility correspond to the county boundaries. Each of these countywide elected officials (for example, the Essex County District Attorney) presides over an office that could be called a piece of county-level government. (The state government provides funding and handles payroll and other such services for these offices.) What most Massachusetts counties apparently now lack is a county government that acts as an umbrella for these various county offices. In every statewide election, voters in Massachusetts also have to vote for county-level officials, whether or not their county has an umbrella county government. So even though most Massachusetts counties now lack a county government per se, they have not ceased to exist as political units. Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, no U.S. counties seem to have a Count in charge, unless coincidentally. Edison (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but they almost always have a Sherrif (Shire Reave), which comes from the older English word for county, Shire, as in Hertsfordshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, etc. and still appears in such terms as Shire town. In England, which has counties, they also have never had Counts either. While Sheriffs were the chief civil servants in charge of running a county, Earls were the nobles who ruled Counties as fiefs. --Jayron32 01:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the wife of an earl is a countess. Go figure. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, that's because when the somewhat Frenchified ex-Scandinavian Normans (who had relinquished their own original term 'Jarl') took over England from 1066, the system of Earldoms (from the Anglo-Saxon 'Eorl') was too entrenched for them to rename the rank with its continental equivalent of Count (from the French 'Comte', itself from the Latin 'Comes'). The wives of Earls had had no specific title beyond being addressed as "Lady" (from Anglo-Saxon 'hlǣfdige'), so when the need or desire for one arose, the existing and fashionable (because Norman) 'Countess' was adopted. In the latter period of Roman rule, what would later become England did have the rank of Comes, as in the Count of the Saxon Shore, but this fell into abeyance. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is the county which children (under 16) are forbidden to enter … ---Cam (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

award for entrepreneurs edit

a few days ago, i asked a question about existence of any award for businesspersons. since capital gain or earning a lot of money in a legitimate way is a skill, why there is no recognition for this skill? While authors receive awards for writing skill, journalists receive awards for journalistic skill, actors receive awards for acting skill, why businesspeople don't receive awards for business and money-making skills??? --Gortpok (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think various organizations give out a "Small Businessman of the Year" award. And you don't even have to be a dwarf to apply. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, there is The Queen's Awards for Enterprise[19]. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not the general idea that amassing wealth, prestige, and power is an end in itself? So why on earth would there have to be any additional recognition? It would almost be obscene if the US Treasury handed out yearly awards to Mr. Bill Gates, on account of his 'winning ways'. He gets enough esteem as is. Vranak (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Deming Prize, awarded to business for "quality" improvement. Edison (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was awarded the Business Woman of the Year 2007 by a local newspaper. Woo hoo! I thought. However, I soon found that it was a scam for them to got thousands of pounds worth of advertising out of me for the next 12 months, none of which actually got me any new clients or extra business. So for what it's worth, I'd say that any of these awards aren't worth the paper they're written on. I might be biased of course! --TammyMoet (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_April_23&oldid=1138602886"