February 4

How can the discipline of law be objective if the legal reasoning of the courts on certain cases is always overruled?

Theoretically speaking, if a legal interpretation is valid, it must remain in force until the law itself is repealed or amended. But, in some jurisdictions, the overruling of earlier decisions is a habit.

Law is said to be whatever the Supreme Court think it is. There seems to be a kernel of truth in this statement given that court decisions, no matter how reasonable they may be, can be overruled. Indeed, there are several accounts where the court’s sudden deviation from its earlier decision is influenced by emotion or politics. We can see this in the manner by which the justices or judges twist the law to absurdity, or the way they reacted when confronted with controversial cases that may tarnish their reputation. The problem is, in most jurisdictions, these decisions become a binding precedent that would inspire faulty interpretations of the law in the future.

Again, how can the discipline of law tolerate these subjectivities while maintaining academic objectivity at the same time?

What do legal scholars say to defend the objectivity of the discipline of law? 49.144.214.198 (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of law, Statutory interpretation and Precedent might be useful starting points. Tevildo (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's the minor point of laws being changed, new facts being discovered, and mistakes being found in prior reasoning.

But you don't seem to be asking for objectivity, you are asking for absolute certainty. An analogous question might be, how can we hold Einstein to be right, when we thought Newton was right, but he was later proved wrong? The answer is that certainty is contextual, there is no such thing as certainty that isn't the result of the reasoning of some individual in a certain context with a finite understanding of a limited number of facts.

“Certain” represents an assessment of the evidence for a conclusion; it is usually contrasted with two other broad types of assessment: “possible” and “probable.” . . .

Idea X is “certain” if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for X is conclusive. In such a context, all the evidence supports X and there is no evidence to support any alternative . . . .

You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by means of an arbitrary declaration of a counter-possibility, . . . you cannot manufacture possibilities without evidence . . . .

All the main attacks on certainty depend on evading its contextual character . . . .

The alternative is not to feign omniscience, erecting every discovery into an out-of-context absolute, or to embrace skepticism and claim that knowledge is impossible. Both these policies accept omniscience as the standard: the dogmatists pretend to have it, the skeptics bemoan their lack of it. The rational policy is to discard the very notion of omniscience. Knowledge is contextual—it is knowledge, it is valid, contextually. --Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 6, [1]

For governments to work, decisions have to be made, and they are made by individual politicians, and enforced by guns. It's that or anarchy and civil war. The price is the occasional injustice, assuming there's no overwhelming evil like slavery corrupting the system. Unfortunately just as people sometimes die from routine surgery, the law is an ass. In the course of human events, everyone decides for himself. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable for me as a non-Muslim to say something like "May Allah the merciful grant his soul eternal peace"? I have noticed that "Allah the merciful" seems to be a standard phrase, is it appropriate in this situation? The deceased is a murder victim so I wish to emphasize the "give him peace" part. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're saying the whole thing in Arabic, "God" might work better than "Allah". And you should only say it if you mean it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I do not speak Arabic so saying "Allah" might seem pretentious. The widow is a former work colleague, not a close friend, and I only met the deceased briefly on a few occasions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't that close, and if the guy's murder had to do with some sinful living, it might not be right to bring the mercy part up. That's sort of personal, invokes thoughts of judgment. But eternal peace is always a nice sentiment. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless ways to express sincere, heartfelt condolences without misleading people into thinking you're Muslim, or accidentally offending people who actually are. Just be true to your own religious beliefs and your words will be appreciated. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Roger, your first idea was good and will be appreciated, just say it in English that way: "May God the merciful grant his soul eternal peace", or simply "May God grant his soul eternal peace". Akseli9 (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. (Just for the record, he was killed in his shop by robbers, no "sinful living" involved - except for the verminous scum who did it.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Muslim friend said that phrase to me when he heard that my father had died - I was rather touched. He used "God" rather than "Allah". Alansplodge (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim reburial practices

Sorry, but I've a related question. If a Muslim's burial is disturbed is there any special ceremony that should be done for the reburial so as to show proper respect to the dead? Say, if hypothetically a Muslim was buried in a site and you unearth his bones without realising it at first, how should you go about doing right by him? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 08:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, it's OK to dig them up if they're not in sanctified ground, or in a place the landowner doesn't want them. I assume you're not unearthing things without realizing in a cemetery. Just treat it with common courtesy (no puppetry) and give a proper Islamic funeral. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd never do puppetry with human remains, a sheep-goat, yes, but never human remains. It's more like you'll be happily, but carefully, digging away in what you think is ancient soil and then start coming upon bones that are exceptionally spongey (and which you've hopefully not licked to determine if they're bone). Swears will be said and then you'll excavate more quickly as you realise the Roman drain you've been excavating (a gold mine of ancient trash) apparently was reused by well-meaning Palestinian villagers at some point in the last few hundred years as a burial spot and is therefore contaminated. Would the washing aspect include human bones though? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 22:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. But I don't know. Why are these bones exceptionally spongy? And does a sheep-goat skullpuppet say "Bah" or "Meh"? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spongy bones means they are not fossilized, thus could be quite recently deceased. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, that makes sense. I was thinking "exceptionally" compared to today's bones. Like, maybe they were in exceptionally acidic dirt. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

1.

I'm interested in the effective official

I'm looking for a chart like this one http://view.samurajdata.se/psview.php?id=9d6f999f&page=1 (the pdf is from http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/36371703.pdf which I put into the top Google query for 'online pdf viewer') but as you can see it's a decade out of date. Where can I find our current data?

2.

By the way, I realize in some countries with very high taxes effectively not all income is reported - otherwise much of the income would not occur at all. (Especially countries with, a high underreporting index.) But I'm interested in official figures where everything is done as it would be in a highly-reported country. If there is any significant deviation (more than a couple of percentage) then are the official figures inflated vis-a-vis actual practice? I mean, I can imagine a country operating just fine with a 150% tax wedge (you owe the government $1.50 for every $1 you receive from any source) as long as people drastically under-report. How can I understand this distinction?

3.

Also, I just realized that average figures are quite meaningless without knowing income level we're asking about, but I'm not really sure what question I want to ask that would let me understand this. Is it "marginal tax wedge by country" or something, and then I can just see a chart (rather than value) for eachcountry, for where the jumps are as you go from $0 to $mm? I mean I think I can imagine such a chart but don't think I've seen one. If anyone knows what I'm really asking here it's appreciated :). For starters let's find any of our charts at all.

Thanks for any help, especially I think #1 should be a list we have somewhere, I'm sure. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct answer to your Q, but those articles you linked to focus on the negative effect on businesses of taxation, but the positive effects must also be considered. If those taxes are used to provide a good infrastructure, a well-educated workforce, police and fire department protection, and health and retirement benefits so your business doesn't have to cover all those expenses, your business will do far better than it would without taxes. If you look at countries with high taxes (say the Nordic nations) versus low (say African nations), businesses tend to do better in the higher tax nations. StuRat (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wasn't thinking of it in normative ("should") terms at all, just in descriptive ("is") terms. I think your observations are good ones but I wish I could come to some of my own conclusions based on looking at different data. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I only felt the need to add that bit because "burden" seems to be a rather loaded word. I'd ask about "business tax rates" to keep it neutral. StuRat (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it as a term of art - okay, wow, I just found what I was looking for by Googling "tax burden" in quotation marks!

List of countries by tax rates.

As you can see, the article starts "

tax burden

falls differently on different groups in each country and sub-national unit" with that wikified.

So I literally just found what I was looking for based on that term :) Thanks for focusing on it! By the way, it didn't come up until I googled it as a phrase (in quotation marks). :) I'm now looking over the list. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found what you were looking for. I will mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Consisting of turning everything into joy or pleasure, even frustration, even suffering? It is not Hedonism, it is not Fatalism, I know there is a specific name, what is it please? Akseli9 (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Epicureanism. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rose-colored glasses if you're being cynical, or, more generously: optimism. Being constructive. Positive thinking. Looking for solutions and enjoyment rather than finding flaws. Some people like to suffer and love conflict, others love when people work together and help and grow the world. Both are necessary in the world, and I've given a few words for the one you're asking about. People should have parts of both aspects in their personality, I feel. It is important to be critical. it is also important to be constructive and take and share joy and pleasure in accomplishments, even in bad situations. The only thing that all successful, joyful, happy people have in common is working toward positive visions and solutions, not just reactively (to 'frustration, even suffering.) That is an easy cycle to get into but it would never break. This is just my opinion though. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pollyanna principle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting developments and ideas, thanks. The person who asks this, is looking for a name from back the philosophy class we French have during the last year of our secondary school. "Possibly Epicureanism" was a good guess, but sorry, this one doesn't ring a bell? Akseli9 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eudémonisme? (see also eudaemonism, Philosophy of happiness, Eudaimonia, Augustine of Hippo, ..). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these exactly fits, but mindfullness is a Buddhist practice where one observes that one is suffering an emotion without being controlled by it. (That's very close to Stoic ethics, which hold that externalities like health and wealth are mere facts (which, while they may be preferable or not) are without moral value, that only that which is under your voluntary control (your judgments and commitment to reason) is truly good.) And Catholicism has redemptive suffering. Epicureanism holds that happiness is the absence of suffering, which is simple to obtain if one has the basic necessities. In extremity an Epicurean can escape unbearable suffering by suicide. Eudaimonism is literally "well-spiritedness", based on balance (nothing in extreme) and magnanimity. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that pleasure, joy are long-term happiness are three different things. A mother who has lost a child, and is again expecting, will not feel pleasure when the new baby kicks, but she will feel joy. A gambler might feel extreme joy at a temporary winning streak, but he won't be said to be a happy person so long as he feels he is out of control. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as to which offices Geoffrey held in the 1170s. I see the article says,

1 - Geoffrey was Archdeacon of Lincoln in the diocese of Lincoln by September 1171.

2 - In 1173 and early 1174 Geoffrey fought a military campaign in northern England = military position?

3 - He also held a

prebend

, an income from land owned by a cathedral chapter = landlord?

4 - There are some indications that he studied canon law at a school in Northampton = lawyer?

5 - he taught in Paris during the early 1170s = teacher?

6 - He also acted as a papal judge-delegate at that time.

7 - Bishop of Lincoln in July 1175.

Can someone help me to establish exactly which offices (positions) Geoffrey had in the 1170s? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Yup. All of those and a few others besides. He was a busy youth much in favour with his father, Henry II, by the looks. I think that father-son relationship is the best single explanation for his diverse job portfolio. Neither are any of the combinations all that surprising; large overlaps between church and state and law and and acadamy. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives the following:

1. Archdeacon of Lincoln by 1170/71, at say age 19 or 20.
2. also held the prebend of Mapesbury (attached to St Paul's) until 1173 - it's normal for an officer of a cathedral to have a prebend which provides a stipend. I tend to think the Church is the 'landlord'.
3. appointed by Henry II Bishop-elect of Lincoln 1173 - gives up prebend (presumably gets paid for the new post)
4. confirmed as same by pope 1175 (against his better judgement, I tend to think)
5. During all this period - doesn't put much effort into his day-job, and instead is studying & teaching law. Does occasionlly act as a papel-judge delegate, a role which goes with the Archdeacon job.
6. 1173 - war in France, and so not unreasonably Geoff takes up arms for his father, which goes down well with Henry.
7. He is never consecrated as bishop of Lincoln, and spends his time up to 1181 studying. Does not entirely neglect Lincoln, but, you know, not often there.
8. 1181 - seems to be pressure to either get consecrated as bishop, or resign as bishop elect. Resigns.
9. Daddy makes him a Royal Chancellor in 1181, but he seems to be mostly absent from the court, very likely in part moving & shaking on his father's behalf throughout Europe, and studying.
10. 1187 - more war, more soldiering
11. 1189 - Henry I dies, Richard I takes over
12. 1189 - Meets Richard, resigns as chancellor
13. 1189 - Richard makes him made Archbishop of York
14. 1189 - 1208 - Spends 20 or so years getting into & out of ecclesiastical disputes (bringing together all of his talents ;)
15. 1208 - Flees to France, having quarreled once to often, this time with King John.
16. 1208-12 Monk
17. 1212 - dies, presumably exhausted by the above.

So in all of that, we have him doing four sequential jobs (archdeacon, bishop-elect, chancellor, archbishop), whilst learning on the job (studies throughout Europe, including teaching), taking time out to fight wars. Acting as a judge or a landlord are incidental features of his roles.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What an outstanding answer. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.dropbox.com/s/64lpz13xb0luudg/bricks.jpg?dl=0
  • Length: 15.88 mm
  • Width: 7.92 mm
  • Height: 3.06 mm

(measured using an digital caliper)

I found this little 2 x 4 thin brick at a 2nd-hand LEGO seller's place. She was pretty busy selling bricks by weight so she answers no questions.

This 2 x 4 brick is roughly the same size as a 1 x 2 standard LEGO brick but a little thinner. Its color is very close to LEGO's dark gray. However, it is incompatible with the LEGO.

Has anyone ever seen this kind of brick? -- Toytoy (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading your measurements and understanding the pictures correctly, they look similar in size to Nanoblock [2] [3] [4]. Our article notes one distinctive feature compared to Lego is the underside and your image shows a similar underside to the Nanoblock examples in the earlier links (or also our article description). Of course just as there are plenty of generally at least partially compatible Lego clones, I'm sure there are Nanoblock clones, or even similar concepts that may have been invented independently (perhaps less likely once we consider the underside, but the general idea of smaller bricks about half the size of lego for the same number of studs isn't hard to come up with). This mentions one example of a similar brick system [5] although these look to have the a Lego like underside. So it may be difficult to be certain what your brick is without careful comparison (perhaps from an expert with sufficient experience to notice any oddities), or perhaps even destructive analysis. (I thought I'd seen them before 2008 but according to our article, I guess it must have been something else, perhaps the Microblox as per the other source and/or with remembering when I did see Nanoblock wrong. Anyway since Nanoblock appears to be that new, it's possible it may still have patent protection. But I'm not sure that the underside or any other aspect was sufficiently inventive to be eligible for patent protection, or if the makers of Nanoblock even tried. If they didn't then it's likely clones could appear quite similar. As our Lego clone article attests, patent protection is likely the only legal protection the brick could have against difficult to distinguish blocks, if it doesn't have the brand name or sign.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

In the timeline of presidents of the US, George Washington is the 1º, Barack Obama is the 44º, and so all the others. In the infoboxes at their articles they are listed as "1st President of the United States", "44th President of the United States", etc. I have a doubt: is that just a manual convention arranged here in Wikipedia and other sites that talk about the timeline, or is there some official regulation in "the real world" about the numbering? Can someone come up with another numbering scheme, such as including Jefferson Davis in the list (president of the Confederate States of America during the civil war), and then counting Obama as the 45th? Cambalachero (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The count is official. There have been 43 men that have served as PoTUS, but

This page is. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 16:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

We also had several people with the title of "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" under the

US Constitution. History classes tend to skip over that failure. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Those people were not Chief Executives of the nation as a whole; one of the many weaknesses of the AofC was that it lacked a central executive system outside of the Congress itself. The people who held the title "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" did not wield power as either head-of-state or head-of-government. They were presiding officers of the

Speaker of the House or perhaps the role of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court within the Supreme Court. --Jayron32 17:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This is why George Bush Sr. and Jr. are often called "Bush 41" and "Bush 43". As regards Davis, the Confederacy is not recognized as a legal entity, and he doesn't figure into the count. The "president" under the Articles of Confederation was not the same office as the president under the Constitution, despite having a similar name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the office of the President now is really not the same as it was in Washington's time, either. For example, the President now has the de facto ability to declare war. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's better said that the War Powers Act gives the president the de jure ability to begin hostilities, which has so far always de facto resulted in the Congress's unwillingness to challenge or gainsay him. Even John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's like a "blanket pre-declaration" of war, authorized by Congress, but it's not carte blanche for the president. Also note it was passed during the Nixon administration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not amount to the office being now a different one to the one Washington occupied. The powers of the office have changed, that's all. Any office worth its salt will undergo significant evolution in 240 years. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "president" under the Articles was more like speaker of the house. The specific authorities granted to the president under the Constitution have evolved, but it's still the same office, i.e. the executive branch. The "president" under the Articles had no independent executive authority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but this Q was about "Presidents of the US", not "Presidents of the US with independent executive authority". StuRat (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing, despite using a similar term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Q was also ambiguous as to whether the guy wanted to know for his own edification or for changing an article. The latter being a

original research at worst. If that's the case, of course. Not saying anything against the OP. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 18:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Besides Davis as President of a part of the area of the modern U.S., there were also four

Presidents of Texas. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Davis was not a legitimate president of any part of the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is or was anyone else. —Tamfang (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and

one. StuRat (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

He seems to have been commander not president. Rmhermen (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But only New York once had the national capital and so it wins the Game of States (Philly doesn't count ). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 18:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the OP should consider that President is an office and may have (has) "slots". So saying someone was the third pitcher in a series of games (let's say each one has 1 pitcher) is ambiguous: there was a first game, a second game, and a third game, and each one had a pitcher. You could simply be saying, by saying "Who was the third pitcher" - 'who was the pitcher in the third game', or you could say, 'who was the third person to ever pitch'? It's quite ambiguous. Ordinarily in ordinary language if you heard 'who was the third pitcher' wouldn't you think, "who was the third person to pitch"? (in sequence) rather than, out of everyone that has pitched who was the third such person? (e.g. A pitches, B pitches, A pitches, C pitches, D pitches, wouldn't you think that the answer to 'Who was the third pitcher' would be "A again"? It's quite ambiguous. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my question is just for informative purposes, not for changing an article. It has been proposed to use a similar number scheme for the articles about the presidents of Argentina, and before having a clear opinion in the discussion I wanted to know more about the background of the presidents of the US (which already use this system, and are watched by far more users). My idea was to see which things may be similar to the Argentine context, which ones would be different, and organize my ideas from that point; but that part (organizing my ideas) is up to me. I know that most users will have just a superficial knowledge about Argentina at best, so making the question directly may be less useful. And yes, of course that counting Davis as a US president would be fringe, that's precisely the point of the question: if someone can make his own numbering scheme by using a creative interpretation, or if Obama is formally declared to be the 44th president in some formal or legal way. Cambalachero (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now I see. I meant no offence and you have my sincerest apologies for any offence caused to you. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad that there's people around trying to detect and prevent the inclusion of original research in articles, and if someone tried to actually invoke it (I made that reasoning on the fly, just as a example for the question) I would revert it as well. Cambalachero (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd caution you against applying the US Presidential numbering system to the heads of state/government of any other country. At least, not without a definite consensus in each case. I could be wrong, but I think it's only in the USA that someone like Grover Cleveland is counted as both the 22nd and 24th president. In Westminster-type countries, they're given the ordinal the first time they occupy the office, and that ordinal re-applies no matter how many times they re-occupy it after leaving it and someone else has stepped in. See

List of Prime Ministers of Australia, for ex. We've had 28 different people in that job, and the current one is counted as Number 28. Numerous PMs had non-consecutive multiple terms (most recently Kevin Rudd - 2007-10; June-Sept 2013) but we ignore that when numbering them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

That's how we do it in Canada too - William Lyon Mackenzie King is number 10, despite his three non-consecutive terms. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When we use numbers at all, which is pretty rare in practice. It seems from where I sit that Americans are particularly fond of numbering things that way. (

Not that there's anything wrong with that.) --65.94.50.4 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, a purist may well argue that what the USA counts is not the number of presidents (as the term implies), but the number of non-consecutive presidential terms, which is is quite a different thing. There have also been a swag of consecutive terms, but any of those after the first is ignored. I have never seen much logic in this system. I mean, if it's fair enough to call Cleveland the 22nd and 24th president, why wasn't Washington called the 1st and 2nd? And so on. Just because there wasn't a gap between Washington's two terms doesn't mean he didn't have to get elected all over again and sworn in all over again etc, just like Cleveland. That's what a purist may think. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Two consecutive terms implies a continuity of an administration. Not so with Cleveland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not call it the 22nd and 24th administrations, rather than the 22nd and 24th presidents? Obama is into his second administration, and when he departs he will have had exactly the same number as Cleveland. But he gets one ordinal while Cleveland gets two. The world would be a far better place if everybody would just see things my way and act accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You would have to ask the historians who came up with the numbering system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have them brought to me for questioning. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent: I seem to remember reading of a king somewhere who abdicated in favor of his son, who had the same name; the son died young, and the crown reverted to the father — perhaps the only time a regnal number ever went backward, except in the Society for Creative Anachronism. —Tamfang (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I would only use the US context as a starting point for comparison, setting apart which things are similar and which things are not; and thus which conclusions may shared and which ones not. So yes, I take your advise in consideration. Cambalachero (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's genuinely ambiguous, but we go by terms. President is an office and term, not only a person. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No; as JackofOz said above, many presidents have had consecutive terms but are counted only once. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell when the numbering began, but it's clear the idea was established by the time of the File:Presidential issue-1938.jpg stamp collection. Interestingly enough, they number Cleveland as 22, then skip 23, and then pick up with Harrison as 24. Other than that oddity, the numbering matches the modern convention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly there were no postage rates then in force that could justify a stamp valued at 23¢? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic mail was typically no more than a few cents, so the denominations on these stamps would have been, in part, just a novelty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The USA system makes sense if you count 'presidencies', which is the same as what Mr Bugs called 'continuities of an administration'. Carter had one. Obama is finishing his one. Cleveland had two. Hayttom 04:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

But who says Obama, Clinton et al have had only one presidency? Just because their two terms were continuous doesn't negate their second inauguration, or the fact that they occupied the White House for 8 years rather than 4. Exactly like Grover Cleveland. Sorry, but you'll never get me to accept that Cleveland was 2 presidents but Obama is only 1. We should probably just agree to disagree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing is certainly acceptable, but the two Clinton or Obama terms are not "exactly like Grover Cleveland". One big distinction: Cleveland's second term followed a different president (Benjamin Harrison) and saw a complete change of administration and cabinet, Clinton and Obama's didn't. The cabinet in Cleveland's second term was also completely different from that of his first term, while the same is not true of either Clinton or Obama's cabinets (though there were changes). The discontinuity is more than just an interruption of one same thing. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some presidents have had different vice-presidents for their second terms. Cleveland could have chosen the same Cabinet members the second time round. Obama and Clinton could have had clean slates for their second terms. These details change nothing about the number of presidents. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this is actually one of my favorite pieces of evidence that the notion of multiset is natural to humans and not just a piece of mathematical or computer-science trivia. Another one is baseball, where in a particularly good inning for the offense (or more likely, a particularly bad one for the defense), you might have ten or more players come to bat. But of course there are only nine players (at any one time) on the team, so unless there is a substitution in the middle, the "ten players" map to only nine distinct individuals. --Trovatore (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Whom It May Concern:

Is there any way to search Wikipedia to generate a list of the people listed in wikipedia that have majored in history? Is there a way to customize that search to find people of color that majored in history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.237.145 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues: 1) 'Majored in' is a specific term, which doesn't apply to a lot of education systems, would need to be expanded to 'studied history at university'. 2) Same issue with 'people of color', that odd term that is completely meaningless, and needs definition. Do you mean black people, Asians, etc, or all non-whites? Need to be more specific! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• People self-identify in certain ways using
  WP:USERBOXes. It's entirely voluntary, someone might identify as anything he likes, so you might get people identifying as black, African-American, African, a history buff, a Historian, or whatever. It's totally unscientific. But for any specific user box you can click "what links here" and you will see a list of people who have put that box on their account. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You can get this information (a real name) for the price of a sandwich. Offer a sandwich to the first innocent 18 year old in a library who will read up for 4 hours and type a 1-2 page report on what they've found. link the report and you'll get a username and maybe even a real name. you can literally follow this, from anywhere in the world, and get a name. it costs you a sandwich, what's not to like. if going to the library is too much trouble you can fake it. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP has asked a reasonable question from his perspective, why do we have to anonymous users making critical remarks that are irrelevant--the IP doesn't need to define his terms to be told how the site can be searched--and he has no need of obscure jokes either. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the IP does need their search terms defined, as the currently suggested terms are US specific, thereby limiting the expected results. Now, this can be the intent, but when it is not, other terms will need to be used. Just being helpful! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, your exclamation points look a lot like spears! Unless you're also new here (and I suspect you aren't!) try to be more gentle! μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a List of historians by area of study. And there is the giant category Category:Historians filled with a ton of little categories such as Category:Historians of technology or Category:Indian historians. But I've never seen a biography here with a category that refered to what people studied at university.184.147.116.102 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize, I read the question as asking about wikipedia users. If the OP wants to know about people listed in articles he should look at

A big and powerful society conquers a smaller and weaker one. Both societies apparently have a lot in common, with a small group of powerful rich people ruling over poor masses. Yet often the conquered one is referred to as a "tribe" and regarded as somehow not as advanced as the big one. I can understand calling such a small society that one meets every other member often a tribe. But none of the groups I hear referred to as tribes are like that. What is a tribe anyway and how is it different from a state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.222.210 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'd say a tribe is smaller, although one tribe can span more than one nation, too. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope the article on complex society and social complexity. You're asking a question deeply-rooted in anthropology and one of the many that's earned anthropologists the fun title of "racists with hats". Basically a state has more complex social institutions than a tribe, delineated borders, social hierarchy, all that good stuff. That's my half-baked answer. I have about 15 absolutely impenetrable books that could give you a solid answer on some more specific bits. This is question though is a bone of much contention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 00:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might sound like one of those condescendingly simple solutions, but have you read tribe and state? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried mine might sound that way whereas I was really just stating my annoyance over certain bits of anthro. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 01:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "States" have more fully developed international relations than do "tribes". Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Japan during the

Ming China? I'm not sure international relations are a good thing to go on as they're dependent on other polities. For a long time in Egyptology, egyptologists treated Egypt (regarded as the pinnacle of Ancient World civilisation by them) as if it were alone in the world and above the people outside of it. Nowadays we're well-aware of their extensive contacts, but these ideas of what makes a tribe, a state, etc. were all invented a long ways back and though they've been refined, they still have the same base elements (which is very ambiguous on my part, yes, but like I said, complex). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sometimes simple is just best. Like you say, the bigger picture is pretty hard for one brain to grasp. Too many cooks. My simplest answer is a tribe is a "savage" state. As that disambiguation page attests, polite society doesn't use that word the same these days, but still gets the gist of it, like with "polite society". When a civilized (or civilised) person sees a tribe, she just sort of knows it's not a state like hers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about those classifications either as the savagery - barbarism - civilised ladder is kind of out-moded. It was replaced by a five-tier system whose name escapes me right now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bit dated. I sometimes forget if we're supposed to study history thinking like a new age man or the authors. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As an archaeologist and historian, I'll say it's best to try and study history attempting to apply as little of our own world today and trying to think more about their situation back then in our interpretations. A lot easier said than done though. In other words, take a stab at historiography, but reconstructing how people thought is next to impossible. It's on yet another scale which deals with difficulty in interpretation and is also five-tier (archaeologists are obsessed with threes and anthropologists and socioligists with fives, I guess). No, I don't think that was it. It only covered what we've seen so far in societal development. I did give that a look over after seeing Interstellar for obvious reasons. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775

For the record, Petrie's saying it wasn't the Kardashev scale, which I mentioned before deleting that terrible guess. He's not imagining things. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Ah, sorry about that, but I may very well be imagining things. I am quite mad you know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, the Lombards were a tribe, but the Kingdom of the Lombards was an early state. Seems to suggest a state is a geopolitically succesful tribe. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Tribe did have a different meaning back then. I don't recall if the tribal system of Allies from the Roman Republic was still in effect back then. It can also just mean a group of people sharing extended kinship. One of my best friends is from the Sudairi tribe of Saudi Arabia for instance, and there a tribe is your extended family. They and the AS-Sauds are the two most influential tribes in the state that is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, haha. It's just a whole bunch of forms of complexity that determine which of these tiers a polity is placed on, but even then they're rigid definitions applied in a world where things are rarely so clear. Just ask any archaeologist or anthropologist actually in the field who isn't trying to push an agenda. Such is the problem with theory. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, blood ties seem to be a part of it. Like a clan. But that word's tricky, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, especially when it's got 7.000 people in it. In my case with clan, I could claim to be part of the

MacKinnons, but that's 1/32 of my blood and who knows what reception I'd recieve on the Isle of Skye Wasn't one's demos

in Athens meant to be like a tribe?

Deme dere? Seems like land to me, not people. Maybe thinking of a phratry, phyle or genos? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, haha. Apologies as it's been a while. The whole Athenian system was last covered extensively for me in Ian Morris's The Greeks back in undergrad and has mostly been forgotten (even though I've never read a better history book). I think a problem in the US is oftentimes when we think of tribes it conjures up old perceptions of American Indians and the idea that they were 'primitive' (a term that's kind of loaded as it was often based on type of weaponry and religion). I don't know how people in Britain or other European countries react to the word (what pops into their minds). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 03:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd even heard of those things, just followed the Wikilinks. "Primitive tribes" means "Jungle Jitters", to my Canuck ears. I mean, automatically. I'm more openminded after I start thinking. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A state is a tribe with an army and navy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And alliance with or tribute from other tribes. Though tribute is etymologically for tribes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "tribe" would tend to have a greater degree of cohesiveness than a "State". Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For one possible distinction, has there ever been a nomadic State? —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The borders of Poland have definitely wandered around quite a bit over the years... [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were some huge nomadic empires, if that's the same to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30% of the population of Mongolia is still nomadic or semi-nomadic. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalkha Mongols suggests 78% of Mongolians belong to a subnation called the Thirteen Khalkhas of the Far North, but Google suggests Wikipedia invented that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tribe and state are just words, they don't represent
  degrees of separation (maybe from 1 to at most 3) whereas a state will have more. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think the main differentiating factor is cultural. I think a tribe tends to have richer culture than does a State. Bus stop (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "cultural richness" finds me "a diversity" of definitions. Is your meaning as vague as National Geographic's? They're the top result. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One need not focus on the term "rich". Culture is going to be fundamentally different on a tribal level. Is culture going to be more weak in a successful tribe than in a successful State? Will it be more tepid? No, it is going to be vibrant. And rich. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]