Shouldn't 'England' be a correct answer for the Wimbledon one? The United Kingdom is made up of four different countries (England, Scotland, Wales, N Ireland) and Wimbledon is only in England - wouldn't accepting both be more correct?
Why do the British feel the need to rehash this point so often? We know you consider your four main administrative divisions to be countries, you know JetPunk (and the rest of the world, really) doesn't consider them to be countries because they are not sovereign, your comment on this point isn't going to change anything, so why make it?
England is a country. Your point about sovereignty holds no water as the union itself was formed by England. Also I am English, do not consider myself British.
You see that's reasonable because Texas is really part of Mexico seized by the USA. Kind of like Russia and Ukraine in our day. So it's fair to object to being described as American (in the sense of from the USA). England on the other hand lies on the island of Great Britain thus making its inhabitants British. Of course for much of its history it was quite usual to use British and English as synonyms so it's really quite a recent point of contention.
I know this may be controversial, but I don't consider India to be entirely a democracy anymore. Definitely on paper, but the government has been using many authoritarian tactics.
Per Wikipedia: "Cornerstones of democracy include freedom of assembly, association and speech, inclusiveness and equality, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights." India definitely doesn't have all of those. I'm not criticizing the clue itself, but just bringing up an important rhetorical question about the state of Indian politics today.
Are there any countries outside the United States which have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in 2022? For example, in Germany you can be jailed for denying the holocaust. In the United Kingdom people are now getting arrested for tweets. And of course, because of Covid, many countries have denied freedom of assembly, often despite not having any legal basis to do so.
I'd say India is just as much a democracy as most places in the western world, for now at least.
I'll grant that's true, but I think reasoning matters also. Germany has good reason to prevent Holocaust denial given its history--it's done ultimately for the good of German society, not to silence opposition. In contrast, Indian journalists are harassed, often by BJP members, just for being critical of the government. The government has even used sedition laws against journalists and opposition figures. And sure, the West has freedom of speech issues, but when has a family member of a top government official actively run over protesters with their car? Not to mention increasing violence against religious minorities and total lockdown in Kashmir.
For sure, India is still better than many countries. Even so, I don't think it meets the standards of Western democracies and backsliding has occurred at an alarming rate in recent years.
Every country has limitations on free speech, because it's simply reasonable. For some it may be prosecution of holocaust-denial, but there's state secrets, laws against slander, a right to privacy or similar things in every democracy. I don't see how the US supposed to be special in that regard.
You are joking about the US, aren't you? In the 2023 Economist Democracy Index the US doesn't even achieve the status of Full Democracy. It's number 29 on the list and classified as a Flawed Democracy.
India is ranked 41 on the list and also classified as a Flawed Democracy.
You'll find much the same conclusions in the other major rankings of freedom and democracy. The US has a lot of work to do on itself. This could be at least part of the reason why the US has been so unsuccessful in its attempts to persuade, or force, other countries to adopt the US government model or, in general, pay much heed as to how they conduct their affairs.
Does anyone know why the AD/CE is used, and when it "needs" to be applied? If something happened in 1971, I don't need the appended "AD" or "CE" for reference. I would say the same goes for dates like 1650, 1422, and the year 1000 that's in this quiz. Even years in the triple digits really doesn't need the "AD/CE" affixed to it. It seems the BC/BCE would be the only needed addition, as if it's not used, the reader knows it's AD/CE.
I think probably this sentence was in a section about the country pre-colonization, and may have been talking about BC/BCE dates in that same section so the AC/CE is really for clarity in that part.
Per Wikipedia: "Cornerstones of democracy include freedom of assembly, association and speech, inclusiveness and equality, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights." India definitely doesn't have all of those. I'm not criticizing the clue itself, but just bringing up an important rhetorical question about the state of Indian politics today.
I'd say India is just as much a democracy as most places in the western world, for now at least.
For sure, India is still better than many countries. Even so, I don't think it meets the standards of Western democracies and backsliding has occurred at an alarming rate in recent years.
India is ranked 41 on the list and also classified as a Flawed Democracy.
You'll find much the same conclusions in the other major rankings of freedom and democracy. The US has a lot of work to do on itself. This could be at least part of the reason why the US has been so unsuccessful in its attempts to persuade, or force, other countries to adopt the US government model or, in general, pay much heed as to how they conduct their affairs.