Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 4

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.

December 4

Russian Music

I am not a musician, so I would be very grateful for a non-technical answer to my question, if that is possible. I tried to read the article "Minor scale" so that I could explain more clearly what I meant, but I ended up no wiser and with headache. Both articles dabbed from Russian music were equally unhelpful in this specific search. Is there any traditional Christmas music from Russia that is not written in a minor key? By that, I mean (as opposed to what a musician might mean) anything that is not sung in a "lah" based scale. If you know the names (in Russian and English as in "Эй, ухнем - Volga Boat Song") that would be wonderful. Thank you Bielle 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Shchedrik Щедрик (better known as Carol of the Bells) is in a major key. It is Ukrainian, rather than Russian, but it's close. I don't have the music in front of me, so apologies if I'm wrong. Steewi (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Carol of the Bells says that it is "unusual" for a Christmas song in that it is written in a minor key. I don't recognize the words shown in the article, so I can't do a "test" sing. And there is no music (not that music would help me, but it might help someone else) which I could use to confirm. Thanks for trying. If there are no more takers on Russian "seasonal music" written in a major key, are there any folk songs from Russia written in a major key? Thanks again. Bielle (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Steewi, but Carol of the Bells/Shchedrik Щедрик is written in a minor key.Thomprod (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Carol of the Bells is in a minor key. However, I can think of a great deal of music from Eastern Europe that is in a major key. One of the greatest composers in the history of orchestral composing wrote many of his masterpieces in major keys: Dmitri Shostakovich. Festive Overture, the finale from the Firebird, Rite of Spring... All of them are written in a major key for a good majority of the piece.

Picking a folk song at random -- basically the first one I thought of -- how about the one that Stravinsky used in the Fourth Tableau of Petrouchka, the Wet-Nurses' Dance (it is based on "Down the Petersky Road", which Stravinsky sets in an unambiguous F major). This particular song was arranged by Tchaikovsky as well as Balakirev and Rimsky-Korsakov, and puts in an appearance in Tolstoy's War and Peace as well. Can't think of any specifically major key Christmas music offhand though. Antandrus (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Name of artist for Blood Money cover art

Greetings, oh mighty and all-knowing Wikipedia hive-mind!

I was wondering if any of your myriad processing nodes might be able to identify the artist who did the box cover art for the game Blood Money, which can be seen on the linked article.

Thanks :) --Monorail Cat 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, never mind! Looking at the image page gave an original source URL of exotica.org.uk, and going to that URL got me a gallery of video game covers, complete with artist information. According to that site the artist is one Peter Andrew Jones. Hmm.. I guess having answered my own question means I've now been officially assimilated into the hive. Resistance is futile! --Monorail Cat 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, Monorail Cat! And you beat me to it too. Here's the link to publisher Psygnosis's page on Blood Money for those interested. Your question led me to read the article on Roger Dean, and I'm glad you posted it, even though you edit-conflicted me! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

George Sand

Somebody asked me about George Sand and they want me to know why she used a man's name, George, for what reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.250 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

George as a female name isn't all that uncommon, particularly where it's short for Georgina. Also, it seems in the case of George Sand that it was a psuedonym, and she was a feminist. Maybe it was some kind of statement regarding feminism? particularly as Georges are usually assumed to be male, when it's not always the case that they are. That's just speculation on my part though --Monorail Cat 02:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Presumably it's because professional writing was not regarded in those days as a suitable pastime for a woman. Mary Ann Evans wrote under the name "George Eliot" for the same reason. -- JackofOz 02:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The name George Sand supposedly was chosen on St. George’s day (April 23) in 1832 as a nom de plume for her novel Indiana, with the last name being a contraction of the name of her lover Jules Sandeau. - Nunh-huh 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Many women had written fiction, even before Fanny Burney's blockbuster Evelina, but critics tended to adopt a double standard when discussing "lady novelists". "George Sand" wanted her work judged by the same criteria that would apply to any "serious", i.e. male, novelist. --Wetman 09:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A number of factors have led some commentators to conclude she had lesbian proclivities: although married with 2 children, she separated from her husband; she was a known feminist; she had a particularly close friendship with another woman; she wore trousers in public; she smoked cigars and pipes in public; she took up with Chopin (inter alia), and if he were gay (which has been independently suggested but never proven; he certainly never married), this would have been a convenient cover for both of them. We'll probably never know whether the lesbian theory is true or not, but if it were, this could also help explain the male pseudonym. We don't need this theory, however, as many other women wrote under male pseudonyms who were completely straight (well, as straight as any true writer can be). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also George Achille-Fould, a nineteenth-century French woman painter, who also wanted just to have her work taken seriously. She doesn't have a Wiki page however although she is mentioned in some pages on the French Wiki. When I was doing research in the archives at the Musée d'Orsay I ran across a number of women painters working under the pseudonym "George". Saudade7 01:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

texas native american tribes

i am tring to help my son with his home work the question is in a puzzle form it states : the first 3 letters are the state that borders texas arkansas the tribe has 8 letters the first 3 letters are ark_k_s_ we have looked every where and i cant find the missing letters please help alley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.75.54 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Akokisa, aka "Arkokisa" ? Pfly 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Saint and the Holy Spirit

I recently spoke to my priest about having a hard time with the Holy Spirit and he told me to get and read the book by Saint???? I was wondering if you could help me. Thank you.63.215.27.178 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Catholic, but there aren't that many books written by Saints, so my off-the-cuff guess would be either Saint Augustine or Saint Thomas Aquinas. Saint Augustine wrote the following books: On Christian Doctrine, Confessions, The City of God, and Enchiridion. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote way too many books to list here, but you may view them at the Works by Thomas Aquinas wiki page. My guess, after looking these over, would be either Augustine's Confessions, or Aquinas' Summa Theologica. But again, this is just a stab in the dark... Saukkomies 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

More likely St. Teresa's Autobiography or St. John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul, I'd think. But really, the only way to be sure is to ask your priest again, saying you didn't write it down and would like the name of the book again. - Nunh-huh 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of Emily Dickinson Poem

What is this poem by Emily Dickinson saying?

1751

There comes an hour when begging stops,

When the long interceding lips

Perceive their prayer is vain.

"Thou shalt not" is a kinder sword

Than from a disappointing God

"Disciple, call again."

66.81.158.150 05:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

After one has been praying for something for a long time, sometimes one perceives that it is not going to happen, and that the answer is "no". Under those circumstances it is better to understand that "no" is the answer than to be told to keep trying. SaundersW 09:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried googling some lines from this poem along with terms like "analysis", "critique", and similar, but couldn't find anything (not to say that a more thorough search wouldn't turn anything up), so I thought I'd throw in my 2p's worth - To me it sounds a bit like a religious person experiencing fear that the god they believe in might not be there, or that their god is disappointed in them, and thus refusing to answer their prayers. It seems like she writes from the point of view of somebody who has prayed again and again for some kind of divine intervention in her life, and has finally reached the point of asking "why won't God stop this", with the only possible answers being 1) I haven't been good enough to deserve God's favour, or 2) God isn't there at all.

The third line "'Thou shalt not' is a kinder sword" sounds like someone saying it would be better for God to be angry than not there, and the last line, "Disciple, call again" sounds like either desperation to want God not to give up on her, or a feeling that she hasn't tried hard enough yet, and needs to keep going to get a result.

Disclaimer: I know less about poetry than the average brick does. I'm just commenting on what it sounds like to me (which is in a way I think, kind of valid - after all, isn't art in the eye of the beholder?). I don't doubt, however, there are much more learned people on this reference desk who can provide better analysis than this. Finally, I also feel I should add that I am personally an atheist, and as this seems to be a religiously themed poem, I might have rather different views on it than people who have religious faith. --Monorail Cat 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[deleted and merged into topic above. Apparently something I did caused a duplicate question to appear]

I agree with Monorail Cat. The poem is describing a dark night of the soul, a crisis of faith in which a confirmation of God's existence — even if it was a denial of the narrator's prayer — would be more comforting ("a kinder sword") than no answer at all. Gdr 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"A Charlotte Zolotow book"

I'm currently working on article for the novel Dragon of the Lost Sea which mentions that it's "A Charlotte Zolotow Book" on the back. What does this mean and how significant is it? It's not the same as the Charlotte Zolotow Award which was established in 1998 and in any case, the copy of the book that I'm working with is a 1988 edition. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Zolotow worked at Harper & Row and HarperCollins publishing for a good part of her career. "A Charlotte Zolotow Book" was her publishing imprint; that would imply that she was the publisher at Harper in charge of Dragon of the Lost Sea. - Nunh-huh 07:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't sound significant enough to mention in the article and it's not the only book with this imprint, search engine hits turn up lots of others. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

French failing

In looking for an explanation for the completness of their collapse in 1940 the French, amongst other things, tended to blame the British for abandonment and lack of support. I was wondering how significant, therefore, Anglo-French disagreement was in the inter-war paeriod and was the disassociation between the two countries a reflection of the fact that they were allies who were not really allies? Plekhanov 06:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, Plekhanov, you are already a large part of the way towards answeing your own question in suggesting that Britain and France allies who were not really allies; allies of occasion, it might be said, not allies of substance. It was not long after the conclusion of the Treaty of Versailles that the French started to feel that their wartime partner did not take their fears over security seriously enough. Versailles was not nearly tough enough as far as France was concerned, and the country was only prepared to drop its demand for a separate Rhineland state in return for a promise by David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister of the day, of an Anglo-American guarantee of French security. But it never came. The Americans drew back into isolationism, giving Lloyd George the perfect excuse to make his own exit from awkward Continental obligations.

France was left feeling betrayed and isolated, a sense of betrayal that only increased as it attempted to enforce the existing provisions of Versailles, particularly over the question of reparations, in the face of British criticism. In the end France was carried along by the evolving policy of appeasement in the 1930s because in the wake of the British initiative in this area there was really no other choice. Time and again they felt they had been let down when they had tried to make a stand, from the occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 to the Disarmament Conference of 1932 to 1934, where their concerns over security were effectively ignored. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 further underlined how far the two wartime partners had drifted one from the other.

I have to say, though, that this is a very one-sided reading of a complex situation. Britain, although stand-offish at points, never at any point seriously considered abandoning the French altogether, even without a formal diplomatic agreement. After all, the country nearly went to war in 1938 with Germany over Czechoslovakia, a French rather than a British ally. There are many factors explaining the collapse of 1940, most to be found in France itself. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we can't ignore the long-standing British policy of fostering a balance of power on the Continent. Britain was always careful to prevent one country's hegemony there, and France was looking likely to dominate in the long run. It wasn't personal, just business as usual. But those were unusual times, as it turned out. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Belief

In Ancient China, what were the gods that were worshipped, the beliefs and ways of life they followed? And compare this to Catholic religious beliefs, what are the similarities and differences between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.47.36 (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Such "compare and contrast" questions have so often proved to be homework subjects that Reference desk volunteers are sometimes shy to answer them. --Wetman 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A good place to start is Shangdi, Pangu and traditional chinese religion. There are some (controversial) claims that the apparently semi-monotheistic beliefs in ancient China were revelations of the same God that revealed himself to the Jews. This is by no means a common belief, however. Steewi (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why war?

Why did Germany declare war on the United States in December 1941 when it was under no obligation to do so?

Desire for world domination I guess--88.111.25.42 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, the United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Under the terms of the 1940 Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany, and Italy, these countries agreed to "assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict". Following the declaration of war on Japan, Germany would have been essentially breaking the Tripartite Pact if it had not declared war on the United States. So on December 11, 1941 Germany declared war on the United States, and on the same day the United States declared war on Germany and Italy. See Military history of the United States during World War II for more details. Gandalf61 10:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Although Gandalf is correct, there was more to Hitler's decision to declare war against the US than just to honor the Tripartite Pact treaty with Japan. Hitler had repeatedly proven that he had no compunctions about ignoring treaties, and indeed almost his entire staff of advisors were completely against Germany declaring war against the US. The German Navy had wanted to do this for some time - citing evidence that the US was supplying the British with huge amounts of military and domestic resources, even though the US was supposed to be neutral. However, Hitler had up to this point opposed the Navy's request to open the war with the US, claiming that it would overstretch Germany's resources. There is a certain amount of evidence, however, that supports the theory that Hitler was overconfident in the weeks just prior to December 7th, 1941 - the date of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Germany's campaign against the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarosa), which had started some 6 months before, had scored some major victories in those weeks just preceding Pearl Harbor, and this buoyed Hitler's optimism that the war in Russia would soon be over, thus freeing up a lot of the German military, as well as providing Germany with much needed oil and other raw resources from Russia. Because of this, he overruled his advisors who were against war with America, and decided to go ahead and honor the Tripartite Treaty with Japan and declare war against the US.

The reasons why Hitler went against most of his staff members' advice and entered into a war against America has been minutely scrutinized in several sources including these:

- "From peace to war : Germany, Soviet Russia, and the world, 1939-1941", edited by Bernd Wegner, Providence : Berghahn Books, 1997. ISBN: 1571818820 (specifically, the chapter "Japan and the German-Soviet war 1941" by Manfred Menger)

- "Hitler Attacks Pearl Harbor : Why the United States Declared War on Germany" by Richard F. Hill. Boulder : Rienner, 2003. ISBN 1-58826-126-3. This book, however, received many dismissive reviews from critics who questioned the author's analysis. In it the author tries to make the claim that the US would have declared war on Germany regardless of whether Germany declared war first. I'm including it just as a counter-balance to my own point of view.

- "Hitler's biggest blunder : declaration of war on U.S. in 1941" by Sir Nicholas Henderson. History Today v. 43 (Apr. '93) p. 35-43. This article supports the idea that Hitler would have declared war anyway. Again, a counter-balance to my own views.

- "If Hitler hadn't : declaring war on U.S." by Alistair Horne. National Review v. 43 (Dec. 16 '91) p. 36+. In this article the author examines the decision to declare war against the US in detail, arriving at the conclusion that at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hitler thought that the war against Russia (Operation Barbarosa) was all but won, which gave him the confidence to go ahead and declare war with America. This is my own view on the subject as well. Saukkomies 14:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The treaty called for Germany to aid Japan if attacked by a neutral country, but did it in fact require Germany to come to the aid of Japan if it was Japan which launched a war against a neutral country? It would seem as possible for Germany to be at peace with the US as for Russia to be at peace with Japan for much of the war. Edison 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Before answering I should make it clear that Edison is quite right to raise doubts over the contention that the Tripartite Pact obliged Germany to declare war on the United States; it did not, not in any degree. The pact was defensive, not offensive in nature. In other words, it only came into effect if one or more of the contracting parties was attacked by another power, made clear in article 3:

Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

Although the Germans were in fact working towards a more specific offensive agreement with the Japanese, the negotiations were not complete by the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The American declaration of war was a response to an attack, not an attack itself, and therefore not covered by the original terms of the 1940 Pact.

So, why did Hitler declare war? To begin with he already considered the United States to be a hostile power, teetering on the verge of outright belligerency. By the spring of 1941 it was evident that British hopes for victory, indeed the British ability to continue fighting at all, was increasingly dependent on American supplies. President Roosevelt, even in the face of Neutrality Acts, which limited his freedom of action, was obviously sympathetic to the British cause, carrying Congress with him in the passing of the Lend-Lease Bill in March 1941. As the season progressed it was more and more evident that Germany was facing an undeclared war in the Atlantic with the American navy. As the number of incidents increased Roosevelt authorised the navy to adopt a 'shoot on sight' policy in its conflicts with the German U-boat fleet, though the Germans were held back from counter-reprisals. This was particularly bad from the German perspective, because the U-boat campaign against the British was failing, allowing more and more war materials to get through by convoy. The German declaration of war on December 11 greatly improved the situation, ushering in what was to be known as the Second Happy Time for the beleagured U-boat crews.

The other major factor in explaining his decision to go to war was that he was convinced that the Americans would be pinned down for the forseeable future in the Pacific theatre, while being obliged to defend themselves in the Atlantic. For this reason he was determined to secure maximum co-ordination between the Axis powers. When the Japanese raised the question of German support in November 1941-without letting Hitler know of their exact plans-he and Ribbentrop were prepared to offer binding military assurances, even though this was not covered by the Tripartite Pact. When he heard of the attack on Pearl Harbor Hitler was ecstatic, describing it as a 'deliverance'. Even before the declaration of war Erich Raeder was authorised to go on the offensive in the Atlantic. Just before Hitler's apperance at the Reichstag on December 11 a new agreement was signed with the Japanese, ruling out an armistice with the British and Americans without mutual consent.

It was not he who was faced with a two front war: it was the United States. After all, how could a power whose regular army in the spring of 1940 ranked twentieth in the world, one place behind the Dutch, possibly confront both Japan and Germany? With only 245,000 men, the American army was able to field a mere five fully equipped divsions, which compared with 141 German divisions. It all made perfect sense: make sure the Japanese hold down the Americans and the British in the Far East; force the United States into a two-ocean war, cutting British supply lines, while finishing the offensive in Russia. It was his greatest miscalculation. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

first generation entrepreneurs

Who is called a "first generation entrepreneur"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.216.62 (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I imagine it to be the first generation of entrepreneurs to create companies in a country, helping develop economic growth. There are lots of first gen entrepreneurs in India. This blog post may help. Jpeob 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh hell, I just screwed something up!

Sorry everyone, I replied to a question about analysis of an Emily Dickinson poem, and somehow created a duplicate of the question.

(IGNORE THE FOLLOWING. I'd put score-through text on it, but don't know the markup) --Monorail Cat 09:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I then went to remove the duplicate and merge my reply into the original, but removing the dupe apparently somehow removed the original. If you look in this reference desk's history between my most recent edit before this one, and the one previous to that, you should see it. I'd restore it, but I don't really know what I'm doing, and I think I've already screwed stuff up enough just now...

Sorry about that, everyone! Not intentional vandalism, I promise! --Monorail Cat 09:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gah! Be still, my beating heart... Apparently Firefox is just playing cache tricks on me. The original question is still there.. just wasn't showing up for a while. Okay. Panic over. Everyone return to whatever passes for normality in your personal timespace continuum :) --Monorail Cat 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Assurance

Please explain the concept of assurance on the Anglo-Scottish borders in the sixteenth century? How did this work in practice? Donald Paterson 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You will find some details, Donald, in the page on The Rough Wooing. Assurance was one way the English had of creating a Scottish Fifth Column in favour of the marriage of the infant Mary Queen of Scots to Edward, Prince of Wales, a project favoured by Henry VIII. Practically speaking the results were quite variable. Although some among the senior Scottish nobility, captured at the Battle of Solway Moss in 1542, embraced assurance with enthusiasm-especially those committed to the cause of the Protestant Reformation-most ordinary Scottish borderers only did so to avoid English reprisals. In 1545 an invading English army was made up of a large number of assured Scots, who abandoned their forced loyalties, contributing to the Scottish victory at the Battle of Ancrum Moor, the most serious military reversal of Henry's reign. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What role did Caeso Malleus participate in for the Second Punic War (about 200 BC +/-)?

Was Caeso Malleus a consul then? Names of family members? Apparently Tuccia was one of his daughters, as was Megullia. He also possibly has something to do with the Scipio family and maybe Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus, however don't know exactly what role. Found references in Latin only:

• LacusCurtius • Valerius Maximus — Liber IV
• bibliotheca Augustana
• Itinera Electronica
• Itinera Electronica
• Valeri Maximi

Thanks - --Doug ^talk 11:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug. I can find nothing. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alexsander Eiduk

Hello eyeryone (especially you, Clio!). I need some more help. I'm researching the early history of the Soviet Secret police, in its Cheka phase, and came across a reference to a celebratory poem by one Alexsander Eiduk. I've been quite unable to trace this through any of the usual sources and have come here to find out if anyone knows any more. Thanks a bunch. Fred said right 13:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Heiduk was an Austrian who was imprisoned by the Gestapo for being a Communist, and died in a Viennese hospital in 1942. He praised Russian communism, which was one of his acts of treason. You can find more about him here [1] SaundersW (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Fred. The man you are looking for is Aleksandr Eiduk, a Cheka operative executed in 1938 during the Great Purge. In the early 1920s, soon after the Red Army conquered Georgia, he published a rather nauseating 'poem' in an anthology entitled The Cheka's Smile. Here it is;

There is no greater joy, nor better music

Than the crunch of broken lives and bones.

This is why when our eyes are languid

And passions begin to seethe stormily in the breast,

I want to write on your sentence

One unquivering thing: 'Up against the wall! Shoot'

In Moscow Eiduk admitted to a friend, with 'enjoyment in his voice like that of an ecstatic sexual maniac', how pleasing he found the roar of truck engines used at the Lubianka to drown out the noise of executions.

You will find the original of the above lines in Gosudarstvo i revoliutsii by Valerii Shambarov (2001), translated in Stalin and his Hangmen by Donald Rayfield, 2005, p. 76. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Echoes of Candide -

“ Gentlemen," said Cacambo, "you think perhaps you are going to feast upon a Jesuit; if so, then it is an excellent thing, nothing can be more agreeable to justice than thus to treat your enemies. Indeed, the laws of Nature teach us to kill our neighbour, and this is the custom all over the world; if we do not indulge ourselves in eating human flesh, it is because we have much better to eat; but for you, who lack our resources, it is certainly a much better decision to feast on your enemies than to throw their bodies to the birds of the air, and thus to lose all the fruits of your victory. ”

But the irony is lacking. Xn4 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's another stub, Aleksandr Eiduk. Thanks, Clio! Sandstein (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain this video?

I saw this on The Daily Show and I don't know what to make of it. --Ouzo 14:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you go and check Mike Gravel's home page? Keria 14:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't find anything useful. Just a forum and a link to his youtube profile. There were a couple videos referencing the rock-tossing one, but nothing that actually explains it. However, google found this video of Gravel explaining it --Ouzo 15:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't explain it but I can offer reactions. First up it is an excellent piece of work, original, tense, puzzling and teasingly allegorical. (what does the stone mean - if anything) I felt compelled to watch it through to the end with a high expectation of some sort of finale or punch-line. Mike Gravel seems to be looking for publicity for his causes and for sure this is one way of getting it along with the other 30 odd videos. Richard Avery 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See Mike Gravel Explains "The Rock" video on YouTube.  --Lambiam 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Need a German type name for a German shepard puppy

Can you suggest some possible names for a new puppy, that would be easily pronounable in English? Thanks.--Christie the puppy lover 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Lumpi" (pron. loom-pee) is (or rather was, probably) the canonical german dog name (akin to Rover or Fido). I suspect that now a native German speaker will find it rather quaint. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fritz and Hansel are both archetypal German names. DuncanHill 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Blondi" comes to mind... Skarioffszky 14:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Call it Orpheus because for sure it will Offenbach (boom! boom!)Richard Avery 15:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Ouch at Blondi) "Lumpi" made me smile, and it's quaint indeed, these days, I don't think I've ever met a real-life dog named Lumpi, though it is often used as a metonym for "dog" as pointed out by Finlay McWalter. According to a 2003 telephone poll of 520 German dog owners, the top ten names for German Shepherds in Germany are Rex, Arco, Eros, Apollo, Askum, Asta, Blacky, Charlie, Cilla, and Conny (none of which are particularly German). Does it have an unusual color or other distinct features? Is it a female or male puppy? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than use a name that Germans would give to a dog, you could just pick your favorite German name, depending on the gender: Wolfgang (meaning, roughly, "wolf gait" and pronounced "vohlf gahng") would be somewhat appropriate, or you could try names such as Hermann ("hair mahn"), Gerhart ("gair hart"), Ludwig ("loot vick"), or Johann for a male dog, and Ursula (meaning, roughly, "little wolf", and pronounced "OOR zoo la"), Greta, Brunhilde, Angela ("AHN gheh la" with a hard "g"), or Inge ("ING a") for a female dog. Marco polo 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For a male dog, the nickname for Wolfgang, Wolfi (VOHL fee), could also be cute. Marco polo 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Depending on personality, Blitz. ◄Zahakiel► 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lovely names, Marco, but surely "Ursula" is "little bear"? SaundersW (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For a dog, there's really nothing better than to use the name of a great German, such as Bismarck, Luther, Schiller, Bach, Goethe, or Adenauer. For a bitch, I've just heard a wicked rumour that Beethoven had a bitch whose name was Elise. Xn4 00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But remember, studies by trainers have shown that your dog will respond best to a two-syllable name with a vowel ending. Therefore Lumpi = good; Wolfgang = bad. Saudade7 01:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Xn4's Goethe fits that description, and so would Bismarck, if you pick his first name Otto! Other famous German two-syllablers ending in a vowel: Else, Hannah, or Hella for females. Hugo, Willy, or Udo for males. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My neighbor named his dog "Colonel Klinck". He calls the dog "Klinck." The name comes from Hogan's Heroes. The name has a certain notoriety, since my neighbor (who is also Don Geronimo), mentions the dog on his radio show. Klinck is actually a fairly friendly dog. -Arch dude (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I like Schatzi. It's related to the word for "treasure", and it has a kind of doggy feel to it. It also meets the 2-syllable-vowel-ending criterion mentioned above. (It's a pity your dog isn't a black cat; if it were, I have the perfect name - Figaro.) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Entering Heaven -

Hi all

I'm an athesist and consequently the premise of the following may be flawed, but it's always intigued me and I'd be interested in any thoughts.

My (basic) understanding is that the bible teaches it is impossible to enter heaven unless you have a belief in Jesus as he died for our sins. Essentially, his sacrifice wipes the slate clean for his followers.

Let's assume this is true. Consider the following two scenarios:

One child is born the son of a priest and is brought up with the Christian faith instilled and leads a happy and religious life with Jesus in his heart, dies and goes to heaven.

On child is born in 3rd world poverty, is abused until adulthood, never given any form of education, religious or otherwise and dies not believing or Jesus, never having the opportunity to. He therefore is swiftly dispatched to hell.

How is this fair? This 2nd child may be no less "good" than the 1st but purely the situation of his birth and upbringing dicate him going to hell. How does Christianity explain this? This will also apply for the mentally handicapped, tribes in deepest darkest jungles etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.59.218 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer is, it depends who you ask. There have been, throughout the history of Christian theology, those who have said that salvation outside of the church may be possible. Most notably in the twentieth century is Karl Rahner's idea of the Anonymous Christian, which addresses the very question you have in mind. More broadly, many Christian theologians have stated that God promises salvation through Jesus Christ, and about that we can be certain; however, the fate of those outside the church is a matter for God alone to judge. In particular, many have reflected on the words of Jesus (John 10:16): "I have other sheep, that are not of this fold."

To answer further, there are also those who simply do not believe in hell at all. The position being that those who are in Christ are resurrected to eternal life, while everyone else simply remains dead.

Hope that helps. Pastordavid 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Bible states very clearly that those who suffer and live in poverty are those who are more likely to get into heaven

However, the more modern right wing christian evangalistic view is to say that no, he will burn in hell forever. while the pasters child will go to heaven. But, it does not say in the bible anywhere that one has to be christian to go to heaven. so the Evangalists are once again Wrong wrong wrong. Further more, it states in the bible that heaven and the lords greatness are for all people. this happens when I-forget-his-name has a dream in which god offers him pork to eat. He cannot eat pork as he is Jewish, but upon wakeing, and reflection he sees that god has told him that heaven is for all people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would caution everyone to remember that discussions about a set of beliefs is usually fraught with interpretational bias, and that there are few, if any, facts, except to the extent we can determine that X religion states its belief in Y. Questions like "Is Y fair?" are seldom answerable in any meaningful way in respect of anything except fact, and even then the answer will depend upon an agreed meaning for "fair". Bielle 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but I'm just questioning the beliefs themselves not making any ascertions of truth.

Thanks for your responses. I understand the answer depends on who you ask. I guess what I'm really asking is just how deeply held the principle is that you must believe in Jesus to enter heaven. For me, the more deeply held this belief.. the less credible the faith due to the above scenarios.

Since you're asking for points of view, I'll give you a unique one. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that the gospel is preached to those who have died without hearing about Christ. They call the place of this preaching the Spirit world (Latter Day Saints), basically a place where the dead wait for their bodily resurrection. Missionaries for Christ teach everyone in this place the gospel, and everyone who accepts the gospel there will be able to receive the same blessings of heaven as those who heard and followed the gospel while they were alive on earth.

The biblical basis for this belief is in 1 Peter 4:6 "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Also, in 1 Peter 3:18-20 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

So again, to return to your specific question, a person who accepted the gospel and stayed faithful to the end of his or her life would go to heaven. A person who struggled through life in abject poverty, never learning about Christ, would hear about him in the Spirit World and have the same opportunities for heaven as the one who was raised in Christianity.

With this in mind, it makes a lot more sense to require belief in Christ for entrance into heaven. Everyone in this scenario has an equal chance to accept Christ into their lives. Everyone is required to have done this in order to enter heaven, as Christ stated: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) Wrad 17:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The question you ask really hinges on the central point of the doctrine of salvation as perceived by Christians. In my opinion, the real question is not to ask who will be saved and who will not be saved, but to inquire into the very basis of the need for salvation in the first place. In other words, why is salvation necessary? This is really the heart of the matter. I will reserve (at this time) my own views on this, but I believe if you concentrate on answering that question, all the rest will follow. The question of the need for salvation is the very foundation for Christianity. Saukkomies 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - As Pastordavid well said, it depends largely on who you ask. Different groups will have different answers for this. From a fundamentally textual viewpoint, which assumes that salvation is necessary and desirable (the user above is good to point this factor out) the Apostle Paul dealt with this in his New Testament letter to the Roman congregation. He wrote, "For the invisible things of [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead [...] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Rom 1:20, 2:14-16)

At the time when this was written, the Hebrews were expected to know the "way to Heaven," and the Gentiles were considered relatively uneducated in religious matters. What Paul's statements basically say is that while "Jesus Christ according to [his] gospel" remains the ultimate standard, there are more ways than one to learn about His "invisible things," in this case the essential truth behind such big words as "justification" and "sanctification." Of course, one hearing of the doctrines from the apostles directly were and are expected to accept it, as a number of other verses will state (at times quite strongly), but what might be taken away from this matter is that no one has an excuse to maintain a less-than-clear conscience. This means more (heaven-ward) than the mere "things contained in the law" as far as rituals and acts go. Not that these things are unimportant, of course... but the combination of mercy and justice about which Paul writes does not ultimately hold a human being accountable for more than he or she could possibly have known. Undoubtedly, some groups will have different takes on these verses, but just boiling it down, and stripping away the at times archaic language, this appears to be the most obvious meaning. ◄Zahakiel► 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I perhaps answered a little hastily, answering a question different than the one that you asked. You ask, given a person believes the scenario you pose to be the case, how is that situation fair. I cannot say (see my answer) that the situation you describe matches with my theology about what will happen in eternity. However, for those that it does, the answer is that God's divine providence and will is beyond our comprehension, and what seems unfair to us in this present age will not seem so when all things become known to us in eternity. Again, not my position in this particular case, but I think it would be the response to the question. Pastordavid 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a slightly different spin on the verse "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) which is this: if anybody has come to the father, he (/she) has done it through Jesus. Not the orthodox reading, but a defensible one, I think. SaundersW (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. This seems a pretty orthodox reading to me. Is your statement intended to express a different reading than the one previously presented? I'm just not sure I see the difference... Wrad (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope I am not answering too late; I will attempt to steer clear of other answers and simply say that this is an excellent discussion so far that has attempted to be very neutral.

I would add only one thing. That God, in His Providence, may know whether or not the 2nd child will ever believe *even if* given the chance. In other words, some believe that God will send someone to that person, if they will believe, but if they will not, He will not. Becasue God has infinite knowledge in the Christian faith, this is possible.

I have heard of a Chinese woman in her 80s (and I'm sorry, I can't give a cite) who told a missionary that she had always known Jesus, and now she had finally met Him; in other words, god knew her heart, He knew she would believe, so He made sure someone got there.

That may be sort of repetitive to what was said above, and if so, I apologize, but I tried to be a little more specific, even if that was what was meant above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.19.1 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As the original poster, I must say thank you for some very interesting perspectives! Not least the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a first time user of Wikipedia I'm impressed, what a great tool. For the last poster, another interesting point of view which would certainly make sense. God in His infinite wisdom knows anyway if you'd have believed given the chance. A get out clause for the unfortunate! Rather suggests our destiny is predetermined though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.59.218 (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My non-orthodox take on "Nobody comes to the Father but through me" would be similar to that of 63.3. If we take the metaphor of Jesus as the gate, we can say that all non-Christians are outside the wall and only though some kind of explicit conversion can they come inside (get into the Kingdom of Heaven, come to the Father, whatever). Or we can say that if we find somebody who is not explicitly Christian, who may be not of any formal faith or of some other faith, whose life and being have an authenticity that we can only understand as being heavenly, then we have to accept that they have come in through the gate that is Christ, whatever name they may know it by. In other words, certain Christians interpret the verse as exclusive, and others as inclusive. SaundersW (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I can see what you're saying now. Wrad (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell and parliament

The english fought a civil war to defend the rights of parliament against the power of the monarchy. But Oliver Cromwell was no more successful in establishing parliamentary rule. Is there any reason why his constitutional experiments failed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.9.67 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

One possible explanation, which sadly is a bit shallow, is that every revolution seems to have a counter-revolution that follows soon afterward. One way of examining this is to look at Hegel and Marx's writings on the Dialectic of History. This theory tries to explain how human society changes over time. It goes like this: first there's an existing social situation, called the Thesis. Then, for various reasons, a new social situation arises that challenges the Thesis, which is called the Anti-Thesis. Then there is a period of struggle between the Thesis and the Anti-Thesis, resulting in the formation of a Synthesis. Depending on how strong the Thesis and Anti-Thesis are, the Synthesis will incorporate various elements of each of them. If the Thesis is much more powerful than the Anti-Thesis, the Sythesis will end up having more elements and influences from the Thesis than it does the Anti-Thesis, and visa versa. Once the new Synthesis is established, after a while it will then become the next Thesis, and a new Anti-Thesis will arise to challenge it. So it goes - back and forth like a see-saw, with Thesis and Anti-Thesis struggling over and over again. This is a possible explanation for why there seems to be a counter-revolution following each revolution in history. So it goes with the English Civil Wars as well. After Cromwell and the Puritan Parliamentarians had controlled the country for a while following the Wars, the English people rushed to embrace the almost hedonistic aristocratic return of James II and his court. This is just a theory, but it demonstrates perhaps Thesis and Anti-Thesis in action. Saukkomies 19:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, 217.43, there are two things that you have to consider here: first, the nature of the English Civil War itself, which fractured the country politically, producing an outcome in the Commonwealth of England which effectively precluded a large part of the natural governing class from the whole political process; second, even within the victorious Parliamentary camp there were divisions, between the radicals, like John Lilburne, on the one hand, and the grandees, like Oliver Cromwell, on the other. But even Cromwell had a concept of a 'godly commonwealth', the so-called Republic of Saints, which simply could not match with prosaic realities.

The third thing to consider is that while Cromwell made repeated attempts at a Parliamentary solution to the constitutional impasse, his power ultimately was derived from his military role and his standing in the New Model Army. He always had to be mindful of this, which inevitably limited his freedom of action. There were, in other words, some things that even the Lord-General could not do.

The growing rift between Cromwell and the Long Parliament, of which he was a member, actually comes before the execution of Charles I in January, 1649. During the course of 1648 Parliament, dominated by the Presbyterians, was fumbling towards a settlement with the king, a process that continued even after the bad faith he had shown in initiating the Second Civil War. In a mood of anger, fearing that the army had won a war only to lose a peace, Cromwell and the other generals initiated Pride's Purge in December 1648, effectively a kind of military coup, which removed all those MPs in favour of continuing negotiations with the king. The remainder, known to history as the Rump Parliament, proceeded to his trial and execution. Although all authority, in nominal terms, continued to be invested in Parliament, in the event of a dispute over matters of fundamental importance Pride's Purge had shown where the real power lay.

After the excution of Charles the ancient trinity of Crown, Lords and Commons was invested in the Commons alone, which in the form of the Rump comprised no more than seventy members. Cromwell hoped that it would embrace the work of godly reform; instead it turned by degrees into a self-serving oligarchy. Bolstered by further victories in Ireland and Scotland, Cromwell was more convinced than ever that he enjoyed the 'mandate of heaven'. As the Rump, in contrast, had proved itself to be, in his words, 'no longer a Parliament for God's people', he sent it packing in April 1653. His only mandate for this action was, once again, the power of the army.

It was at this point that Cromwell could very well have turned himself into an outright military dictator. He did not. Instead he adopted a scheme suggested by Major General Thomas Harrison for Parliament consisting exclusively of the 'godly', modeled on the ancient Jewish Sanhedrin. This was to be the Parliament of Saints, better known in English history as the Nominated or the Barebones Parliament, so named after one of its members, Praise-God Barebones (Yes, that really was his name!) But, swept by divisions, it lasted a bare six months, before handing all of its powers back to Cromwell, who now, of political necessity, took on full executive authority in his own person as Lord Protector.

Still the constitutional experiments continued in the First and the Second Protectorate Parliament. But nothing sufficied. The First Parliament was more interested in the question of constitutional power than godly reform. As a way out of the deadlock, and as a way of limiting the Lord Protector's powers, it offered Cromwell the crown, the one sure means of re-establishing the ancient constitutional balance. In the manner of Caesar he hesitated, and in the manner of Caesar he declined, because it was a simply a step too far for the New Model Army. He emerged from this more powerful that ever, with a Parliamentary solution as far off as ever.

The second and last Parliament of the Protectorate was to be just as disappointing as the first. Although chosen on a very narrow basis-excluding Royalists and Catholics-it was no more malleable than the first. It was dissolved in February 1658. No other was to be summoned in Cromwell's lifetime. The Lord Protector and the Saints simply could not fashion an assembly in their own impossible image. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice synopsis, Clio! What do you think of this idea of mine: that basically the turning point of the Revolution was not so much the Pride's Purge, which took place in December 1648, but rather when the Diggers were evicted from their communal farms, which took place in April of 1649. The reason I think this is because I believe the Diggers represented the real core of what the Revolution was all about - so far as the common soldier in the New Model Army was concerned. Although the Diggers at most only numbered a couple of hundred people, in my mind they seem to be the ones who were bold enough to try to put into practice the core values that had been expressed in the Putney Debates that the New Model Army had conducted in October of 1647. Every revolution has its "inner core" of revolutionaries who represent the real spark of what lights the hearts and minds of the people. Often these hardcore revolutionaries are much more fanatical than the majority of those who support the revolution, but it is they who fuel the fire, so to speak. This is how I view the Diggers: they seem to have been the real hardcore revolutionaries in the Civil Wars, and when their own army under Fairfax was sent to kick them out of the Commons wasteland that they were living on, I believe that was the real turning point of the whole thing because the "Revolution" had turned on itself at that point. Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Saukkomies 02:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Saukkomies. You see, the 'English Revolution' was, in the most fundameantal sense, a reaction rather than anything more far-reaching; a reaction against forms of royal absolutism that in themselves were felt to be upsetting an ancient balance between crown and nation. The most influential people, the people who made the revolution, were essentially conservatives, despite their puritanism or, perhaps, because of it. Men Like Cromwell, John Pym and John Hampden were always going to have a narrow, politically-based understanding of how far a revolution could be progressed. Freedom of conscience was certainly something that all could aim for; but they were never going to accept the social revolution in the form embraced by the Diggers and the Levellers, who were never more than a by-product of the greater cause. Even the agitators in the New Model Army had but a passing impact, as the ranks fell behind the greater need for military discipline in the face of a common danger, rather than holding to nebulous concepts of representative democracy. Political innovators the puritans may have been; social revolutionaries they were not. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Clio. I appreciate the commentary from someone who has some deep knowledge of the subject. It seems to me that there were two major influences in the Civil Wars - that of the likes of Pym and Hampden, and that of the Levellers, Ranters and Diggers. The former seem to have been primarily from the emerging Middle Class, and the latter from the displaced and landless poor. So perhaps my mistake in analyzing this is to try to make a broad statement that a particular event marked the turning point of the revolution, when there were more than just one movements going on within the New Model Army, Parliament and the general population of England in the 1640s. I do think that it would be a mistake to completely discount the influence of the more radical elements of the Civil Wars such as the Diggers. Though their numbers were small, they had a very strong influence that rippled across Europe for many years after. Indeed, there still are people today who look to the Diggers for inspiration. However, I do agree that most of the Members of Parliament were indeed NOT social revolutionaries. Saukkomies 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanafuda cards

Why don't hanafuda cards have indices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.202.44 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Assuming you are asking why there are no numbers or other values indicated on the cards) The Hanafuda article's history section mentions the "cat and mouse" game between the Tokugawa shogunate and its illegally gambling subjects. New cards with different artful designs were constantly created, and numbers or letters might have made it easier for the authorities to recognize them as playing cards. The article also implies that they don't have numbers because they don't need them: "the main purpose is to associate images". ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Western playing cards don't need numbers either (just count the spots), but they have them anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.64.40 (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hindus wearing Karakul caps

Why some Hindus all of sudden started wearing the karakul caps like Natwar K. Singh?

Well, the The Indian National Interests article "Whose cap is it anyway?", blames it on "extemely (sic) cold weather in Kabul and northern Pakistan", though "an eagle-eyed Reuters correspondent" saw Natwar Singh's Karakul (hat) as a symbolic gesture, according to the same article. The link to the Reuters article is dead, unfortunately. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this right?

According to the official website of Toronto, it showed that O'Connor-Parkview had the most population of Afghani-Canadians in Toronto, according to Census 2001 of Canada. Is this true or there must be mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.251 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be Bridle Path-Sunnybrook-York Mills which has the highest concentration of Afghans? Xn4 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any reason why the O'Connor and Parkview area could not have a high concentration of Afghani immigrants. It is a working class neighbourhood, with a mix of rental and not-too-outrageously priced owner-occupier residences. Why would you think the Census has made a mistake? Bielle (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)