Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Please help us write the Reference Desk guidelines

We are currently drafting a proposal at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.
Please discuss those issues on its associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.

April 20

The Great Game

I have a question regarding the name, but I wasn't sure whether to ask it here or the language desk. Is the name referring to "Game" as in the play thing, or Game as in hunting for game? I often see the political cartoons of the time using hunted animals to represent countries, so that is where my question arises. China = dragon, America = eagle, Britannia = lion, Russia = Bear, etc. --Kirby♥time 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the word does not refer to game in the sense of a hunted animal. Rather, in this term, the word "game" means a strategic contest (not quite a "plaything"), as in a chess game, but with much greater stakes. Marco polo 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Marco is absolutely correct; the Great Game refers to the strategic contest played out in the nineteenth century between Britain and Tsarist Russia for political control of Central Asia, particularly Afghanistan and the north-west frontier of India. The term was supposedly coined by Arthur Conolly, a captain in the Bengal Lancers and an employee of the East India Company. It was later popularised by Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British Imperialism, in his novel Kim. The expression itself is uniquely English (is there a Russian equivalent?), and should really be viewed in terms of the national habit of trivialising quite serious affairs by the use of sporting analogies. Such delights as It's not cricket, old boy, and And England's far and Honour a name, But the voice of the schoolboy rallies the ranks; 'Play up!, play up! and play the game!' come to mind; but the most famous of all is the Duke of Wellington's alleged observation that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. But we'll row forever! Clio the Muse 07:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Russian page is at ru:Большая Игра, which Google translate renders as "The Great Game". Don't know how much weight to give that, though. jnestorius^(talk) 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(Fixed the interwiki link above to be an inline one!). 'Большая Игра' does indeed translate as 'Great Game', and it seems to describe the same thing as The Great Game - and doesn't say anything about the term not being a Russian one. --ColinFine 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of animals commonly associated with nations?

Continuing from my previous question, is there a list of the animal metaphors for countries?--Kirby♥time 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The List of national animals may fit the bill. - Eron ^Talk 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen China represented as a Panda in a political cartoon.--Kirby♥time 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. China is usually represented as a dragon. Marco polo 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I recall an old cartoon wherein a panda represented China... it's been probably 20 years though so I don't recall where it was that I saw it. Dismas|^(talk) 09:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The dragon appears in our list of national emblems. Characters such as Uncle Sam and John Bull appear in our list of national personifications. Marco polo 01:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I said may fit the bill... look, I'm perfectly fine with the Canadian beaver, alright? - Eron ^Talk 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, more than you'd think are perfectly fine with Canadian beaver beaver! ~ hydnjo talk  08:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: lions, elephants, or gazelle from Kenya, moose or wolves from Canada, badgers from the UK, eagles from the US, cobras or tigers from India, foxes or raccoon dogs from Japan, pandas from China, mongoose from Bangledesh, crocs from Australia, kiwis from New Zealand, penguins from Antarctica, polar bears from the Arctic, pirhana or anacondas from Brazil, yak from Mongolia... Vranak

In the political cartoons of the nineteenth century-many appearing in Punch, the satirical magazine-Great Britain is variously depicted as a Lion or as the figure of Britannia or John Bull. Russia is usually in the form of a Bear, though occasionally a Cossack. France is sometimes depicted in the form of a cockerel, but more often in the shape of Marianne, the personification of revolution. Clio the Muse 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior to that, in Punch, and, of course, since then everywhere, the King would often be the nation. George Cruikshank and Isaac Cruikshank had some remarkable drawings where the King (Geo III) was drawn in the same outline as the UK on the map. This form of political metonymy is commonplace, of course (Bush looking like Alfred E. Newman standing in for the entire nation is a fixture of political cartoons). Utgard Loki 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Partisan politics in Canada

New at this, not sure how it works.

Question: What is "partisan politics" - specific to Canada

Please email response to [email removed]

Thanks,

I have removed the email, and started a new section for this question.--Kirby♥time 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at... partisan politics in Canada is (depressingly) similar to partisan politics the world over. If you are looking for a quick overview, there are four major parties: the Conservatives (right of centre), the Liberals (centrist, leaning left and right as the electorate dictates), the New Democratic Party (left of centre), and the Bloc Québécois (French-canadian nationalists, and mostly left of centre). The right-left axis is similar to most Western democracies, although the "centre" is more akin to what you would find in a European country than in the US - that is to say, even the right-wing Conservatives espouse some positions that would make all but the bluest American Democrat quite uneasy. The most unique feature is probably the issue of Quebecois nationalism, which cuts across the political spectrum - although the federal Bloc and provincial Parti Québécois do skew left. - Eron ^Talk 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing like the level of contempt and recrimination in Canada that there is in the US, so you could argue that 'partisan politics' is less prominent, even non-existant in the northern state. Vranak

"Even non-existent"? I think that would be a tough argument to make. The fact that the partisan environment is not as poisoned as in the U.S. does not mean it isn't there. Books could be written (and have been) on the changes in Canadian conservatism - through the rise of the Reform Party of Canada, its evolution into the Canadian Alliance, and it's marginalization and absorption of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada - over the last fifteen years alone. - Eron ^Talk 10:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A tough argument to make -- back in 1993. I believe we are what... 14 years past that now? As for changing names and associations in Canadian politics, what could be more trite and inconsequential?Vranak

I think there are a few Red Tories who might disagree with you on the "trite and inconsequential" nature of changing names and associations. It can be disorienting to have one's party scoot to the right from under one's feet. I could also raise more current topics, such as recent flirtations between the Stéphane Dion and Elizabeth May of the Green Party of Canada, or discuss the rise of the Action démocratique du Québec and its implications for both the provincial and federal Liberal parties... but apparently it's all irrelevant. - Eron ^Talk 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I know a few Red Tories who are trite and inconsequential themselves. Come to think of it, I can't think of many politicians in 1st world countries that aren't trite and inconsequential.Vranak

On a constitutional level, I believe we are speaking of part of the Westminster System, which Britain spread to a range of countries, including Canada and Australia, for example. The advarsarial style is what these have in common. Regardless of party composition, the idea of govt v opposition doesn't really exist in the EU parliament, or US Congress, for example.martianlostinspace 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What is CopyFree?

Does anyone know what "CopyFree" means? I think it might mean without copyright, or perhaps it is a copyleft license. The reason I ask is to upload this image, or probably this cropped version to our Harvest Moon article. The image says "CopyFree", (Fins Eirexas is the photographer according to the Science@NASA site). Ideally, I would love to upload the image found here, but it is copyrighted. Who wants to ask the photographer himself to release that one under the GFDL? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

India, a Republic since 1947

I am a regular user of your website and find the material very informative and concise. I was reading the article on Royal House . Found that my country of origin India, is listed as part of the British Commonwealth and shows the Union Jack. I wish to raise an objection to this. India has been an Independent republic since 1947, and has its own National flag. i am not computer savvy enough to be able to make the changes, please comply. thanks

The India page looks good to me. I don't see much about India on the Royal House page. Could you be more specific about where you found this? Pfly 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The page in question is most likely: List of Royal Houses, with House of Windsor listed as pretender.—eric 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the aforesaid list. Quite frankly, I do not understand this either, and therefore sympathise with the questioner's confusion and annoyance. As it stands it looks as if the House of Windsor has a claim to the throne of India-and other Commonwealth republics-which is manifestly untrue. The last Emperor of India was George VI, and the House of Windsor neither rules nor pretends to rule India. For consistency one would also have to include the United States in the 'non-regnant' list! I realise that this page is probably for historical purposes only; but it is still misleading. Clio the Muse 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely confusing. I think the United States predates the House of Windsor, so that may be off the hook.. but some obvious cases are missing, like Australia and New Zealand. If nothing else, the page could be a little more clear on just what it means to be a "pretender". I'm guessing it means something like "this royal house used to be the monarch of this place, but isn't now, but were the issue ever to come up again, we'd have a claim!" But that's just a guess... and an uneducated one at that. Thanks to the poster for pointing out this issue! Pfly 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Pfly, but Windsor was only a change of name, not change of dynasty, and our own dear Queen is a direct decendant of George III, with all of his titles, privileges and claims. If she is the 'pretender' to India she has every right to make a similar claim to the Colonies! Who knows-perhaps the real pretender is your own George IV? Clio the Muse 07:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I think that the correct styling is George II. His father (George I was the founder of that dynasty and would surely not submit to being part of the British succession. I think that you are right that George II is a pretender to the British throne, rather than the other way around. He has Tony Blair serving as his loyal prime minister. Marco polo 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Ha! Yes, you are quite right, Marco, and I am happy to give way to your superior wisdom! Since George III was the last official 'King of America', I was thinking of Dubya as the fourth in the line; but if we include Le Père Bush, then I suppose our collective monarch is more properly entitled George V. Clio the Muse 13:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, India is independant, but isn't it still part of the Commonwealth? How else can they be in the commonwealth games (or am I imagining they participated?)

"A Pretender is a claimant to an abolished throne or to a throne already occupied by somebody else." Britain at some point in the past ruled India so they are claimant to the throne. The list doesn't appear to contradict the fact they're a republic now per this definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• The top of the list states it lists royal houses that are ruling and have ruled in the past. The "non-regnant" note in the table means the Windsor's no longer rule India. I think you misunderstood what it said. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to be a member of the Commonwealth and to be a republic at the same time (that is, not to accept the current monarch of England as head of state). India is such a republic. According to the accepted definition, "a pretender is a claimant". As Clio has pointed out, the monarchs of England are not claimants to the throne of India (which in any case no longer exists), so they are not pretenders. It is wrong to label them as such. Marco polo 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on the article's discussion (talk) page calling for it to be reorganized. (Really, that would have been a better place to raise the issue in the first place.) --Anonymous, April 20, 2007, 22:13 (UTC).

Yes, indeed. The Commonwealth of Nations contains 53 member states. The Queen is regarded as Head of the Commonwwealth by all 53 states, but she is the Head of State (= monarch) to only 16 of them. JackofOz 00:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of online news agencies

Where can I find a list of online news agencies that offer reader feedback or reader comment page following every published story and of these which are interactive like the discussion or "talk" pages on the Wikipedia? Nebraska Bob 03:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

explorations

i have a question?i began my famous expedition on the eighteenth.who am i?my journey was from where to where.

Listen, my children, and you shall hear

Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,

On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five;

Hardly a man is now alive

Who remembers that famous day and year

On the midnight ride of Paul Revere

Or, choose your own. hydnjo talk  08:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Boston to Lexington and Concord Mass.-Czmtzc 19:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

John Mill

Hello, but stuck on something im trying to research, How does John Mill argue that Liberty maximises utility? Does he mean that by allowing indiiduals freedom to amke their own choices they will on the whole pick 'good choices'?? What about people who choose sadism for example?? Or is he arguing that people simply wont pick this? Oh and is this a refution of the idea that utilitarianism leads to bad consequences??

Sorry, a lot of questions really!

Have a look at my talk page, the section headed Utilitarianism-item number 50-,which deals, in part, with the very problem you have touched on here. You should also consult the Wikipedia pages on Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Clio the Muse 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how do i access the talkpage??

Follow this link ... which gives me an excuse to quote the one and only Philosophers Song : John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill ... Gandalf61 13:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And David Hume could out-consume William Friedrich Hegel! Clio the Muse 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm still dont really understand. Why is it that liberty will increase overall utility??

I'm not surprised by your bafflement, but you will find the answers you are looking for on the pages and links indicated. Alternatively, you should consider looking into On Liberty and Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill. However, here is the argument at the most basic level. According to Mill, each person acts to maximise his or her own happiness. The sum of these individual acts then constitutes to the 'general happiness', the one goal that is desired by each of the participants. In response to this, James Martineau, another nineteenth century English philosopher, wrote that "As well might you argue that because of a hundred men each one's hunger is satisfied by his dinner, the hunger of all must be satisfied by the dinner of each." Happiness and satisfaction, in other words, cannot be deduced from the general to the particular. Even in a condition of perfect liberty, it is impossible to achieve a uniform standard of happiness. Mill tries to distinguish between the 'quality' and the 'quantity' of pleasures. The problem then is the assumption that virtue is desired for its own sake, as an end in itself. But there is simply no basis in the Utilitarian system for making such arbitrary value judgements. The world is not made up of university dons in a common room, or priests in a seminary, but of all sorts of people, with all sorts of ends. There is no basis in logic for putting to one side all of the evil, perverse, malicious and egotistical ends that may be variously desired by individuals, and a utilitarian system of values could quite conceivably justify slavery as serving the good of the many at the expense of the few. As I have said, human rights and personal responsibilities cannot be reduced to a utilitarian calculus, which stands, at the most basic level, in opposition to all of our fundamental notions of justice. Clio the Muse 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No article exists on the Ottoman-Safavid Wars

I would like to request an article on the Ottoman-Safavid Wars. I hope I'm in the right place.Whistleblower1881 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You can place a request at the Requested Articles page. --LarryMac 14:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help LarryMac. Whistleblower1881 15:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There's Treaty of Zuhab and a very small stub Persian-Ottoman relations. AnonMoos 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whistleblower, do you have some knowledge or expertise in this area? If so, you might care to write an article yourself on this important subject. I would be more than happy to give you my opinion of such a piece in draft, if you wish. Clio the Muse 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Further existing articulettes and sections: Battle of Chaldiran, Ottoman wars in Near East and, as a possible point for forking off the newly created article, Safavid#War_with_the_Ottoman_Empire. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of portals. Maybe Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire can be helped and helpful as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to help draft this article as I'm keenly interested in the subject. I doubt such a specific topic qualifies for a project, so I'm not sure how I should go about finding people to help me in creating it--I haven't the time nor the experience to finish such article on my own. Any suggections?

Though the topic may seem very specific it is by no means isolated or irrelevant. Infact, the current events in Iraq and Lebanon, specifically those related to the Sunni-Shia tension are what sparked my interest in these wars. Whistleblower1881 05:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does qualify! I will help. Never mind about expertise. Just put down what you have, and we will take it from there. Clio the Muse 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter how specific the topic is, it is by no means isolated or irrelevant. One only has to consider the single example of the Battle of Chaldiran. But for the Turkish victory the Kurds might very well have remained within a single defined national territory. In the aftermath of their defeat, moreover, the Safavids embraced Shia Islam as the religion of the Empire Clio the Muse 05:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Attorney Client Privilege

Under what conditions, if any, may the IDENTITY of the client be held privelaged? I.e. if a client would like an attorney to represent him/her on a transaction, but remain annonymous through that transaction, to what extent can that annonymity be legally upheld?

Check out Attorney-client privilege#Exceptions to Attorney-Client Privilege or Solicitor-client privilege#Exceptions. Clarityfiend 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the context, the nature of the transaction, and the jurisdiction(s) involved. For example, some jurisdictions in the USA: "A lawyer shall not reveal (client) information ... unless the client gives informed consent ..." Rule 1.6 MRPC. There is also case law supporting Rule 1.6 as protecting client anonymity. As always, there are exceptions, and there may be other rules or laws governing confidentiality in any given case (see e.g., Whistleblower). Also, a client is always well advised to ask such matters be specifically enumerated in the written agreement of representation.

(In addition to the refs from Clarityfiend, see also: Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer, Category:Legal_ethics, Bar association, ABA, MCPR and MRPC). dr.ef.tymac 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that's right. We're not lawyers and are not qualified to give legal advice. (Those who are wouldn't be dumb enough to do so.) Clarityfiend 20:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Brave New World

What are the different types of humans in Brave New World? Nick 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)nicholassayshi

Nick, this is your second bite at a Brave New World question in a very short space of time. Did you not read the page that was linked for you, because all of the relevant information is there? Anyway, there are five classes, identified, from top to bottom, by letters of the Greek alphabet: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon. Epsilon, the lowest of them all, is subdivided into plus, minus and moron. Do read the page; better still, read the novel. Clio the Muse 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick! This book is a touchstone of English literature. If you don't read it, you're going to spend the next 70 years of your life faking it at parties whenever people reference it. Your classmates who have interesting lives of non-drudgery ahead are all reading it. Just ask your mom to get you some Ritalin and buckle down and *do it*. Trust me, it will be worth it. --TotoBaggins 00:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I daresay that one could live quite happily without reading Brave New World. Nineteen Eighty-Four, on the other hand... Vranak

Vranak, I couldn't agree more.Whistleblower1881 09:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four are not really comparable as novels, beyond the bare fact that they are both dystopian. Orwell and Huxley had quite different points of departure. For Orwell, the imagined future was built on a totalitarian present, with the examples of Fascism and, above all, Stalinism before his mind. It was a brutal vision, based on the manipulation of memory, constant warfare and the deliberate creation of shortages. Huxley, in contrast, was less interested in the deleterious effects of contemporary ideologies, and much more in the soulless nature of mass consumerism, based on the creation and control of artificial desires. It is a vision of a future based on contrived happiness, without depth or real moral purpose, a one-dimensional future of the kind later explored in the theoretical work of Herbert Marcuse. Of the two visions, Huxley's is far closer to our truth, the 'future' at this particular point in history. To judge them purely as works of literature I would say, in expressing a personal opinion, they are both of considerable value; but as a craftsman Huxley had a far better command of literary technique, a greater understanding of character and language than Orwell. Nineteen Eighty-Four at some points breaks down as a novel, especially in the long and undigested extracts from Emmanuel Goldstein's 'Book.' There is another dystopian novel which is often overlooked, though in some ways it is better than either Huxley or Orwell-We by the Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin, which combines elements of Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Clio the Muse 10:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

They are the two most well-known and acclaimed dystopian novels: I would hardly dismiss that as a 'bare fact'. Vranak

Fun all around. Since you're an History graduate who has, apparently, a strong command of the English language, would you consider helping out with the Ottoman-Safavid thing? Whistleblower1881 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I would. Did you not see what I wrote above? Put something together and I will gladly have a look at it. Clio the Muse 10:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. I will let you know as soon as I complete the skeleton.Whistleblower1881 11:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are my words "boxed"?Whistleblower1881 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you are moving away from the margin! To do this without 'boxing' use a colon thus : depending how deep you want to go. Good luck! Clio the Muse 11:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Whistleblower1881 11:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so: but much depends on your definition of fun! Clio the Muse 10:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As in learning-something-new fun. Whistleblower1881 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other similar names for "Yeshua of Nazareth"

I understand these are possible spellings for name of Jesus of Nazareth.

• German: Jesus
• Middle English: Jhesus or Jhesu
• Modern English: Jesus Christ
• Latin: Iesus or Eesho or Iesu
• Hebrew: Yeshua or Yehoshua
• Arabic: Yeshua or Yasu
• Greek: Iesou or Iēsous or Iēsoun

Is there other spellings for Jesus that have the letters "esous" or "ous" or "ou" in them? --Doug ^talk 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but "Eesho" is not Latin, and in Arabic his name is `Isa. A possible transliteration of the Wyandot language spells his name as "Jesous" (as in the Huron Carol). Adam Bishop 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In Arabic his name is both. In Islam, his name is `Isa. For Arab Christians, his name is Yasu.--Kirby♥time 01:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew above looks questionable, and I suggest you check your sources for those putative forms. (In particular: "Yehoshua" is a transliteration of the Hebrew name יהושע that's come into English as "Joshua".) [added: corresponds to historical but not modern language; see reply by AnonMoos, below, and pages on Yeshua and Yeshu.] In two leading Hebrew-to-English dictionaries (R. Alcalay's Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary and Kernerman/Kahn's Oxford English-Hebrew, Hebrew-English Dictionary), the name is given as ישו (transliterated 'Yeshu') and parenthetically, 'הנוצרי' (ha-notzri; lit. "the Nazarene"). -- Deborahjay 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC); amended to reflect info in subsequent edits, 23:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually ישו is a derogatory variant, while ישוע is the same name which appears in the Hebrew Bible at Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15 -- and also in Aramaic at Ezra 5:2. AnonMoos 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In stating that ישוע (Yeshua) "is the same name" – would that be, and are all those biblical citations, in reference to "Jesus of Nazareth"? Or just a name? -- Deborahjay 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע as found in those Old Testament passages is the same name as Greek Iêsous (Ιησους) found in the New Testament. This name ישוע [yēšū`] is a post-500-B.C. shortened version of earlier Hebrew יהושע [yehōšū`] -- so in Nehemiah 8:17 in the Old Testament, Joshua son of Nun is referred to as ישוע [yēšū`] , and in the ancient Greek of Josephus and the New Testament Joshua son of Nun appears as Ιησους (Iêsous); see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. AnonMoos

What's meant by [the name] ישו (Yeshu) being "a derogatory variant"? Perhaps the intention is "corrupted," i.e. from some earlier source. Or is it that there's some confusion with an abbreviation formed by those letters, of the phrase "שמו וזכרו" (yemach sh'mo ve-zichro), "[may] his name and [the] memory of him be obliterated" (per A. Even-Shoshan's New Dictionary). All the dictionaries I've cited, above and here, are of Modern Hebrew. -- Deborahjay 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ישו is an intentionally and deliberately altered form of ישוע . It was the most common form used by Jews writing in an Aramaic or Hebrew context from Talmudic times to the 19th century when referring to Jesus of Nazareth, but Christians knowledgeable in Hebrew can consider it to be offensive, and you won't find it in religious literature translated into Hebrew by Christians. AnonMoos 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I now see that both Yeshua and Yeshu have extensive pages of their own, and am providing them here for other interested readers seeking further explanations of these variant names. -- Deborahjay 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I could very well be wrong on my spellings of Jesus and what language they associate with. Thanks for any corrections! Mostly just looking for other spellings that have "esous" or "ous" or "ou" in them. Thanks again to all of you for this help and corrections. --Doug ^talk 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"ou" was the ancient Hellenistic Greek spelling of an ordinary long [ū] vowel, and so was used in ancient Hellenistic Greek to transcribe the long [ū] vowel of the Hebrew/Aramaic name ישוע [yēšū`] (ending in a voiced pharyngeal conosnant - this name wasn't pronounced [yēšūă`] in Aramaic/Hebrew until a later period). AnonMoos 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Middle English of this spelling, if I am not mistaken wouldn't it be more likely spelled Ihesu since the letter "J" was not yet used (or in wide use). This then to me looks a lot like Hebrew/Aramaic name ישוע [yēšū`], since the letter "i" and "y" seem to be interchangable (many times). This then would be "Ihesu" (or "Iesu") being very similar to "yesu". Would that be a good assumption and conclusion? Perhaps this is where John Wycliffe got his spelling of "Jesus" for his New Testament translation? Taking this further and placing the letters "ou" back in on Wycliffe's interpretation it could be then Iesou or Greek Iesous(as in above), being the same thing as today's "Jesus". Is this a correct conclusion? In Greek could the letters "ies" or "ie" or "es" be equivalent to (or be similar to) the letter "n" (something like just the letter "u" could replace the letters "ou")? --Doug ^talk 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that 'J' wasn't used, it was the same letter as 'I', rather in the same way that a printed 'a' and a script 'a' have very different shapes, but we read them as the same letter without even noticing. In any mediaeval language in Europe 'Ihesu' and 'Jhesu' were the same spelling. But don't assume that the 'h' was necessarily pronounced in that word in English - it might have been, but it might equally have been a spelling variant of 'Iesu'. I would think that the spelling 'Iesus' was adopted directly from the Greek, but I don't know for shure.

I don't understand your last question. The letter 'u' could replace Greek 'ου' because it represented the same sound. The Greek letter 'υ' had already become fronted (like modern French 'u') even in hellenistic times. But no Greek sequence with a 'σ' (i.e. 's') is going to sound like 'n'. --ColinFine 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for these great answers and corrections. Excellent info. --Doug ^talk 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The H might come from the medieval Latin scribal abbreviation "IHS", which was actually borrowed from Greek (where the H is of course an eta). Adam Bishop 07:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

US House of Representatives - 2006 results - Incumbents vs 'New' Candidates?

Hello

I'm going nuts trying to locate specific results for the 2006 US House election -I am looking for the incumbent win/loss ratio. I know that records may have been set by the last election - I can find WHO won, what party, etc., however, I can't find out how many 'new' candidates won opposed to the incumbents. Hope I'm clear on what I'm looking for - I already looked on the Wikipedia US House 2006 election page and while there is a great deal of information I don't see what I'm searching for there .. unless I missed it.

thank you, Aim4Stars 21:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list of incumbents who lost or didn't run for re-election: [1]. You can subtract the total number of House members on the page by 435 to find the number of incumbents who ran again and won. -- Mwalcoff 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

April 21

Original (or oldest Latin copy) of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus

Who now physically has the original Latin version of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus written by Jerome himself? --Doug ^talk 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No autograph exists. --Wetman 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Who then would have the oldest know Latin copy? When was this copy made and by whom (if known)? --Doug ^talk 11:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am asking this question is because if there is no actual original autograph for a reference, then how would one know that it actually came frm the 5th Century. Maybe it came from the fourteenth centurty or fifteenth century or some century several hundred years later than the 4th - 5th Century when Jerome is said to lived.--Doug ^talk 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The style of the Latin might be a clue. Presumably other authors referred to it in the intervening centuries as well. And how could Sophronius translate it into Greek, and Gennadius write a continuation, if it did not exist in the 5th century? There must be a critical scholarly edition somewhere, which will discuss the manuscript tradition. Adam Bishop 06:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian Dosas and French crepes

I'm having an argument with a friend of mine. Which came first, the Indian Dosa or the French Crepe? I want to say Dosa because it's a staple South Indian food and because European cultures have been known for filching ideas from Asia, but maybe that's just my prejiduce speaking (I'm Indian).. Royrules22 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's far, far, far more likely that both are original to their home areas. Some forms of food are universal, and flatbreads are one of them. You'll find flatbreads in almost every part of the ancient world, from Rome to Ethiopia to pre-Columbian Mexico to Lebanon to Siberia to Alaska. To assume that all these breads had to come from one origin ignores not just human ingenuity but the fact that given some flour or crushed grain as an ingredient, one of the easiest and most (dare I say it) obvious things to make would be some kind of flat bread. Also, it's thought that the current French version of crepes comes from rural Brittany, and is dated to centuries before Marco Polo. --Charlene 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Flatbread Trail might interest you. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What does "Rememver the Alamo" mean?68.188.29.176 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It means Remember the Alamo! Part of the Texas Revolution, the sacrifice of William Travis, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and the other defenders of the Alamo Mission against the Mexican forces of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna in March 1836, was to be used the following month as a warcry in spurring on the Texan forces of General Sam Houston to victory at the Battle of San Jacinto. It has been used as a warcry ever since. Clio the Muse 04:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see someone's been watching "Jaywalking". --Anon, April 21, 05:28 (UTC).

Excuse me? I genuinely do not understand this reference! Clio the Muse 05:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably Jay Leno recently asked this question on the streets of Burbank (or wherever he happened to be visiting) and received outrageous answers. Maybe Anon and 68.188.29.176 were watching the same program a few hours ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As a culturally deprived Englishwoman I have to plead total ignorance of Jay Leno and all his works! Clio the Muse 05:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ozzy Osbourn wee-ed on it.hotclaws**== 14:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ha!Whistleblower1881 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ha??? Clios ignorance about Jay Leno is understandable. The ignorance of US citizens about the Alamo is a shame (which Jaywalking showed again). Flamarande 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That fact that this surprises you is a shame too.Whistleblower1881 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The ignorance showed in Jaywalking is indeed surprising. I really pray that they show only the truly ignorant, and don't show the 'plenty of ppl' (?) who do know the correct answers. I am always surprised by the extent of American ignorance. Flamarande 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course they only show stupid people on that segment (Street Smarts is another show that does the same). To see intelligent Americans, watch a few episodes of Jeopardy!. StuRat 15:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the selection criteria for appearing on Jeopardy! are unquestionably more rigorous than those applied in the other examples [namely, little more than: 1) a pulse; and 2) the abitlity to speak semi-coherent English into a camera on the public streets.] Make of that what you will. dr.ef.tymac 15:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Alas, another illusion shattered! From this side of the pond one tends to form the impression that certain events and people, like the Alamo and Davy Crockett, have such an iconic status in the American mind that they achieve almost total cultural penetration. Clearly, this is not the case. I now expect to discover that many people in the States have never heard of Robert E. Lee, the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Billy the Kid and the Gunfight at the OK Corral! How will I ever cope? Clio the Muse 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt if the average British soccer hooligan knows much about the Battle of Trafalgar, either. StuRat 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that in both cases the people we're talking about will have heard of these people and things, but wouldn't be able to say much about them. But this, too, is just a personal impression. --Anonymous, April 22, 2022, 20:22 (UTC). Er, make that 2007.

That's football hooligan thanks StuRat! I also don't know if the average hooligan is that ignorant, compared to the general population, especially as they often take an interest in matters of national pride. I'll have to ask one.

Virtue theory

I am looking for some good articles which explain how the Virtue theory of moral reasoning explains why we shouldnt kill innocent people, like civilains in war. Does anyone know of any good articles, or could explain this approach for me?

Thank you

You should start with Ethics, proceeding to Virtue ethics, then moving on to a List of ethics topics, with enough page links to keep you going for quite a while! It would be surprising if you did not find a few clues and leads to your specific area of interest. Come back here if you don't. Clio the Muse 09:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For a readable scientific approach, I recommend the book The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

War is inherently immoral, I believe. However, if I was to take a skeptical stance, I'd explore the words "innocent civilians" from an epistemological aspect. You might also want to read The Old Testament for Collective Responsibilty. Perhaps even Section I, Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention might be of use; if that does not dissuade you from what you're about to commit, then god help us.Whistleblower1881 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"War is inherently imoral" is another bit of political correctness. Several wars are morally defendable (war against enemy invasion, etc). The moral validity of the Old Testament which defends the lapidation of sinners, besides other morally questionable actions (an eye for an eye...), is puzzeling these days. In fact a certain Jew re-appealed most of the these teachings. The original questioner did not announce that he was going to kill innocents, only that he was looking for good articles. If the search for knowledge is something which your god should protects us against, then you should better organize some good old-fashioned bookburning. Flamarande 12:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I like kittens. ^_^ Whistleblower1881 12:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some reasons for opposing the killing of civilians in war apply even to people with no morality:

1) If you kill enemy civilians when you capture enemy territory, this results in them arming themselves and "fighting to the death" rather than surrender and be killed.

2) If you kill enemy civilians, they will likely target yours, which can bring down your government, if your civilian population is sufficiently angered at you for starting this cycle.

3) Other nations may withdraw support for your side or support your enemies, if you target civilians.

4) After the war, you may be tried for war crimes. StuRat 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

5) Killing of civilians and unarmed non-combatants can tend to "humanize" the enemy and generate sympathy among those who might otherwise support an ongoing military operation. Such support may be important for governments that are not openly despotic and depend on a certain degree of communitarian assent to legitemize its actions. dr.ef.tymac 15:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What is 'virtue theory' exactly?

Also: "Virtue itself is offensive" - Nietzsche. Vranak

Nice quote their Vranak! Here are some more reasons:

6) You risk alienating members of your own military who may have relatives among the civilian population.

7) If you kill civilians when you are the invader, it will make rebuilding the country after the war that much more difficult.

8) It may raise the number of veterans who suffer from Post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental disorders after their discharge.

I understand the Nazis suffered from this in the early stages of the "final solution", when they were just shooting people up close. That's one of the reasons they went to the "impersonal" gas chambers and such. StuRat 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

9) If the leaders of the war are religious (which I’m not), it may cause them to fear that they’ll go to hell or other similarly nasty fates depending on their faith.

10) If the invading country is run in a democratic way, killing civilians may cause the congress or parliament to cut off funding for the war out of disgust. S.dedalus 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

One more: people are a function of geography. If you wipe out a people and live on their land, you will become that people over time. Vranak

Sounds like you read the same story I did: the Russians nuked the US, the Americans used neutron bombs on Russia, then the surviving Americans moved to Russia, due to it's intact infrastructure, and ultimate became Russians. Anyone recall the name ? StuRat 01:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that why Americans eat so much corn/maize? (ever more off topic, sorry) Pfly 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct usage of titles JD and Esquire

After graduating from law school but before taking the bar is "JD" the only correct title or is "Esquire" acceptable? Can "Esquire" be used before passing the bar? Thank you for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurel26 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

"Esquire" is somewhat meaningless. It is used by convention for lawyers, but I do not believe very many books of protocol include it as a hard and fast necessity. The term actually means, essentially, "horsed knight." Well, few lawyers ride their horses, and fewer still are any use in a cavalry unit. Formerly, the term would be used by land-holding men in general, but it has never had a very precise reference. Geogre 20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S.,at least, many women receive the J.D., but by traditional standards could not be a squire to a knight, hence would not qualify for "esquire." Edison 04:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Name that American war? (1891)

Presented
to
Mrs. Thomas Daly
by
H. Troop 1st US Calvary
Feb. 6. 1891

Hi all, trying to research this solider in my family tree, but can't figure out what war he would have fought in. We know that Thomas Daly was born in Canada, moved to the Arizona Territory.

Whatever war he was in, his regiment of the H Troop 1st US Calvary apparently had many ex-Canadians in it. As far as we know he died as a result of the war, and his wife was presented with a four-layer plate.

Her name was Margaret McCray/McRay in some of the later documents we have, but the spelling could have even been MacCrae, for all we know.

So my question, what war would this be? The list of wars that Wikipedia has claims there were no US-involved battles during that year. There's two H Troop soldiers with his name in another regiment in the Civil War, and 80 Thomas Dalys total in the war, but that's way before the presentation of the plate. -- Zanimum 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm seeing now that 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) has a history on Wikipedia.

“ In April, 1890, the Cheyennes assumed a threatening attitude and their agent called upon the commanding officer of Fort Custer for protection, who sent Major Carrol with Troops B, D and M to the Tongue River Agency where they established Camp Crook. In September a white boy was murdered by "Head Chief" and "Young Mule," and every attempt to arrest the murderers failed. On the 11th they sent word that they would attack the agency and on the 12th made their appearance on a hill commanding the agency buildings where they opened fire upon them. They were soon dislodged and killed.

The regiment took part in the operations against the hostile Sioux in the winter of 1890-91, but was not brought into actual contact with them.

In December, 1890, word having been received that a troop of cavalry was surrounded by hostile Indians at or near Cave Hills, Montana, Troop A made one of the most remarkable marches on record in going to its relief. It marched 186 miles, 95 of which were made in 25 hours, and 170 in 53½ hours. The report which caused such tremendous exertion proved to be without foundation.

”

Is there a list anywhere with casualties during this era? -- Zanimum 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The only fight i've found which the First Cavalry was involved in around this time was in late 1890, when two Cheyenne challenged an entire troop commanded by a Lieutenant John Pitcher at Lame Deer, Montana. Both Cheyenne, Heart Mule and Head Chief, were killed, and there is no mention of any army casualties.—eric 22:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your next step, if you haven't already done so, is to check for Daly's military records in the U.S. National Archives. If your information is correct, his wife almost certainly filed for a pension, and her application probably still exists. For a nominal fee (last time I checked), the National Archives will copy it for you. She will likely have stated the circumstances of her husband's death on the application. You have a reasonable amount of information to go on: name, widow's name, unit, approximate years of service (c. 1891), so my bet is you'll have no trouble. Information about ordering records from the National Archives can easily be found online.

If you don't do that, many larger libraries in the U.S. will have a genealogy section which would be of use, and have books like Index to Indian wars pension files, 1892-1926, transcribed by Virgil D. White, which cuts it close on years but might work. Good luck. —Kevin Myers 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Most larger Mormon churches have at least one genealogical library in their stake, and if that particular library doesn't have the White book in question, they can order it from another Mormon library. The Mormon genealogical libraries are open to all researchers, Mormon or not. Corvus cornix 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

utility

I'm a bit confused with something i have been reading about utilitarianism. I have read an arguement in a journal which suggests that Bentham does not distinguish between the intensity of pleasures felt individuals, he treats them all as the same. It gives the examples that he attributes the same pleasure which a pig derives enjoying slop, with the pleasure a philosopher get from contemplation of truth.

I was just wondering have I interpreted this arguement right, because I know Bentham developed the felicific calculus, which proposed to take into account intensity, duration etc

Can, and if so how can i reconcile these two??

Was the felicific calculus proposed after the original utilitarianism was propsed by Bentham?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.108.247 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I assume you have read the Felicific calculus and Jeremy Bentham? If the calculus cannot accurately measure degrees of human happiness, I fail to see how it can possibly be used in determining the levels of satisfaction in a pig! And I would thought that a philosopher is just as likely to feel more pain than pleasure in the contemplation of 'truth.' For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. (Ecclesiastes 1:18) Clio the Muse 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this isn't a matter of intensity. I believe you're getting confused between John Stuart Mill's concept of pleasure "quality". He's the one that said "Socrates dissatisfied is better than a pig satisfied". Also Clio; Ecc 1:18, you're taking it out of context. Jesus is talking about how "wisdom" is meaningless when it comes to salvation. (All the knowledge in the world means nothing if you don't have faith in Jesus).--Kirby♥time 00:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these observations, Kirby. Am I missing something here, because you have left me quite baffled? First of all, the quote from Ecclesiastes-in the King James version of the Bible-was meant to illustrate my point that the philosopher's contemplation of truth does not necessarily lead to pleasure; quite the contrary. The quote, moreover, is the entirety of Ecclesiastes, Chapter one, Verse eighteen, so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that I am 'taking it out of context'. But the part that puzzles me most is the reference to Jesus! Ecclesiastes is, of course, a book of aphorisms and maxims to be found in the Old Testament, by an author who only ever identifies himself as the 'son of David.' The chief emphasis is on the vanity and transience of earthly things, not on routes to salvation. Clio the Muse 01:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, major blunder. I got confused with Ephesians. I'll be off to sitting in the corner with a dunce cap now.--Kirby♥time 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Now I know I'm not going crazy! Come back: all is forgiven. Clio the Muse 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A second chance is more powerful than a first one. I am humbled.--Kirby♥time 01:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

... how could such a lovely example of reconciliation and unity have issued from the Mouth of Sauron? dr.ef.tymac 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All is possible in the mind of the Dark Queen! Clio the Muse 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alas, was there a cleaving¹ or a cleaving²? I dare say perhaps, the solo bird belies the insinuation.--Kirby♥time 02:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is Mill referring to when he means quaity? Surely if Bentham allows intensity, duration etc to be taken into account then this is quality. Would i be right in thinking the quality arguement runs a bit like this; Mill and Betham fail to differentiate between the pleasures and pains of animals for example and humans. Humans of course need more to make them happy than a pig??

What are the consequences of such an action?? Could I for example claim that individuals are not respected, and are being used purely as a means to achieve the greatest happiness? For if they were respected, and utilitarianism recognised there were different qualities of pleasure, they would be acknowledged in their own right??

I'm torn between admiring your determination to get to the bottom of a problem, to deepen and extend your understanding, on the one hand, and concerns at the speed with which you seem to be attacking this, which cannot allow you sufficient time to pause and think about the detailed information and guidance you have already been given, on the other. Please do not concern yourself about the pleasures and pains of animals. Bentham does argue against animal cruelty, though neither he nor Mill attempt to draw them into the Utilitarian calculus in any meaningful sense. It is difficult enough to determine the pleasure and pain principle in human beings; it is impossible to do so in pigs.

Mm, why? Vranak

Try to conceive of Utilitarianism as a guide, at the most basic level, to practical ethics, an attempt to build a code of moral values on the greatest happiness of the greatest number. But, as I have already said now ad nauseum, how is this to be measured and calculated, on what basis are we to accept some 'goods' and reject others? Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures are higher than the satisfaction of mere physical pleasures, that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied; but Socrates is a rarity, and fools are common. Socrates satisfied might require the dissatisfaction of a hundred fools, which would seem to turn the whole Utilitarian calculus upside down; unless the intensity of Socrates' satisfaction somehow outweighed the unhappiness of the fools; and how does one begin to measure that? If you read Utilitarianism, even if you just read the page on John Stuart Mill, which I assume you have (?), you will see that, in his view, high art is better than simple pleasures, that opera is to be preferred to hopscotch. But this is an arbitrary, and culturally specific, value judgement. If one starts to draw arbitary classifications between the levels of satisfaction obtained by the 'higher' and the 'lower' in any given social order, one might as well make a similar distinction between cultures and nations; that the satisfaction of an American professor is much to be prefered over the dissatisfaction of an African peasant.

The whole problem with Utilitarianism as a system of values is that it is deeply rooted in the mindset of the English middle classes during the high noon of the Industrial Revolution. It has, as Karl Marx rightly observed in Das Kapital, no real historical dynamism, that it cannot transcend time and place, and it cannot account for changing values and needs. The perfect Benthamite might very well be said to be the figure of Thomas Gradgrind in Charles Dicken's novel Hard Times, relentless in his demand for facts, and only facts. And I can think of no more damming critiqe than that penned by Nietzsche-If we have our own why in life, we shall get along with almost any how. Man does not strive for pleasure; only the Englishman does. This, in my view, might very well serve as an epitaph for the whole Utilitarian movement! Clio the Muse 11:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

April 22

Douglas Bader

I am trying to find the burial place of Sir Douglas Bader. He may not, in fact, be buried but may have been cremated.

If so any details would be appreciated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petermoore60 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

According to this page "Douglas Bader British RAF fighter ace Ashes given to family " Gradvmedusa 05:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

stopping snap violence and road rage

What is the likelihood that treating personal economy discrimination at the Federal level in kind with racial, sexual, or religious discrimination would help reduce the problem of snap violence possibly including road rage? (For an example of personal economy discrimination simply replace race, gender or religion with personal economy in a situation involving discrimination, i.e., "...we are not even going to drive through that Black neighborhood." versus "...we are not even going to drive through that poor neighborhood. Degrading comments spoken by rich people so they can be overheard by poor people, etc.) Clem 03:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: 1) the correlation between "snap violence" and comments that reflect invidious discrimination; and 2) the ability of the Federal government to recognize and regulate discrimination based on economic status.

The first point seems dubious at best, since you would first have to substantiate such a correlation exists, (not to mention define what constitutes "rich" vs "poor" and a host of other issues).

The second point seems even less than dubious, since being "poor" fails the test of suspect classification, and (numerically) "rich" people are actually in the "minority." Moreover, even if "poor" were a protected minority, "degrading comments" by random people on the street (although unkind and ill-considered) are generally protected free speech. There are exceptions, but generally not within the scope of your proposal.

The best way to avoid snap violence is to try to see things from the other guy's point of view, give people the benefit of the doubt, and pretend everyone else on the road is your own grandmother. dr.ef.tymac 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to Suspect classification, and in particular immutability (although many are not Christian and for that reason do not define poverty in the same light), Jesus said: "The poor (those who are at risk of going hungry, not having shelter or cloths. no or very limited income, etc. versus someone with sufficient income for food, housing and clothing etc.) will always be with you" Matthew 26:11. Thus a level of poverty so defined would satisfy all of the remaining qualifications whereas relative poverty would not. (Those with sufficient income for food, housing and clothing etc. compared to those with income of say one million dollars in turn treated as poor by those with income of twenty million and likewise on up the scale). As for the rich being a minority that is simply, not true for the poor who are referenced by Jesus Christ; although very true for those who can afford to joy ride in space. Clem 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to correlation of snap violence with personal economic situation we have two very recent examples of killers whose personal economy was either threatened or used as a basis for discrimination as the reason for their acts which can only be classed as snap violence, although the execution in both cases was somewhat planned. Clem 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal economy discrimination -- are you refering to classism? Vranak

With limited exceptions. Clem 18:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

adultery

i would like to know if in ancient times when a man cheated on his wife it was shamefull/reprimendable and if so was it as bad as when a women cheated on a men —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.113.99.21 (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Nope. It was not. this might have what you're looking for.

More specifically:

Old Testament:

• If a man has sex with an engaged slave woman, scourge the woman, but don't punish the man.
• If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both.
• If a man has sex with his daughter in law, kill them both.
• If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep.
• If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death."

New Testament:

• Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn't seem to care about that.

and so on. In almost all ancient societies, women were less than men.--Kirby♥time 06:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, that is the "Skeptic's" bible, where they make little effort to find any context to the scriptures they lament/condemn/poke fun at. I've seen little attempt to go to the original Hebrew or Greek either. The Skeptics bible is awfully bad at interpreting the Bible without context. Although there are some very odd verses in the Bible which certainly deserve some criticism or reflection, they aren't nearly as numerous as the Skeptics bible would make it out to be.

BTW, Paul (New Testament) said if one a man has lusted after a woman, that man had committed adultery with her with her.

Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Another interesting verse out of Deuteronomy 22: 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

So it's not quite like Kirby may have implied.

I'm not going to defend the whole Bible here; I know it's easy to see in some contexts where the laws applied seem outlandish or outright vile and disgusting. It is hard to know if you are interpreting the bible correctly or properly. But the case against the Bible is not as strong as that site would make it out to be, either. If there's any one significant problem with the Bible, its that it is written in a natural language, so any interpretation of it without any guidance would be flawed.

Root⁴(one) 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

this is pretty much what i tought ,what i find very surprising tough is that since it used to be something to control women and we dont (or at least try not to) do that anymore , instead of giving equality to woman by saying these thing just arent that important we decided to just apply them to men as well and lower the penality to shame instead of death just to save the bible

In response to Kirby, the Anglo-saxons were one old society (maybe not quite ancient) who had quite an enlightened view (comparatively) when it came to women. And to the poster above, I don't think the concept of adultery was invented purely to oppress women137.138.46.155 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Going by the gender ratio in Internet ponography it makes since that women would be more harshly treated. Clem 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you consider voluntarily appearing in Pornographic pictures in return for money to be harsh treatment of course. I think it might likely be a case of supply and demand.137.138.46.155 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Titus' birth date - which calendar?

Titus was born on 30 December in the year 39. I'm trying to determine for certain if this is the date under the Julian calendar in use at the time, not a date corrected for the Gregorian calendar we currently use. I'm thinking that it may be a pointless question since the Julian calendar was adopted in 36 BC-- only 75 years earlier- that there would have been only about 13 hours of difference between the two calendars at that time- meaning that Titus was born on December 30th regardless of what calendar is being used. Is my reasoning sound? DeepSkyFrontier 07:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that ancient dates are given in Old style, or using the Julian calendar in use at the time. I'm hoping that someone can confirm this. However, the date under the Julian calendar would be the same as under the Gregorian calendar in the year 39, because the calendars differ by only three days every 400 years (a leap day omitted in years that are a multiple of 100 but not of 400). The regular 4-year interval of leap years did not begin until A.D. 4 (per Julian calendar), so there would have been no divergence in A.D. 39. Marco polo 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's not correct that the proleptic (retrospective) Gregorian calendar would agree with the Julian calendar in the 1st century AD. The offset applied in 1582 when the Gregorian calendar began was 10 days, not 12, so the century when the two calendars agree is actually the 3rd century AD (or more precisely, from March 1, 200 AD, through February 28, 300). (Why? Because the idea was to reset the seasons to what they were at supposed to have been at the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. But that's in the 4th century, so what happened? Well, in doing the calculations, Aloysius Lilius had a length for the tropical year (the solar year) that was 30 minutes off. He knew when the seasons were in his own time, so he assumed that the calendar in 325 AD was actually one day off, rather than that he had the wrong length of the year. So he called for a 10-day shift instead of 9.) Anyway, this means that if December 30 in the 1st century was a proleptic Gregorian date, then the Julian calendar date would have been January 1 (Kal. Ian.). But as explained in the other responses, in this sort of context the Julian calendar is used, so it's December 30 Julian (or III Kal. Ian.) --Anonyous, April 22, Gregorian, 2007, 20:41 (UTC).

I am truly sorry to inform that: "(Titus) was born on 30 December A.D. 41, the memorable year of Gaius's (Galigula) assassination, in a small, dingy, slum bedroom close to the Septizonium." My source is the The twelve Caesars of Suetonius, translated by Robert Graves, revised by Michael Grant, published by Penguin ISBN 0-141-39034-4. I suggest you go back and find out where it was told that he was born in A.D. 39 and then find out the reason for this discrepancy (two years). Who knows? Perhaps the penguin book is wrong and your source is right. The '30 December' seems to be correct. Normaly such info as the "day/month" is not 'improved' by modern scholars. Charlemagne was crowned on the 25 of December, but if we use the Julian-Gregorian calendar that date would be incorrect. It would be height of folly to improve these dates. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is the year. Suetonius (as all the early roman historians) did not use the AD system. Is it very likely that he used the 'year of a consul', or perhaps even the Ab urbe condita. To backtrack today the "correct A.D. year" is very difficult as both of the Roman systems were not 100% accurate (the article Ab urbe condita tells that there were even two 'Ab urbe condita systems' and shows that there some discrepancies). Despite what the article List of early imperial Roman consuls suggests, the 1 January was not always the beginning of the 'consular year' and the Julian calendar was far from perfect. "Our" new calculations might be wrong (or not). Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that ancient dates, indeed any dates earlier than 15 October 1582, are given in Old style. That is because the Gregorian Calendar was only instituted on 15 October 1582, and was not retrospective. It contained a 10-day discontinuity, which has now increased to 13 days for those rare cases where the Julian calendar is still being used. Using the proleptic Gregorian calendar, dates prior to 15 October 1582 are sometimes converted to what their Gregorian equivalents would have been had the Gregorian been in place then - but this normally happens only in scientific or astronomical contexts. The proleptic Gregorian calendar is never used for the dating of ordinary historical events such as births and deaths in ancient times. JackofOz 13:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The institution of the Julian Gregorian calendar was not universal, and some contries adopted it quicker than others. The day/month are normally not 'improved', agreed. However you seem to be forgeting that Suetonius wasn't using the AD system at all, therefore your entire reasoning (about the Old style) is sadly mistaken. Sorry Flamarande 14:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To Flamarande, who wrote "The institution of the Julian Gregorian calendar was not universal":

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Julian Gregorian calendar". The Julian is one calendar, the Gregorian is another. JackofOz 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actualy the Gregorian is a improvement of the older Julian calendar and you will find that it is many, many times called the Julian-Gregorian (or Julian Gregorian) calendar. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Flamarande. I must say I'd never come across this before. I knew the Julian was the father of the Gregorian, but referring to the latter by both names seems to invite confusion and ambiguity. JackofOz 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To the anon who wrote "Charlemagne was crowned on the 25 of December, but if we use the Julian/Gregorian calendar that date would be incorrect.":

The Julian calendar was in use in "France" during Charlemagne's time. So 25 December is the date under that calendar, and it's the date we continue to use in reference to his coronation. Had the Gregorian been in use back then, the date would indeed have been different. But it wasn't, so it's not. JackofOz 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my point, I presented that particular case to show that we should be careful in 'backtracking' the "correct dates". Sorry if my english wasn't clear enough. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Flamarande. I didn't know it was your post. See my above post re ambiguity. :) JackofOz 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note, everybody, that Titus' mother appears to have had a particularly demanding labour, which began, according to the Wikipedia page, in 39 AD and continued for two years! As as been pointed out above, the generally accepted date of his birth, based on Seutonius, is December 41 AD. Is there any dispute about this, and if so, where did the earlier date come from? Clio the Muse 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK guys, further to the above, I've dug out some more information. According to this site [2], and others, the correct date is indeed 39 AD. Seutonius initially gives the date as 41 AD, the year of the assassination of of Caligula, but later contradicts himself in the course of his narrative (Section XI). Dio Cassius and Philocalus both give the date as 39 AD. Now, before anyone jumps in here, I know that Roman historians did not use the AD dating. I do for the sake of convenience! Clio the Muse 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As do we all. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To each and every one of you, please accept my sincerest gratitude for your diligence. I also especially wish to thank Anonymous for explanation of the proleptic Gregorain calendar. This is exactly what I needed to know. Whoever you are, I honor you. If I am to understand correctly: the date given (30 December) is most certainly a Julian calendar date. Thus, the one-day correction in the first century AD would place the proleptic Gregorian date on 29 December. Thank you, Flamarande, for bringing up the controversy about the year. To Clio the Muse- who I've encountered before- you truly deserve the name you chose for you are an inspiration. Thank you for providing clarity on the question Flamarande brought up. DeepSkyFrontier 04:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

RMS Aquitania 1917

Can anybody help me to find the crew list of the RMS Aquitania on her 1917 voyage(s) from UK to Halifax, Nova Scotia? Any help would be much appreciated! Skumbag - 酢薫バッグ 13:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

American shade

Sorry, I've forgotten what I was going to ask. If anyone has any ideas, please tell me. If not, how can I try to remember? Sorry. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.224.42 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Shade as in a ghostly apparition, or the usual shadow meaning? Vranak

or as in a shade of a particular colour :) HS7 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you were looking for the definition of "umbrageous", which means "shaded". You're welcome. Herostratus 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Musicology: Moderna Laika

Does anyone know where can I find the musicological characteristic of Greek moderna laika genre? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.216.139.62 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

If someone is forced/blackmailed into commiting a crime

What is the legal term for that, and will they receive a lighter or no sentence because they were forced/blackmailed into doing it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.5 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Take a look at Duress. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 16:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See Patty Hearst. Clarityfiend 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The term is "duress", and whether it will be a valid defence to a criminal charge depends on the law of the particular country (or in the U.S., of the particular state). However, even if a claim of duress does not lead to an acquittal, it might be considered a mitigating factor when determining sentence. In Canada, the defence is set out in section 17 of the Criminal Code but some parts of that section were struck down as unconstitutional in R. v. Ruzic. --Mathew5000 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nubia

What sports did ancient nubian people play?

All science a philosophy?

Ok, so we base out mathematics on axioms, things we accept without proof. If we accept something without proof, it is a philosophy. So wouldn't that make all of math a philosophy? That would be alright, it is just that we use math as the language of science. So wouldn't that make all our science equations written in math just a philosophy? Just our interpretation of the universe? I suppose this would supported by the fact that quantum mechanics has many different interpretations, and you can even take classes on the philosophy of quantum mechanics [3]. Isn't this kind of a big deal that all of our science may not be leading us to the reality, but only one interpretation of it? Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 19:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The element that you not taken into account is that scientists validate their mathematical models against reality by performing experiments - see falsifiability. Gandalf61 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientists validate or reject hypotheses through observation of available empirical evidence, such evidence does not necessarily coincide with "reality". The very act of assuming there is a "reality" to test is a hypothesis in itself. Falsifiability doesn't really solve that problem, it's just a part of what makes mathematics self-consistent. Yes, math coincides with philosophy, if you don't believe that, just ask yourself why one plus one equals two.

Yes, Imaninjapirate, you raise good questions, and you are not alone. Math is a tool, and so far people seem to be convinced it's a good one. It may not be the ultimate answer to everything. Anyway you might get better answers on the Science Desk. (See e.g., effectiveness of math and Operationalization and theory of everything and CTMU for examples of people who have asked similar questions). dr.ef.tymac 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...those articles and the discussion of 1 + 1 are very interesting. I think it comes down to the question of what reality is. Maybe what we experience from our senses and interpret from our consciousness as "numbers" and "math" is accurate to what the cosmos really is. It could also just be that math is formed from our consciousness's constant search for patterns in what we experience from our senses. But like it says in the The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences page, our brain being able to string together all of the complexities of math would be quite a miracle. If some alien intelligence that has some radically different form of consciousness would also developed mathematics, that would definitely tell us that math and numbers are inherent to the cosmos. But until then we can only speculate. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with the characterization of philosophy. "If we accept something without proof, it is a philosophy." Well no, such a thing would be a belief but not a philosophy. Philosophy is all about proving one's statements, perhaps not empirically, but atleast logically. C mon 22:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of different discussions about what the relationship of science to philosophy is. One that gets something of a bad name today but isn't such a poor formulation is logical positivism, i.e. science ought to be the combination of Machian positivism (a demand for blunt empiricism) coupled with and extended by rigorous formal logic. --24.147.86.187 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Boeotia's Ethnicity

Is this map telling me that most of Boeotia, Eastern Attica and southern Euboea is inhabited by Albanians? Am I reading it right? Was this true then (1911)? Is it true now? Many thanks! 207.35.41.4 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Entire Balkans and Asia Minor were a complete ethnic mix at that time. Large parts of Greece were subject to Albanian and Vlach colonization since 14th century. The reason was the civil war and subsequent collapse of the Byzantine state which was unable to stop the migration as well as depopulation of large parts of Greece. I do not have sources for the current state, but I suspect that those of Albanians that were Muslims were forcibly resettled to Turkey after the population "exchange" in early 1920s. The rest was subject to assimilation pressure and there is few Albanian speakers there. The historical Albanian settlers were called Arvanites. Their numbers (or numbers of their descendants) could be only guessed.

Greece is interesting also because large parts of its population today are Hellenized Slavonic peoples. Almost entire Greece was occupied by the Slavs between 7th and 9th century with Byzantines holding but few port cities like Thesallonica. Even Peloponesus was Slavic. The original Greek inhabittants were either killed or fled to the cities. It was after the Byzantine Empire reconquered these areas, a slow but steady Hellenization of Slavs as well as Greek repupulation started. However even in 15th century there were Slavic tribes/communities in the Peloponesus (like Jeziertsy) that maintained their authonomy. Yarovit 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Yarovit, for your response! 207.35.41.4 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sung-Cho-Hui

Lets say Sung-Cho-Hui didn`t commit suicide.Lets say he surrendered himself to police or was captured what would have happened to him then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.67.76 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

This is reference desk, not what-if forum.Yarovit 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:NOT#CBALL. dr.ef.tymac 20:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a similar situation happens, then he might have served 32 life sentences. I seem to recall a mass killer serving one life sentence for each person he killed, and he ended up with more than a dozen consecutive life sentences. I might be wrong though. However, that does not mean that he would have had the same ruling. He might have also gotten a death sentence. Saying any more than that would probably be crystalballing. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

pursuit of happiness

I heard an interview on NPR regarding the pursuit of happiness and was hoping someone else remembers - it was in the last two years. The interviewed person traced the phrase from its origins as meaning (roughly) the ability to work in one's chosen field (property + happiness). He want on to say that in Europe at the time, a favorite way to destroy someone was to prevent them from doing so, and that this meaning was very much recognized and intended when written into the Declaration of Independance.

Does anyone here have a link to the interview or know who the author is? (also asked question at Talk:Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) PatriotSurvivor 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, PatriotSurvivor. It's not quite clear to me exactly what you are looking for. You must know from reading the page you have linked that the phrase in question was coined by Thomas Jefferson, who based it upon a similar sentiment expressed in the work of the English political philosopher John Locke. Locke was a close associate of the Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the founder of what became known as the Whig Party, which later contributed to the overthrow of James II, the last Catholic king of England, in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government in defence of this Revolution, and as a counter to the absolutist theories of Thomas Hobbes. Englishmen of the day were just as keen on natural justice and the defence of property as the later framers of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, and just as opposed to political absolutism of any kind. The upheavals of 1688 was followed soon after by the passing by Parliament of the Bill of Rights, incorporating some of these beliefs. France, in contrast did indeed operate a system of political absolutism up to the Revolution of 1789, where people had few rights in law; but I do not believe this example was foremost in the minds of Jefferson and others. I'm afraid I have no knowledge, though, of the particular interview you are referring to. Clio the Muse 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How about "Pursuit of Happiness Talk of the Nation, July 3, 2003?—eric 07:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is great, eric! I'm listening to the discussion as I clean out my rooms here at Cambridge, which is most definitely not the pursuit of happiness-where am I going wrong? It must be the oppressive, absolutist system I live under. Thanks for the diversion! Clio the Muse 08:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The author your looking for is probably Darrin HcMahon, i've access to a couple of his journal articles on the subject, but not Hapiness: a History.—eric 07:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

April 23

History of Abortion

Does anyone know when and where the first abortions were performed?

-Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.134.73.15 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The first recorded evidence of induced abortion dates back the the sixth century BC in China, though the practice is surely far older than that. Have a look over the History of abortion. Clio the Muse 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

M. Bade (or perhaps Bave), artist

I am trying to identify an artist who did pen-and-ink sketches of Middle-East or north-African subjects (camels, deserts, robes and the like), at least one of which is a lithograph. The artist is likely Dutch, from the period 1850 to 1950, but most probably from a period right around the turn of the century (1900 or so). The surname might also be "Baue". I have checked all these variations on Google, Artprice and Sotheby's. He/she is not famous under any of these names. Any ideas out there amongst the cognoscenti? Bielle 00:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama was not assimilated

While reading the Jeri Ryan (Seven of Nine) article, I learned that her husband was forced to turn down the Republican nomination for the Senate seat won by Obama because of salacious details about their divorce. Was Jack Ryan a serious threat to Obama? Clarityfiend 04:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I found a poll from May 31, 2004 in the Chicago Tribune in which Obama led Ryan by a 52%-30% margin. This was at a time when the press was seeking to have the Ryan divorce files unsealed but the exact allegations had not yet been revealed. So Ryan would have been facing an uphill battle even before the details came out. --Metropolitan90 08:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Additionally, the salacious details from the Ryan divorce were bad, but they weren't that bad. Despite what some people (where and in what profession, I won't say), marital irregularities don't decide elections these days, except in the most rural districts, if even there. Furthermore, the details were not reducible to an easy to digest charge, and therefore they didn't really end up as slogan-level dirt. I'm sure that they hurt Ryan with some of the fundamentalist voters, but I would suspect many/most of them voted Republican anyway and would have voted for him over Obama. I.e. the people likely to be driven away by the scandal are the same ones likely to avoid voting for Obama under any circumstance. Utgard Loki 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

what are the largest cities in britain?

arrange them in descending order, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.121.36.12 (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, here are the two hundred most populous cities, towns and districts, arranged in descending order, for you to get your teeth into [4]. Clio the Muse 07:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Political map of England (End of 17th century/1683) and map with the route between Newmarket and London (Rye House Plot)

Hallo, I've some difficulties to find a political map of England (17th century) and a map with the route between Newmarket and London (Rye House Plot). Does something exists in Wikipedia or in the Internet (as template)? Thanks -- jlorenz1 09:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Johannes. I suppose it depends how serious you want to be about this. I myself know of no free templates you could use. There are good historic maps available, as you will see if you look here [5], though at a cost! Do you have access to a decent research library? If so, it is likley to have a section specialising in cartography, which may allow the use of historic maps for a reasonable fee. But in terms of 'political' geography, the area of England in question is actually fairly compact. Rumbold's Rye House was at Hoddesdon in Hertfordshire, on the main road to Cambridge, a fairly short distance to the north of London. You could conceivably draw your own sketch map to illustrate the point you are making. Incidentally, do be careful of the Wikipedia article on the Rye House Plot, which, to say the very least, is quite dreadful! Amongst other things it implicates Shaftesbury, although he had died some three months before the planned assassination attempt! Clio the Muse 11:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

what are the largest navies in the world

in terms of tonnage per head of population? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazon Priest (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello, Amazon Priest. I didn't find a list with tonnages per capita, but Nationmaster lists Navy personnel (per capita) by country. Number one is Taiwan with 2.97 naval staff members per 1,000 people. Wikipedia has Table_of_current_naval_strengths, including displacement, but for some reason it hasn't gone beyond the letter "C" (or Cameroon) yet. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I fixed the link. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominations in French presidential election

Candidates must obtain signatures from 500 elected officials in order to stand in the French presidential election:

1. How many eligible elected officials are there in France?
2. How many candidates can each official sign for?

thanks58.28.143.17 11:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)