Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

WP:RD/H C #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #00f #000 #00f humanities Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Humanities WP:RD/H

Welcome to the humanities reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia     How can I get my question answered? Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right). Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question. Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here. Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context. Note: We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point. We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need. Ready? Ask a new question! After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help Manual   skip to bottom

December 22

1964 World's Fair

Time Capsule

In the 1964 New York World's Fair there was a Time Capsule. It seems like I remember signing a journal, with thousands of other tourists, that was to be put into the capsule. Probably a micro film (or digital) of the books were placed in the capsule. Is there a record anywhere of the people that signed this or copies of those books where perhaps one could look through? Are the original journal entry books someplace like National Archives?--Doug ^talk 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is (or was) a replica of the time capsule at the George Westinghouse Museum in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania; however that museum's website is down, so there's no easy way to determine if it still exists or if it included a replica of the signatures. A year ago, it was suggested that the museum's contents would be moved to the Heinz History Center. - Nunh-huh 07:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer - that now gives me some clues of perhaps whom to contact. Maybe they will know something on this.--Doug ^talk 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bob Considine

I've been trying to sort out whether the Bob Considine who was son of vaudeville impresario John Considine (Seattle) is the same one who wrote Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. John definitely had a son Bob; standard short bios of John's grandsons, actors John and Tim Considine, routinely mention him as their uncle. However, they often refer to him as a "sportscaster". We don't have an article on Bob Considine / Robert Considine, although the author and columnist clearly deserves one.

[1] says the Bob Considine in this family wrote The Babe Ruth Story. [ His IMDB page] give his date and place of birth as "4 November 1906, Washington, District of Columbia, USA". The Find-A-Grave page on the Bob Considine who wrote Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo gives the same DOB. But someone might have been confused: these are not the strongest of sources. Does anyone have something more solid? - Jmabel | Talk 03:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Riley, S.G. (1995) Biographical Dictionary of American Newspaper Columnists lists "Considine, Robert Bernard" (14 Nov. 1906–25 Sept. 1975), born Washington D.C., writer for INS, author or editor of more than 20 books including The Babe Ruth Story (1948) and Thirty Seconds over Tokyo (1953). His autobiography is: Considine, B. (1967). It's all news to me; a reporter's deposition. New York: Meredith Press. OCLC 1083315. Sorry, no mention of any family, but i'll keep looking.—eric 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, one step in the right direction: we now at least know with some confidence that the Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo guy is the same person as the Babe Ruth Story guy. Interesting that the birth date you have is off by 10 days from IMDB, though. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is not an unimpeachable source. It relies, as we do here at Wikipedia, on a large number of different contributors. They're supposed to check the veracity of everything, but that has as many loopholes as Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, where sometimes uncited facts get tagged as such, sometimes they don't. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jahangir nanak

WHo is this Jahangir nanak in Bangladeshi politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.52 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to this Jahangir Nanak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FisherQueen (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the income range for middle, upper middle and upper classes in America?

Is there a simple chart that records income by class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.233.199 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

These are arbitrary distinctions. The fashion is to pretend that everyone who works is middle class and that everyone who doesn't work is poor (as opposed to rich). A valid (that is, non-arbitrary) class distinction is that between the bourgeois (who obtain income by means other than wages: dividends, inheritance, etc.) and the proletariat (who obtain income only by wages, or perhaps contract work). Yet, within the proletariat there are clearly distinctions of class. These may have little to do with income; education is more important as what separates them socially. A grad student who makes next to nothing is nevertheless comfortably within the "middle class," whereas a factory worker who makes three times as much money likely is not. (This is true even if the grad student is studying literature and headed for a low-paying career, so long as it is an intellectual one; but if he winds up waiting tables then he becomes déclassé, de-classed.) Likewise, extremely well-payed workers (upper management types, CEOs) may socially mingle with the bourgeois; of course, at a certain level of wage income, non-wage income becomes an easy possibility and thus practical reality. The highest wages go to celebrities; here the simple unipolar measurement of class becomes ridiculous. Celebrities are not within the same class as CEOs or as old money bourgeois, even if all these classes have more intersection between them than with the lower classes, and celebrities may or may not have any money or income but retain their status. The analysis of the upper classes can't treat them as one bloc in the same way that is sometimes more feasible with the lower classes.

Perhaps the best marker of class within the proletariat, that is of being "middle" rather than "lower" class, is the schools to which one sends one's children: those in the middle class proper (which might be called the "upper middle class" by those who maintain the above-mentioned fashion) send their children to primary schools in which practically all well-behaved students (those who are not extremely stupid) attend universities and the most intelligent and well-behaved attend "good" universities. Within the lower class proper (which is likely to be called the middle class), the primary schools do not guarantee college admission to all of their students, but only to the best of them. The upper class would, in this system, be those who can afford to send their children to private primary schools which guarantee admission to the "good" universities. —Jemmy_tc 15:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am interested to read that there are, apparently, so many fine distinctions in American society. For example, I have never heard the term déclassé used in the sense Jemmy describes, either informally, or formally in any sociological study. The separation between "bourgeois" and "proletariat" also strikes me as, well, arbitrary. As for the highest wages going to celebrities, I rather think that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, using just two examples, are right up there with any celebrity on an annual basis, unless you are defining "celebrity" to mean anyone who is known to make a lot of money. I'd appreciate some references where I might read further about these class divisions. Bielle (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Bill Gates' salary is, but I imagine it is much less than a film stars. Of course, he's made a lot of money through capital gains, which are not wages. AFAIK, Warren Buffet does not receive wages at all; all of his income is through dividends and capital gains. His wages are zero, which is less than a waitress! I certainly didn't mean to say (nor did I say!) that celebrities have the highest incomes. The highest incomes are not wages; I did not mean to say otherwise! The distinction between bourgeois and proletariat on the basis of their source of income is arbitrary only in the sense that every distinction is arbitrary; I just meant that it is qualitative and concrete, unlike (say) some arbitrary amount of income. It is also a damned important distinction in sociological analysis!

As far as my use of declasse, its literal translation from French is "declassed." The first definition in the American Heritage Dictionary is "1. Lowered in class, rank, or social position." Its use to refer to someone who was born into a certain class, but has lost his class status, is (despite what you have seen!) quite common (considering that the word is uncommon) and is a simple literal usage of the French. The usage that refers to behavior unfitting of one's class status is secondary and metaphorical. In any case, when one refers to people rather than behavior as declasse, it always has the first meaning. —Jemmy_tc 01:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Social class and income are both extremely hard to measure and make sense of, if it is even possible at all. However, you may be interested in the following articles:

• Social class in the United States
• Personal income in the United States
• Household income in the United States
• Affluence in the United States

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Jemmy describing U.S. society? I certainly don't find that explanation to ring true. "...primary schools in which practically all well-behaved students (those who are not extremely stupid) attend universities and the most intelligent and well-behaved attend "good" universities. Within the lower class proper (which is likely to be called the middle class), the primary schools do not guarantee college admission to all of their students, but only to the best of them.' What? Rmhermen (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rmhermen, you were a little more blunt that I was, but my puzzlement remains at the head-scratching stage in respect of almost every one of Jemmy's claims. Bielle (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed describing U.S. society. What kind of question is "what?"? I will certainly agree that education is as arbitrary a marker as anything else; but if you look at American middle class you will see that I am not alone in assigning it a central importance (which is not to say that there is any sort of consensus either). Anyway, I emphasize that I only suggested it as a marker, as one indicator which I consider to be the best single indicator, though certainly not the whole story. It will correlate quite well with many other indicators, obviously. I think it is certainly far better than any dividing line based on quantity of income; does anyone disagree with that?

Your previous objection, Bielle, was simply based on your failure to understand that by "wages" I meant "wages" and not "capital gains." Perhaps I am being misunderstood in other respects as well. —Jemmy_tc 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I did assume that by "wages" you meant "wages", Jemmy. 'Tis true that wages are not capital gains, though they may include stock options, bonuses and commissions. 'Tis also true that, for the purposes of classifying people according to income range, as requested by the questionner, the difference is likely only of interest to Infernal Revenue. Distinguishing between the "bourgeois" and the "proletariat" based on the source of their incomes ignores a lot of crossover: the retired, and those with family money who also hold down jobs. Many of the people whose income is solely from inheritances, dividends and the like are the retired, especially the retired who have created their own "pension funds" through investment. Does this make them bourgeois? Do those who have inheritances, dividends and capital gains, but who also work at salaried jobs (like Queen Elizabeth, for example, though she is not an American, or many of the Kennedys) become a member of the proletariat by virtue of their wage? I wouldn't disagree that education, both the "where" as well as the "what", may be a class indicator, but I do not know of any primary school that "guarantees" admission to university or of any sociological study that equates good behaviour in primary school with admission to university. As for the class to which a graduate student belongs, my own observation would be that the student takes the class of his parents to school with him and, as post-graduate studies are expensive, most of such students will be at least middle class. Any such student who relies on scholarships and hasn't the money for the right clothes or the time to hang out in the right places will not be viewed as middle class, almost no matter what he studies. I would reiterate, these are my own observations; this is not a field in which I have expertise. I would be pleased to take a look at the studies on which you have based your conclusions. (Because we are wandering rather far afield from the original question, it might be more appropriate if you share your sources on my talk page.) Bielle (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that you used Warren Buffet as an example of someone receiving higher wages than a celebrity, it's clear that you either misunderstood "wages" or one of us is wrong about the source of Buffet's income. Regarding your question about the proletariat: I said, not that the proletariat is not anyone who receives a wage, but anyone who depends on a wage. Retirees are indeed bourgeois, technically speaking. You are not the first to point out that this distinction does not correspond to actual social groupings in every case; in fact, even I pointed it out, right before you did! Your response to what I said about schools is malicious interpretation. Obviously no schools guarantee admission to a university in the sense of, say, a contractual guarantee; that is so obviously false that you should interpret it not to mean that, if you really want to understand what I'm saying. "Primary schools which guarantee admission to a "good" college" denotes prep schools where most students go on to highly selective schools and practically 100% go on to selective schools. Likewise, decent private schools and public schools in sufficiently expensive districts send roughly 100% of students (exempting "bad students" and low IQ cases) to some college and regularly send some percentage to selective colleges. By "good behavior" I just mean that the student does the necessary work and stays out of "trouble"--that the student is a "good student"; do you really need a sociological study to tell you that bad students don't end up in good universities even if they attend a decent high school? Do I really need to explain my meaning of everything in such tedious detail? All that I have said here is either obvious, or definitional. You may think my definitions of class are no good, but they're at least quite plausible. Parents who cannot send their children to schools that guarantee a certain outcome (in the sense that pressing down on the gas pedal guarantees the motion of the car) are not securely within a class; that is why the line is so well-drawn there. —Jemmy_tc 21:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Coming at this from another angle: "upper", "lower" and "middle" are only one way of coming at things, and income is only one determinant of class. I have some friends who we jokingly refer to as "lowest middle class" because they are economically poor (some would technically be considered homeless), but definitely have educations and middle-class values, and (as long as their health is OK) could certainly at any time decide to re-enter the more mainstream economy and would be firmly in the economic middle class within a year.

Also, the amount of money you need to lead a particular lifestyle varies wildly between a city like NYC (where even a shabby studio apartment typically goes for well over $1000/month) and Detroit (where that same amount of money will rent you a house quite sufficient for a large family) or a rural area (where that's a more than adequate mortgage payment).

That said, for a typical middling American city, I would say a person living alone needs to be able to spend about $20K a year in cash or equivalent (e.g. artificially low rent, informal barter, etc.) to have the choice of managing their money carefully and leading what I would consider a lower middle class life. More income needed if they are older or have health issues. Probably another $10K for additional people in a household. Again, this is very rough, but anyone below that level, I'd consider basically poor. Anywhere from that up to about $100K a year (plus, say $30K each for additional household members, and again I'm talking expenditures, wherever the money or equivalents is coming from), someone is probably living a basically middle-class existence, but one with more and more perks: eating out when you want to, owning your home, owning a car, giving to charity, buying nice electronic stuff, increasingly expensive hobbies, increasing ability to pay someone else to do tasks you find unpleasant, the chance to travel, etc. At the top end of that range, poor people would consider you rich, but even at the top end of that range, there would still be a lot of things you could only do if you budgeted carefully. Somewhere around that $100K money starts to translate into power not only on a personal level but at a societal level, if you choose to spend it that way (simply not an option below that level).

Or at least that's how it looks to me. Naturally, though, tastes enter the picture. If you like to keep six cats as pets and three of them are diabetic animals that need a lot of health care, they can be as expensive as raising a child. If your idea of a good time is sitting at home reading a book, then you may effectively live a much higher-class existence on a given amount of money than someone whose idea of a good time involves several rounds of drinks in a nice bar. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see there has been a lot of discussion of this topic, and yet there really is not a simple breakdown of the different levels of income in U.S. society, so I thought I'd provide that as succinctly as possible. Sociologists generally measure U.S. income to be broken down into five different divisions, called Quintiles (which if you follow that link does provide some brief graphs of income range). However, there are some Sociologists who feel that the breakdown into five divisions does not properly reflect American society's cultural perceptions of class, and so they favor a breakdown that combines the three middle quintiles to create three separate divisions instead of five, so that it looks like this instead:
20% of population with highest income
60% of population with medium income (combines the middle three categories, each with 20%)
20% of population with lowest income
So one may choose either way to represent these figures: either 5 divisions or 3, depending on your intended audience and what you're trying to illustrate with your thesis. -- Saukkomies 08:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for source of quote.

I'm looking for a source of this quote, purportedly by H.L. Mencken, "Public opinion, in its raw state, gushes out in the immemorial form of the mob's fear. It is piped into central factories, and there it is flavored and colored, and put into cans." I probably read it somewhere in one of those quasi-reliable trivia books like the Bathroom Reader and it shows up on some quote pages on the internet (though not Wikiquote). Besides confirmation that it's something he did say (so I can add it to the WQ page), I'd just like to know what work it came from so I can read the rest of the piece. Matt Deres (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mencken, H. L. (1926). Notes on Democracy. New York: Knopf. p. 192. OCLC 182664—eric 17:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you very much! Matt Deres (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships

What are some examples (businesses) in the United States that are sole proprietorships or partnerships? 76.247.73.237 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I found 5 partnerships in my yellow book: "the anonymous lobster-catching business that I found in a news article", "potbelly's", "partners in pediatrics, LTD", "Martin Painting & Coating Co.", "Digger & Finch Pub".76.247.73.237 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Law firms, medical practices, architectural practices are all examples of the types of businesses that tend to be partnerships. Sole proprietorships are often the self employed, where the business's principal asset is the activity of the sole proprietor. Seamtress, a writer, a computer consultant (or another other kind of self-employed consultant) are examples. Bielle (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In respect of the partnerships you found in your "yellow book", it is unlikely that "Partners in Pediatrics LTD" is a partnership, in spite of the use of "partners" in its name. "LTD" normally stand for "Limited" which refers to a company whose owners have limited liability, and that is definitely not part of a definition of a partnership. The same proviso applies to the business entitled "Martin Painting and Coating Co." where "Co." is short for "company" and a company is not a partnership, either, so far as I know. The lobster business might well be a partnership, but I'd be surprised if the pub were one. I have no idea about the business named "Potbelly's". Bielle (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

December 23

Mistakes in Holy Books and Proving Religions False

I’ve heard that one way you can know, test, prove, discover, or find out that a religion is false, that it is not the “one true religion”, is by finding, looking for, and searching for mistakes and errors in its holy religious book or books. By mistakes and errors, they could probably be, for example, scientific, historical, archaeological, chronological, or logical mistakes and errors.

There are so many different religions in the world today. Many of them have so many believers, millions and millions of them around the world. Many of them have existed for such a long time, for hundreds and thousands of years throughout history in the past to today. Religions have had such a big impact on the world’s history, art, music, societies, culture, recreation, holidays, people, philosophy, politics, government, and countries.

So I don’t understand. Is that it? Is it that simple? Can religions be disproved, proven wrong and false, and proven not to be the one true religion so simply, easily, and quickly?

Bowei Huang (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Most people can't think critically. It's sad, but true, and that affects every one of us. They are little more than trained animals. Despite any amount of evidence they will continue believing in that nonsense, which is either a false theory or a non-falsifiable theory. All believers share one basic false belief: the belief that the outcome of events are somehow affected by a mystical intelligence. Scientific tests prove this to be false, only random governs such things, but the populace will never accept that, they aren't intelligent enough. Something similar happens with the proof that 0.999...=1. Most people simply can't understand that, and will never be able to. As Max Planck noticed, new ideas triumph not because you convince your opponents, but because older opponents die and are replaced by younger people. --Taraborn (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that there is in fact a single religion that is the 'true religion' or that any religion is provable. Just about every religion claims to be 'the religion' or 'the chosen people' and that all the others are mislead. Rfwoolf (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Past experience suggests that the many errors which have been found in scripture have no great effect on belief. - Nunh-huh 06:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A truly all-knowing God would be able to predict even the most random events. I don't see how your idea proves anything either way, Quantum Theory or no Quantum Theory. Wrad (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(To answer the original question): Obviously not. If that were the case, everyone would have given up their religions by now. Sure, there are people who try to maintain that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old and that Noah had dinosaurs in the Ark. But many, many people who accept basic scientific principles also maintain their belief in religion. How? Well, some simply accept that the Bible, for instance, was written by human beings who lacked modern knowledge of astronomy and geology. But while rejecting the literal truth of the Bible's historical accounts, they maintain their belief in the religion itself because of its moral principles and because it is the tradition of their ancestors. Others refuse to take the Bible's historical accounts literally. In Jewish tradition, for instance, it's common to assume that the "Garden" of Eden, the "man" Adam and even the "days" of creation were not a garden, a man and days like we know them in the physical world. After all, if God is all-powerful, certainly He can mess with time and space to create humanity by way of the Garden of Eden in a metaphysical sphere and still make the physical world look like we came from Homo erectuses. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah many religions are either ambigious or support evolution Level of support for evolution#Support for evolution by religious bodies (not very good article but does cover it somewhat) even tho it appears to contradict the teachings of many religions particularly Abrahamic ones Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The bigger issue here is that religion often attempts to claim a place for itself afforded to no other system of belief, in the sciences or otherwise: that contradiction, historical errors, and other things we would normally use to discount a scientific theory are somehow not applicable. The paradox is that while religion is free to make scientific propositions about the creation of the earth, man, and historical events, it is not held accountable when those propositions fall through. For a good discussion on this, first try Stephen Jay Gould#Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), then try this article. To be honest, I find the "non-overlapping Magisteria" principle silly - if religion should make scientific predictions, it should be taken accountable when errors are found. Your mileage may vary - precedent seems to say it doesn't matter anyway, people will still believe in stories contrary to scientific fact. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-overlapping magisteria is not itself a new idea. Paul H Hirst proposed the idea of "Forms of knowledge" ("logically discrete forms of rational understanding" see here)in 1965. He was not original in this idea either, but he was when he suggested that school pupils should be taught the different forms of knowledge, and that they should learn to think as scientists, mathematicians, historians, moralists, etc, and thus that they should be able to distinguish between situations in which the different modes of reasoning were applicable. ("It is because the concepts are used in a particular way that any proposition is meaningful. The concepts on which our knowledge is built form distinctive networks of relationships. If we transgress the rules of the relationships which the concepts meaningfully permit, we necessarily produce nonsense.") The existence of this question seems to indicate that he had a point. SaundersW (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-overlapping magisteria goes back quite a bit earlier, even. It's what sociologists of science call boundary-work—erecting safe little walls in order to impress your authority over one area and maybe try to avoid conflict in others. It is never as non-contentious as its practitioners would like to pretend it is. The idea that different professions should know when and where they have the authority to say things goes back to medieval scholastism; the whole preface of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium is all about why a mathematician should or should not be allowed to talk about things usually reserved for "philosophers" (that is, why someone using "just math" should be allowed to talk about things in the "real world"). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you are coming from here, and yes, I agree that it is dangerous to shut off bits of knowledge as appropriate territory only for specialists. Hirst's thesis was that all students should be taught to think in all these manners, so that they can distinguish between different categories and use the appropriate kinds of arguments in the appropriate context, ie that the same person can "do math" where math is appropriate and "do theology" where that is appropriate. SaundersW (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"After all, if God is all-powerful, certainly He can mess with time and space to create humanity by way of the Garden of Eden in a metaphysical sphere and still make the physical world look like we came from Homo erectuses." — Mwalcoff, that's an interesting theological point of view; I don't believe I've ever encountered it before. Do we have an article on it?--Pharos (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's similar to Omphalos (theology) -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 04:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Omphalos is a pseudoscientific "explanation" for the material world. What Mwalcoff was describing was some sort of mysticism.--Pharos (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have an article on the concept, but I once saw an article on the Internet talking about how creationism as promoted by some Christians is foreign to Judaism, and it gave the example of how the Garden of Eden and Genesis story are described in rabbinic sources. I can't find that article, but you can see in the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Adam that Adam in the Garden was clearly not a plain old "man" like we think of men. Here is Dovber Schneuri's description of the Garden of Eden [2]:

The Garden of Eden is an ethereal state of being, which is an intermediary between the physical and the spiritual, between matter and spirit. For example: the taste of an apple, though the taste is within the physical apple, yet it does not occupy tangible space. Before Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge their bodies were also on this ethereal state; once they ate from the tree, they became more ‘materialized’ and therefore could no longer remain in the spiritual state of the garden. The Garden of Eden therefore exists on Earth, yet we (with our material eyes) cannot see it on the map. Just like the vegetative properties in the soil cannot be seen on the map. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The difficult is that 'truth' is not the only real thing in life. Whether or not religions are disproved really doesn't alter the value they bring to many people (and yes problems too). We must remember that those with religion have their culture just as those without religion do. I would say to me this is the same idea as who is (or isn't) factually your family. By simple DNA you might tell a father his son of 20 years is actually not his at a.., but someone else's. Will that 'fact' alter their belief in who is their son? Often not. Why? Because the fact alone is not why they are their son - it is the years of shared-experience, the closeness, the connection etc. Similarly in religion if you suddenly had 100% proof that religion Y is based on false evidence will those who have put 30 years of belief into it convert? Not likely. They will consider the 'lie' to be worth as much as the 'truth'. It isn't a case of lacking intelligence or being resistant to change/ignoring new information - it is that there is bond in religion (as in most cultural groups) beyond the mere 'facts' which gets into many more aspects of life. In short it is not that simple, because proof isn't what many people are looking for. ny156uk (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The major holy texts are very, very old and have been written, edited, re-written, and translated by semi-literate people for hundreds if not thousands of years. To expect them to be of the same empirical quality as, say, modern work (if we hold that in a high esteem) seems to me rather foolish. To believe that the will of a deity has somehow guided said semi-literate monks correctly is itself problematic (what of multiple copies? who decides what is canon? where in the canon does it explain who decides what is canon?). Obviously fundamentalists (of any sort) believe this to be a good approach, but they are clearly not approaching this from an empirical or skeptical viewpoint, by definition. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Religions are not scientific disciplines, and scriptures are not science textbooks. I don't look to religion to tell me about the evolution of man or the diffusion of the world's languages. Science can answer those questions. I may look to religion to answer questions about what science cannot, such as morality and metaphysics. I'm sure many of the world's non-atheists feel the same way. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Science can't tell us anything about morality? -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 03:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well not quite. Social-science can theorise and explain what differing cultures across the world/history think of morality 'en masse'. They could even look for constants and consider them part of a group of non-moving morals but it cannot provide facts or 'answers' any more than religion can. Philosophy would be a much better place for theories on morality and ethics because they seem to be more abstract and non-committal than things such as traditional sciences and even religion - which are both bound by more of demand for yes/no clarity to their decisions. The point, though, seems to be that science alone is not a guide to life - whereas religion can be. It offers direction in how to live, what is right and wrong that sort of thing. Good science doesn't. Good science doesn't say (for example) that killing animals is wrong because of the pain/suffering they endure. It provides evidence that this is the case and leaves society to make the decision on the relative value of that 'truth'. A poor example i'm sure, but the point is not about whether that is right or wrong, but that science is not an apparatus for proving morality. Religion on the other hand does not offer evidence, it offers guidance on what is right and wrong based on the words of deities/gods/whatever. Though to make matters worse even religious morality changes across time, across the world!! ny156uk (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion doesn't really have any answers about morality, just opinions. And I doubt we can say there are such things as "answers about metaphysics". — Kieff | Talk 00:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

However, I don't think anyone should compare social-science with other sciences such as Physics and Chemistry. Social-science provides no explanation into 'how things work', instead it tells us that 'things do work'. It cannot tell us anything about morality, it can only tell us that such a thing exists. Cyclonenim (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And that statement itself can be seen as an opinion... Wrad (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To be clear on the morality issue, philosophy has a whole branch called 'ethics'. Rfwoolf (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking this because I've heard that there are mistakes in the Qu'ran. See the sections Mistakes in the Quran, number 18 in page 11, and Major Mistakes in the Quran, number 19 in page 12, in Islam - A Case Of Mistaken Identity in the Answers Book. But is that true? Bowei Huang (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Qur'an asserts that angels and other supernatural beings were milling about in the Middle East 1400 years ago. To me it's obvious that that's nonsense, but whether it counts as a mistake depends on whether you consider such things possible. Any minor historical quibbles you might find will certainly pale in comparison to its big demand on your suspension of disbelief: "magical beings came to Earth". --Sean 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox on Barbados

Why did George Fox visit Barbados in 1671 and what was the impact of his visit? Major Barbara (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Here (http://www.quakerinfo.com/barbados.shtml) might help get a bit more info. ny156uk (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also an online copy of Fox's journal where he discusses this time period. -- Saukkomies 11:13, 23 December 2007

And a similar question from september 2007; Fox on Barbados in 1671 SaundersW (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton and Montrose

First Question: Is there any obvious reason why James, 1st Duke of Hamilton should have been such a poor military commander and James, 1st Marquis of Montrose such a talented one, considering the first had more campaigning experience than the second?

Second Question: What was the reason for the decline in trust between Hamilton and King Charles I? Thank youDonald Paterson (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Q1 - Because experience is not a useful indicator of quality? There are those who have done things for years who cannot do them as well as those who have done them for weeks... On a scantly more useful note perhaps there were more factors at play than simply leadership in their respective commanding campaigns? Certainly when we judge political-leaders it is difficult to remove them from the global history/circumstances affecting what they could and couldn't achieve in power. 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

the promised one of Islam and the Seal of the Prophets

Muslims, to the best of my knowledge, are waiting for a "Promised One" of some sort, eg. Shi'a Muslims are expecting the return of the 12th Imam, and Sunnis the Mihdi, and/or the return of Christ (please correct any errors I have made here). However, they also regard Mohammed as the Seal of the Prophets, that is, the last prophet. How can they await the appearance of a Promised One if they also believe their prophet is the last? 203.221.127.216 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction here: the Mahdi is the prophesied "redeemer", not a prophet. Skarioffszky (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian army in WW2

The performance of the Italian army in WW2 was generally very poor. The various failures over a number of fronts suggests a lack of preparation, surprising considering the militant nature of the regime. Is there any evidence, then, on the structure, organisation and levels of investment in the armed forces before 1940? Were there specific command or logistical problems that could explain successive defeats? Henry Henryson (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The poor performance of the Fascist Italian army during WWII can not be attribiuted mainly to insuficient investments in military hardware and logistics, there were severall other reasons:

1. the Italian fleet was given priority over other branches of the Italian army (and was one of them of powerful navies in the world at the start of WWII)
2. lack of morale
3. the inability of the Italian factories to produce large numbers of modern equipment, (medium tanks like the P40 tank never entered mass production)
4. The inability of Italian allies (Germany, Japan, Hungary and others) to suply Italian forces with substancial number of military equipment that they were not able to produce themselves. Mieciu K (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Although Mussolini was a very militaristic character, his military was not organized in the same way that other powerful militaries were during the time of the Second World War. Part of this was due to the fact that Mussolini was fixated on the concept of trying to replicate the ancient Roman civilization, which carried over into how the Italian military was supposedly patterned after the Roman armies in antiquity. Wiki has a somewhat decent article about this under Blackshirts. I'd suggest following up on it by looking at the links posted at the bottom of the article. -- Saukkomies 12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cruelty reduced disposal

If I catch a mouse by a leg in a mousetrap, how should I execute it in the manner that is least cruel. I have no cyanide/ arsenic, etc. I am not prepared to hit it on the head with a hammer. - 91.106.39.188 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Aspirin? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps let it run free rather than catch it in the first place? Alternatively if you've already caught it perhaps you could set it free after having a check to see how bad its leg is? Certainly I know that if I were to be caught by a trap i'd rather have a broken-leg (or snapped) and be alive than be killed...Of course it might be considered 'cruel' to set it free when it is liable to struggle to continue to survive so how about packing it on its way with a nice bit of cheese or whatever mice actually like to eat? ny156uk (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that instantly destroying the brain is by far the most humane death possible for any animal. But I, too, can see several problems with the hammer method. They say freezing to death is not too bad once you get past the shivering. See hypothermia. How about dropping mouse and attached trap in a bucket and filling it with ice cubes. Wait for the mouse to fall asleep from the cold, and then pour in water to drown it. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen my father neck various critters in the past. Always seemed to be a pretty quick death if done correctly. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A college lab lists several ways for humanely killing mice (they like to call it "sacrificing" but that calls up images of pagan rites). Anesthesia or sedation of the animal prior to killing is recommended by the lab. Edison (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"the most humane death possible for any animal" would occur after that animal becomin' human ... Human death is NOT what electric chairs or drugs used for death penalty in some countries offer : why bother for mice and not for men ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 11:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We may never know :) --Taraborn (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

One method of "sacrificing" lab mice is a guillotine, but that calls up images of the mouse getting a final ride through the lab in a little cart, with the other animals jeering and throwing refuse, like in A Tale of Two Cities. 71.57.125.95 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the lab techs' job? ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of possession of WMD (Weapons of Mouse Destruction) may result in your home / suburb / town / state to be reduced to neat piles of smouldering rubble by the intergalactic ratpack. Corollary rodenticide will solve the problem of any relatives to Disneyworldian mice.

If you use such a WMD in your home, you must be aware of the consequences. Regret and Ooopses post facto / post mortem are a bit too late. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have dispatched many injured mice by cutting off their heads with a shovel, and never felt that it was at all inhumane. Anything that lasts less than a second from start to finish has to be close to optimally uncruel. --Sean 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

December 24

Bourgeois charms?

The movie title "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", what does it mean? How can a charm be discreet? Is this a French thing? --Milkbreath (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Among the meanings of "discreet" are "unpretentious", "modest", "unobtrusive", "unnoticeable". I'd go here with the first. I'm sure it is meant somewhat ironically by Buñuel, since he obviously makes fun of the bourgeoisie and its pretentions, but perhaps he is also suggesting that, in spite of all their ignorance, stupidity and pretentions, the bourgeoisie nevertheless also has an unpretentious charm, like kids at play who don't know any better. But here I'm out on a limb.  --Lambiam 00:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he meant it literally in any way. The movie spends the entire time lampooning the idea of the bourgeosie, portraying them in the worst possible light, with no redeeming qualities. (I thought it was a lousy movie, personally, but I'm no film critic.) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do Canadians shop in US?

The CAD is now at par with the USD. Say you live in Windsor, Ontario, and are shopping in Michigan for clothes, and you stay there for maximum 8 hours. When you return to Canada, you will have to pay GST, Ontario PST, Duties if it made in China, and I am not sure about this but the Michigan's Sales Tax.

So why do people consider cross border shopping as a money saving opportunity? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Few links: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5056-eng.html and Canadian_import_duties. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Two answers. First, if you bought the stuff in Canada you'd still be paying GST and PST, so that's not a factor either way. Only the duty and Michigan sales tax are factors. Canadian prices are often simply higher than US ones when exchange rates are stable: for one thing, the lower population density in Canada means that shipping tends to cost more, and the degree of competition between merchants may be different regarding specific products. In addition, prices of imported goods often lag behind exchange rate changes, as merchants base their prices on the wholesale prices they paid months earlier; with the Canadian dollar rising recently, this means Canadian prices are more likely to be higher than US ones. All this means that Canadian prices could be higher by enough to offset the duty and Michigan taxes.

The second answer is that some people cheat and don't declare everything they bought, hoping to get away with it.

--Anonymous Canadian, 05:56 UTC, December 24, 2007.

It's also just kind of fun, at first. Why shop at Zellers when you can go to Target, which we don't have here? I don't think there is going to be a logical answer here; people do lots of dumb things for no reason. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that the "dumb factor" is overlooked way too often. Just have a look at the millions of people that play lottery, can you think of a dumber investment for your money? --Taraborn (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this comes to mind... Corvus cornix_talk 21:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well lottery players often have a problem with basic maths [3] so it's not surprising if stats isn't their strong suit. Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you buy and how much. I try to go clothes shopping whenever I'm in the US. One time recently, I spent about $200 for stuff that would have cost at least $400 in Canada, if I could find it there. And the sales taxes are much lower in the U.S. As long as you spend less than $400 for a weekend trip, you don't have to pay any tax when you go back to Canada. The key here, though, is that I'm going to the U.S. anyway. Someone who lives in Toronto could use up eight gallons of gas traveling to Niagara Falls and back, plus all of the other costs of driving. It could very easily cancel out the benefits of shopping in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they are looking for a particular item unavailable in Canada. I remember once seeing two guys at Home Depot loading a entire panel van full with insulation. Perhaps not too odd except for the vehicle's Ontario plates. Besides all our great Detroit postcards unavailable over the river, we also used to have high volume toilets which were a cross-border smuggling item. Rmhermen (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I recall buying alcohol at a grocery store just for the thrill of buying alcohol at a grocery store! (It was the worst beer ever, but nevertheless.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Iron Guard

Why did the Germans offer no support to the Romanian Iron Guard when it was suppressed by Antonescu in January 1941? Captainhardy (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read The Legionnaires Rebellion and the Bucharest Pogrom, Iron Guard and Romania during World War II? These articles seem to provide enough info for you to reach your own conclusions. Antonescu was an ally of Hitler and it seems unlikely that the Germans would have wanted to support an coup by an unstable and unreliable military regime against a resonably stable and reliable partner Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was simi banned?

Why was simi banned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hadif Abdul Shaheed (talk • contribs) 08:40, December 24, 2007 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

SIMI was banned because the Government of India believes that the organization is involved in terrorism. For more information, see Students Islamic Movement of India.  --Lambiam 09:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

explain process of putting up a picture for explanation

need a picture explained of a lot of famous people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.232.111 (talk • contribs) 14:53, December 24, 2007 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

Sorry, I can't understand what you are asking for. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is your question about how to upload a picture that you have? Just click "Upload file" in the left margin and follow the instructions. You can only do that, however, it the image is free; if it is a copyrighted image you must not upload it here. You can find more information (a step by step explanation of the process) on the page Wikipedia:Uploading images. If you have further problems with uploading an image, you can ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk.  --Lambiam 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you don't want to put up the picture in Wikipedia, you can use a site like Imageshack to upload a photo, and link to it from here. SaundersW (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

American Indian Declaration of Independence

Resolved

Reading about this reminded me of something I had read about an American Indian tribe issuing a declaration of independence sometime early on in the US's history. If I remember right, Congress actually approved it, but it was vetoed by the president (perhaps Andrew Jackson?) However, I haven't been able to find any information on this on Wikipedia or elsewhere, and I'm beginning to wonder if I imagined it entirely. I believe it was a tribe in the South, but beyond that I can't remember much anything else. Anyone know whether such a thing actually ever occurred? -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the Cherokees of Northern Georgia in the 1830s. They created a Declaration of Independence using a lot of wording from the US Declaration. They were facing the Indian Removal Act. Gold had recently been discovered in their territory and they were being driven out. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, but the President ignored them (this is something he doesn't have power to do, unlike a veto, which he does have a right to do). The Cherokees were driven from Georgia to Oklahoma and thousands died in what is now called the Trail of Tears. I see no article about their Declaration on wikipedia. I can't find a copy of the text online either. It's hard to distinguish it from America's declaration on search engines. Wrad (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

An 1861 Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the Confederate States of America, loosely modelled on the U.S. DoI, can be found here. There is also a 1974 Declaration of Continuing Independence issued by "the First International Indian Treaty Conference", controlled by Lakota activists and mentioned in our Lakota people article. I can be found (as a PDF file) here.  --Lambiam 17:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wish we could find the 1830s Cherokee one. I have a print copy of it at home and it is really excellent. Wrad (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a print copy, and it is from the 19301830s, why not type it in and reference your print copy? SaundersW (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of long... You mean just type bits of it in the Trail of Tears article and whatnot? Wrad (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it is from the 1830s it is likely to be out of copyright (all authors long dead), and as it is an actual document, then citing it will not be original research. You could either try to scan the text through an optical reader and upload it to wikisource or type bits that you feel are relevant into the article you think they are relevant to, andd add a reference to your document. SaundersW (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Wrad (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Before you type it all in, try Googling a distinctive phrase from the document; I bet you 10 to 1 'tis somewhere out there on the World-Wide Web.  --Lambiam 19:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. I tried it out. Here's some links: a letter to Congress, here's the 1827 Cherokee constitution, the nearest thing to a "Declaration of Cherokee Independence" that there was, dated November 5, 1829. All of these documents clearly and intentionally mimic and refer to American legal documents such as the Constitution and D of I in order to communicate to Americans that they were standing on solid legal and moral ground in their arguments. Wrad (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info, Wrad (and everyone else). I see I wasn't remembering quite right, but very interesting nonetheless. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This material is too important to lie here and get archived and lost again. Could someone who knows more than I work some minimal text into the appropriate articles and support it with a <ref></ref> link to these on-line texts?--Wetman (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

what is the commercial law?

deffinition of commercial law ,

See Commercial law. -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

December 25

Six Questions To Norman Mailer

If,you could ask author Norman Mailer,six questions what would they be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.52.26 (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

From the top of this page: Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox.. Please do not ask questions which can only be answered subjectively. --ColinFine (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively - what the hell it is christmas and scarcely a day goes by when an 'opinion' question isn't asked (and answered) on the ref-desks...

1) How much of what you wrote in books about your life/experiences is true, and how much is poetic-license?
2) At the end of a long day what is your preferred way of relaxing/winding down for the evening?
3) What's the deal with books, do you get paid per-sale or per edition? Do you earn anything for library withdrawals?
4) Does writing take a long time or is it like every university assignment - left until the last minute and rushed through under pressure?
5) Which of the suits from your 6 wedding days did you like best? Did the suit have any bearing on the longevity of your marriage together?
6) Do you not think that the Warhol style and many other 'styles' are too self-congratulatory and that too much of people's interests are based on defining who they are not rather than who they are?
- There's my starter for 6. Some poor questions, some obvious ones, and some perhaps less obvious ones. Hope this gives you what you need - though seeing as Mailer died this year he isn't likely to answer the 6 posers i've set for you. ny156uk (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my go 1) Why do people ask pointless questions on the wikipedia ref desk? 2) What should we do about it? 3) What do you think of people who ask such questions? 4) Why should I care it's Christmas? (not that it is Christmas anymore) 5) Does 'other people are doing it' ever justify us doing something? 6) Does it justify me doing it? 7) How can I speak to you when your dead anyway? 8) Is it okay I asked 8 questions even though I was only allowed 6? Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a photography project about a modern second coming.

I saw a photography project that someone did a while back, and I can't remember who did it or where to find it. The subject was a modern-day Jesus, who appeared in the pictures as a curly-haired man with a beard, not looking "obviously" Jesusy; he was shown sharing a meal of pet food with an elderly immigrant, getting beat up while trying to stop a gay-bashing, and so on. The last one had him dying in an alley somewhere with no one noticing; it was very sad. I think the series dated from the seventies or the eighties. Does this ring a bell for anyone? grendel|khan 07:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Maitreya (Share International). - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's nothing like it. It was just a series of photos, and the subject was explicitly labeled as Jesus; he just didn't look exactly like those well-known icons. grendel|khan 05:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Angels

Hi, Whilst you do seem to have copious amounts of information on Angels and thier Orders etc there is one thing I can't find.I am trying to solve a family arguement,I say that only the Archangels have wings as they were the messengers.That is being countered by all Angels have wings.Can anyone settle this for me..........please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.141.39 (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• You may find this discussion from the "Angels" article helpful. --Halcatalyst (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember the creatures with wings in the Bible were Seraph and cherubim. See Christian angelic hierarchy. The Angles in the Second and Third Sphere apparently do not have wings. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Trust a guy called Daedalus to be an expert in wingiology. Even if it is the Dublin version :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Only Angels Have Wings. (Would that renowned theologian Cary Grant lie to you?) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The organization of angels into spheres/hierarchies came much later than the Biblical record, so if you're looking to that source you won't really find distinctions like that, although it's true that Cherubim and Seraphim (only) are specifically mentioned as being winged. Archangel(s) are mentioned only twice, and no references are given to wings at all. On the other hand, Zechariah saw "two women, and the wind as in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork" during a vision, (Zech 5:9) which perhaps had a degree of symbolic content, so it's not going to be possible to make a dogmatic statement about what kinds of angels have wings or don't without resorting to later tradition anyway. ◄Zahakiel► 17:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Go to the source: the guy who made up this angelology stuff is Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. --Wetman (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

December 26

Smallpox erradication and the soviet union

I'd like to know more about the soviet union's involvement in the struggle to erradicate smallpox. The article on smallpox seems to indicate they had a significant participation, but fails to state so, so I'd like to get the information to put it there. Cold Light (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The book you need is Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox by Jonathan Tucker, which details not only the Soviet contributions to smallpox eradication, but also their quest to mix smallpox with other bugs. A scary book indeed, and painstakingly researched. Among the key figures in the eradication program was Dr Viktor Zhdanov, then deputy minister of health for the USSR, who addressed the World Health Assembly in Minneapolis in 1958. He proposed a 'Soviet-style' five year plan to eradicate the disease. The USSR had eliminated smallpox by 1936 despite being little better than a third world country in terms of transportation and infrastructure, having poor quality vaccines, and having to service a huge, ethnically diverse, territory. Just the kind of expertise you'd need if you were trying to remove smallpox from Brazil or India. The USSR also pledged to donate 25 million doses of vaccine.

Unfortunately, the WHO was not interested in getting rid of smallpox at the time, but was rather caught up in the expensive American plan to wipe out malaria, which was eating up $13 million of the $30 million total budget for the WHO. Essentially throwing the USSR a bone, the WHA agreed in 1959 to finance the Soviet smallpox program with a budget of only $300,000 per annum.

The story is long, complicated, but quite worth reading. The Soviets always made the smallpox program a top priority, forcing the issue when nobody else was too interested. I can't type out all the details (read the book!), but the program was largely their baby; they provided the proposal, the blueprint for vaccination schemes, and continually pushed it onto the front of the agenda. It's a bitter irony that the same country that pushed for smallpox eradication the most also mucked about with such evil uses for it. I'm sure cynics would suggest the two programs were actually wed together, but I don't think that was necessarily the case. Matt Deres (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, and here's something else. The USSR was the chief provider of the vaccine, but it was determined that their vaccines were actually substandard. When Donald Henderson (an American and another key player) went to Moscow to discuss the problem, the USSR completely overhauled their program to surpass expectations. The WHO considered a vaccine of 100 million vaccinia particles per mL to be effective - the Soviet labs began churning out vaccines that were ten times that concentration. That meant they would still be potent even after losing some of the effectiveness due to heat. Just what was needed as the WHO prepared to tackle Ethiopia and India. Matt Deres (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Tucker title to the "Further reading" section at Smallpox. Could you expand the section there on eradication, along the lines of what you've reported here? --Wetman (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Angela Lansbury - Contact Information

Dear Reference Desk, Thank you for taking my question. Eric Skoglund mentioned you may be able to help me. As a fan, I would very much like to contact Angela Lansbury. Do you have any contact information or could you send me to someone who would know how to contact her? Gratefully Yours, Jimdando (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Jim Dando Jr.

I'm sorry, but we're not the Yellow Pages. We do not provide such information. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Try contacting her agent. Good luck finding out who her agent is. Rfwoolf (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, however, for an extremely polite, if somewhat unusual, form of question. Bielle (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You might try this: http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0001450/agent. It's imdb's agent contacts program, which is a pay service, but is free for 14 days. I've never used it, so I don't know how useful it is. That link would go to the Angela Lansbury contact information that they might have (there's no guarantee that they have it). Corvus cornix_talk 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A snailmail address, apparently for her agency, is in The Celebrity Black Book. All power to Google! --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we leave it at this, if just per WP:BLP. Helping the user in finding an answer to his question is fine, but let's respect Angela Lansbury's privacy. Not every reader may have noble intentions. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a privacy violation to point out published information about how to contact a celebrity's agent. I hope Aecis was saying that we should not go beyond that. --Anonymous, 10:42 UTC, December 27, 2007.

AecisBrievenbus, Wikipedia is not about censorship. It is not a crystal ball in which we scry what we project to be the ignoble intentions of others. If there is a place that makes this information available then people can provide it. According to WP:BLP business addresses are allowable if a reliable secondary source has already cited them. No one here is asking for anything beyond that. Let's not be quick to assume bad faith about the intentions of a person posting a question. Saudade7 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If I assumed bad faith, it was not on the part of the OP, but on the part of other readers. As I said, "Helping the user in finding an answer to his question is fine, but ... [n]ot every reader may have noble intentions." This applied to hypothetical others, not to Jimdando. Fact of the matter is that we are one of the most visited websites in the world. Information is more likely to be distributed when we say it than when an obscure personal website says it, because we have an innumerably bigger audience. Angela Lansbury's private address, for instance, is not public information, and it's certainly not encyclopedic. Keeping that hidden to respect her privacy has nothing to do with censorship. Also, we are not the Yellow Pages. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded snippy. It is almost 1 am here and for some reason my neighbors are playing Elton John's "Yellow Brick Road" over and over again and it is making me cranky. Maybe if this page is as famous as you say, they will see this and turn their stereo down! Alas, this is France and they probably don't come to the English wiki! I will say that I didn't see anyone asking for her private address. Just a contact address. And I guess I thought she was notable enough to make the request non-yellow-pagey. I thought it all sounded okay! Incidentally, I just saw her a week or two ago on late-night T.V. in the (1945) version of "The Picture of Dorian Gray" which is a great movie. She looked so young and innocent! Ciao! Saudade7 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

250 pages book prize winner and finalist

Hi there, I know it's like homework but it is not. It sounds like to much research to answer this but I want to know if there any fiction book prize winner or finalist of Man Booker, Pulitzer, Giller, National Book Award, PEN/Faulkner Award and IMPAC Dublin Award that has only 250 pages only?

Please answer my questions. Thanks. The answer I want is just the books name, so I can search for it in my library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.132.145 (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Ref Desk had this exact question about 10 days ago. If I knew how to check the archives, I'd give you the reference to it. As I recall, I gave you links to articles where you could find all the information except for the number of pages. I am curious as to why the books have to have "only 250 pages only"? Bielle (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I want to read the book of exact 250 pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.241 (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I want to read a book of exactly 250 pages. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.241 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous question is here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 11#International Literary 1992-2007 Prize winner or nominees.  --Lambiam 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you, User:Lambiam for the link. Second, my question is still hanging out there: why 250 pages? Bielle (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And page counts change from edition to edition, as well. No book has a "set" number of pages—that changes depending on whether it is in hardcover, paperback, large print, a new publisher, a new introduction, etc. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Music video I saw

I was watching British music programme/thing e4 music on channel E4, and a music video came on where a band where running/playing about in a gymnasium style room, where gymnasts were genuinely doing gymnastics, and the band were making lacklustre attempts etc. I also note it was quite colourful.

N.B. the band were called someone and the something, and I am sure the someone's name began with T if it helps.. thanks. Christopher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.160.202 (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Tilly and the Wall with Sing songs along? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KirTaMHAUG0 ? Great song - can't say i've seen it on uk tv but seems to fit your description ny156uk (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the one, thank you very much!! Christopher

December 27

Re Angels and wings or no wings.

How do I say thank you to all those who have answered my question? Is'nt it wonderful to have a site where questions can be answered by several people with differing views which gives pause for thought,and that they ask for nothing in return.Whoever came up with this site I salute you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.141.39 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Click the "edit" link next to your question and post a thank you (or a follow-up comment). Then, it will be attached to the end of the comments on your question. -- kainaw™ 13:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Names

Are Brazil nuts just called nuts in Brazil, and are Canada geese just called geese in Canada? Hyper Girl (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you are just trying to be cute, but it helps if you choose articles that do not have quotes such as: "In Brazil these nuts are called castanhas-do-Pará (literally "chestnuts from Pará"), but Acreans call them castanhas-do-Acre instead." As for the Canada goose, there is no reason for Canadians to not refer to it as the Canada goose. It isn't the only goose in Canada. Do you expect them to refer to it as "That other goose that isn't like the rest of the geese that everyone else calls the Canada goose"? -- kainaw™ 13:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, there is a House M.D. episode which deals with "Brazil nuts" and their name: Whatever_It_Takes_(House_episode).--droptone (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that only Americans call it Canadian bacon before I asked a Canadian friend about it and he had no idea what I was talking about or why it was called that. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's odd, we call that "back bacon". For geese, if I saw some Canada geese walking or flying, I would just refer to them as "geese", and everyone would know what I meant. If I said "there was lots of goose crap at the park today" everyone would know I meant those prolific defecators the Canada geese. We do call them "Canada geese" but it is usually enough just to say "geese". However, if I was referring to geese as food, I would assume it is a white-feathered goose on a farm. (I don't even know if that's true but I assume we don't eat Canada geese!) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely one or two of you Canucks have tried a honker.—eric 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

French fries aren't called French in France, nor are English Muffins called English in England. And Scotch Tape is called Sellotape in Britain.

By the way, the Holy Roman Empire was, as Voltaire remarked, neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well scotch-tape and sellotape are both brand names so that more why they have their different names. As for the other stuff - I expect that if the country-name is used to descirbe a national method of something then the national name would be dropped, but if it is describing something 'native' to that country then it may remain...E.g. English-muffins are presumably an english method of making muffins, thus in England we just call them muffins, but would call american-muffins american to note the difference from our 'normal' recipe. That's just my take on matters though! ny156uk (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well read the English muffin article for that mess of a name. Rmhermen (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we could take this national naming much further back with the French/Spanish/Italian/Polish/Christian/British disease question. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Spanish fly...Italian ice...Turkish delight...Welsh Rabbit...Irish coffee...Portuguese parliament (obs.)... my goodness! Rhinoracer (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Dutch courage. In Quebec the Canada Goose is called Bernache du Canada.  --Lambiam 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Czech Republic, many restaurants and snack bars sell fried potato wedges called Americké brambory, or "American potatoes." Czechs are surprised to learn they're not common in America. (For the record, french fries are called hranolky, a word that refers to their shape.) In the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland, the fat blueberries we're used to eating in North America are called "Canadian blueberries." The ones you normally get over there are smaller. In Canada, the term "American cheese" is not generally used; Subway calls it "white cheddar." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought "American cheese" was processed cheese slices! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is. All American cheese is processed, but not all processed cheese is American cheese. Or so Wikipedia says. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Going back to Adam Bishop's comment, I live (not too far) south of the Canadian border, but here, too, if you refer to "geese", people generally understand what are properly known as "Canada geese". The only other kind of geese that are somewhat common around here are domestic geese, but they are unusual enough that they are called "domestic geese" or "white geese". Marco polo (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Harrods

I know Harrods is an internationally renowned shop where anything is possible, i.e. you can buy an elephant from there, but how do they justify selling simple things, for example a mens cardigan at £1,300, for such exorbitant prices. Moreover, why are people so willing to pay this amount of money, do people really just have more money than sense? I mean I know Harrods does sell the very best but £1,300 for a cardigan is a bit of a joke --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are paying that much, you know that the other shoppers will be willing to pay that much. Therefore, you won't have to rub shoulders with the WalMart-type of customer. There are people willing to pay for that luxury. For example, I found a restaurant in Palm Springs that charged over $20 for a simple hamburger and fries. The extra cost is so you know that the people at the next table are also willing to pay that much for a hamburger. -- kainaw™ 15:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course what that says about you or your eating companions is a another question! Richard Avery (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What we consider 'sense' is pretty much our opinion of what things are worth. I wouldn't pay millions for an original Monet but plenty of people do and consider it to be 'worth' that much. The only real indicator of 'worth' that we have is its value in the marketplace and seeing as (presumably) these sweaters sell, we must conclude that those that buy them believe they are 'worth' the cost. Why? It could be down to quality, luxury, exclusivity, they might just plain ole like it and not have to worry about money at all or it could be any other number of reasons. Also consider proportionality in the prices. If you earn 10,000 and spend £10 on a jumper that is 1/1,000th of your earnings. If you earn 1,000,000 and spend £1,000 that is the same proportionally (I hope my maths is right!). Proportional to income they are spending the same on clothing. Yes they could 'save' and pay the £10 and have much more spare cash, but generally people 'live to their means' so as income increases so does their expenditure. There are plenty of people earning £1m not buying £1,300 jumpers but there are also plenty that won't consider that to be 'too much' because relative to their income it's no more than what most people pay. ny156uk (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Two words: "Caveat emptor". -- Saukkomies 12:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This might not be relevant, but it is common practice in the UK to inflate a price for 14 days (I think it is) then sell the item at an "amazing" 50% off (or with 50% extra), which looks like a bargain when of course it isn't. You can easily observe that some goods have monthly "see-saw" prices.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've worked at Harrods. At the time, the biggest money-earner was its Kerry butter. The highest markups were for perfume.

Harrods has always stocked low-price, high-volume items.

BTW, although my pay was pitiful, the fact that I worked in Dairy (including the cheese dept) and was able to buy all dairy items at half-price made up for it!

Snobbery? True, I was hired the instant I mentioned my school (Lycée Français de Londres), and everybody-- literally EVERYBODY-- called each other by his/her surname, e.g. Miss Regan, Mr Smith...even when snogging...

Halcyon days, youngsters, halcyon days...

Rhinoracer (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Being rich ain't easy. You wouldn't want to be caught dead wearing a £39.50 cardigan from Marks & Spencer – even though you may think it looks nicer on you. Just imagine the enormous loss of prestige.  --Lambiam 01:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, just buying the cheap sweater might help you to be rich! (though it hasn't worked for me yet).--Johnluckie (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who spend over £1,000 on a jumper/sweater when they could get one of very similar quality for maybe £150 generally do so to make a point. Often they are newly rich and want others to know that they are rich. People with inherited money have less to prove and are usually taught not to spend money with unnecessary extravagance. Marco polo (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[Latin] Is the link the work cited? Is it worth linking?

postted on Talk:Terence#Is_this_the_cited_work.3F and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome#Terence:

The Internet Archive has a book] that looks like Donatus's work cited in the article. I want to make sure it really is, and if so to link to it. Can somebody tell? trespassers william (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

trespassers william (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Joe Keeper

In researching the article on Joe Keeper, I ran across mentions of a modern day Joe Keeper, as being a person who has been interviewed frequently on Cree topics. I imagine this is a son or grandson of the athlete Joe Keeper, but I don't have any proof of that. Any information as to what his relationship is to the original Joe Keeper? There's also a ferry, M.V. Joe Keeper, and I wanted to add that to the Joe Keeper article, but there was nothing to prove whom it was named for. Does anybody have input to that? Corvus cornix_talk 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette's children

What happend to Marie Antoinette's children after the revolution?. Has the bloodline ended.

Signed Michael Fitzpatrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzpatrick1795 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

She had four children. Please see these articles. Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte of France, Louis-Joseph, Dauphin of France, Louis XVII of France, and Princess Sophie Hélène Béatrix of France. Oda Mari (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette was pregnant seven times. Three of these pregnancies resulted in a stillborn child (1779, 1780, 1783). Of the remaining four, there were two daughters and two sons. Princess Marie Therese Charlotte de France (Madame Royale), b. 1778 married her cousin Louis Antoine Dauphin of France, Duc d’Angoulême, the son of King Charles X of France, but they had no children. She died in 1851. Her brother, Louis Joseph of France, b. 1781, died at age 7. Another son, Louis, born 1785, died in 1795 in prison of tuberculosis. (Some impostors, notably Naundorff, have claimed to be him). The final daughter, Sophie, died at age 1. So Marie Antoinette had only one child who lived to adulthood, and had no grandchildren. - Nunh-huh 19:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil war in Pakistan

I read today where a Pakistani politician (even party leader, I think) talked of a serious danger of civil war in Pakistan: Is this exaggerated or how likely is a civil war in Pakistan following Benazir Bhutto´s assassination?--AlexSuricata (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no organised military or paramilitary force in Pakistan that could make much of a dent in the Pakistani Army; major political parties aren't backed by militias. Although radical (and sometimes militant) islamists are present in some strength in the northwest, they're not organised and don't share a much of a political vision, and their current military capacity runs mostly to bomb attacks and a bit of hit-and-run; they don't have much resources and the only worthwhile foreign support they enjoy is the occasional infusion of cash and nutjobs from Saudi - they're not the VC and they're not going to be sweeping into Karachi any time soon (caveat: see below). That leaves two possibilities. Firstly a general civil uprising - but the ordinary Pakistani folks on the street aren't of one mind; while many are unhappy with Musharraf it's not clear that, even now, they agree on much, and it seems (right now) that the attack on Ms. Bhutto is believed to have been conducted by islamists. So there's a lot of turmoil and discontent, but it's not really polarised enough for a downright X vs Y civil war. The army is capable of keeping control in all these circumstances, albeit with an increased level of repression.

The second possibility is division in the army itself; you hear rumours of cadres of officers having sympathetic views of the islamic militants; it seems unlikely a full-scale civil war could break out unless the army itself split. If some section of the army tried to overthrow Musharraf, or declared itself allied with the islamists, then all bets are off - but who knows how likely that really is. I think the US are concerned that it is a possibility - you may remember that odd business a month or two ago about the US expressing concerns regarding the disposition of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and Musharraf tetchily responding that he was entirely sure they were in safe hands and would remain so - the subtext seemed to be that the US, concerned that the nukes would get loose in the event of some general breakdown of Pakistan, had issued Musharraf with some indication that they (the US) would do whatever was necessary to prevent that from happening. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that the most likely scenario would be one of military coup (something not exactly unknown in Pakistan) from officers wanting to take advantage of a feeling of insecurity and popular unhappiness with Musharraf. But who knows—it's a pretty turbulent time, things could go a lot of ways. (If I were Musharraf, what I would do at the moment is to disarm Pakistan's nuclear weapons, get rid of the nuclear program altogether, and join the NPT. He'd be forever an enemy in the eyes of his people, but it'd make him an international darling, even in the wake of all this, and it'd significantly reduce the current nuclear threat that Pakistan poses due to its instabilities. But I'm not Musharraf and I don't pretend to have much understanding of the dynamics of domestic politics in Pakistan.) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Eating the Salad with his Fingers -- famous person who defies etiquette and the sheep who follow...

I remember reading about this in the 80s so it is not Ben Affleck (who is the only person who shows up in the Google search) -- The story is as follows: there was a famous person (back in the 1910s-1950s) who might have been a famous writer and person of culture. One day he is in a very nice restaurant in New York and he notices that everyone is staring at him. At this point he begins to eat his salad with his fingers. The person in question is such an arbiter of taste and refinement that people immediately question everything they know of etiquette and take up eating their salads with their fingers as well.

For some reason the name that sticks in my head is George Bernard Shaw but I cannot see this behavior or prestige meshing with what I know of Shaw. Maybe it was just a character in a story *by* Shaw. Or maybe I read this story the same week I also read something by or about Shaw. All I really know for sure is that it wasn't Ben Affleck. Any help is great! Saudade7 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The only person I can think of who might fit this is Eartha Kitt, who came to grief for eating something with her fingers at a White House reception - this was in the 70s, from memory. She countered with something like "If you're not supposed to eat anything with your fingers, what are the finger bowls doing on the table?". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well JackofOz, that's a great story! I don't think it is the story I am looking for, but good for Eartha Kitt! Really, what *are* finger bowls for? Me, I prefer Oshibori! Thanks for your help! Saudade7 23:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember hearing a variation of this one with some president who poured his coffee into the saucer and drank it, with his guests following suit. Don't remember who though. bibliomaniac15 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In the version I remember hearing the president in question was hosting a dinner, believe it was Calvin Coolidge, and being afraid to commit any faux pas in such distinguished company all the guests were determined to follow the president's lead in regard to table ettiquette. As coffee was being served at the end of the meal Coolidge somewhat inexplicably began pouring cream directly into his saucer; somewhat confused all the guests nonetheless followed his example, upon which the president proceeded to lean down and place the saucer for his cat. Always figured it to be apocryphal, but a good story anyways. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard a similar story (must be false then, lol): someone (I think it was a French king) was hosting a dinner, and one of the poorer guests started drinking water from a saucer. Everyone found it funny, but then the king did the same; soon everyone drank from saucers. More on topic, I've never heard about the fingers in the salad, unfortunately. :( · AndonicO ^Talk 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Louis XIV at war

A good bit of Louis XIV's reign was spent in military campaigns. What I would like to know is how effective he was as a strategist? Bel Carres (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Clio must be on vacation. This may not answer your question, but for now, you can check out Franco-Dutch War, the War of the League of Augsburg, War of the Spanish Succession, War of Devolution, War of the Reunions, which Louis was involved in. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

December 28

UNAM student population

I was curious about the student population of UNAM and had a couple of questions that I was hoping you guys could help me figure out.

1. How many campuses are there and how closely are they affiliated?
2. What is the geographic area that these campuses cover.
3. According to the article there are 286,484 students. Do they generally identify with each other as UNAM students or are they more tied to their individual campus?

What I'm trying to figure out is if it's more like some large university systems like The University of California system where there's not a lot of interaction between students at the different universities and in fact there's a little bit of rivalry, or if it's more like a single entity where students belong to various colleges within the University (e.g. engineering, humanities, biological sciences, etc) but they still identify with each other as UNAM alumni.

Thanks

71.5.1.203 (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetics, etc

I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some thinkers who are working with idea that music (and art, generally) which stays close to "the primitive" or basic or natural rhythms reflects "humanness" and is pleasing or comforting? Sorry for the vague terms; it's an idea I've been kicking around and I'm curious as to whether or not other people already have. A related idea would be Jung and Campbell's idea that "primitive" or "tribal" (what is an accurate term here, by the way?) lifestyles generally produce more psychologically healthy people--and, is that still a valid idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajwolter (talk • contribs) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try to pull the citations when I get off work, but I do remember one study of prisoners that found that the prisoners who had cells with windows to the outside went to the infirmary less often than prisoners who did not have cells with windows to the outside. This was a brief side-note in my evolutionary psychology course so I didn't track down the exact study to make sure they randomized it properly, but I would hope that the authors of the textbook did. But I will try to find the exact citation when I get home (~9 hours from now). I have also just started a book titled Evolutionary aesthetics edited by Eckart Voland and Karl Grammer, which seems to be something that you would be interested in.

I imagine that the idea that a certain set of sounds would be pleasing because they are primitive or basic would easily be tested. Get a wide range of sounds that are supposedly pleasing because of their primitiveness and find out whether people from a diverse cross section of human societies find the sounds to be pleasing (and it would be best if you would include a hunter-gather society in the mix for an accurate sampling). When I was studying world music there was talk about how many of the soundscapes we covered either explicitly or implicitly mimicked sounds from nature. But do realize that it is easy to make such a claim without any rigorous study of the musics of many cultures. My personal theory is that these mimicked natural sounds only make sense to a person who is already familiar with the musical style, just like onomatopoeia representations of sounds are different in different languages but to each language user the sounds seem perfectly suited.--droptone (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody wanna decipher this site for me?

http://www.desteni-universe.co.za/

Very out there website. If you can, figure out what their deal is. This thread is the closest to an overview I've come across: http://www.desteni-universe.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2140

They also have a YouTube account(s) (one of the biggest on YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/DesteniProductions (also: http://www.youtube.com/user/DesteniProdDemons ; http://www.youtube.com/user/DesteniProdCrossOver ; http://www.youtube.com/user/DesteniProdAfrikaans )

Here's a good video to start at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPKsS-FA2VU

[NOTE: The following thread on their forum (registration required) supposedly addresses the issue of the presence of her accent: http://www.desteni-universe.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1557 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like New Age theo-babble. Lots of empty statements about consciousness and truth mixed in with some poorly understood science analogies to make it sound more educated than it really is. At least, that's what I gather from skimming their FAQ. Personally I wouldn't spend more than a minute on it; I can't imagine what one would gain from reading such empty stuff. It's not real philosophy, it's not real science, and it's not real religion, if you ask me. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given their mentioning of Annunaki in the FAQ it may be some derivative of the work of Zecharia Sitchin who also shares many ideas with other thinkers like Erich von Däniken and whatnot.--droptone (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Governing Structure - officers - ranks of British Raj, East India Company

Hello All: I would like a concise, list or break down if you will of the Officers' titles and positions in the East India Co. and British Raj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geigenbauer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

watercolour artist possibly spanish

Dear Sirs, I am searching for info on the artist of 4 paintings I have. They were all painted within a week of each other, in April 1898,by a watercolour artist whose name appears to be , by the signature, Louis Fagnise/Fagaise, although the last 4 letters are indistinct. I have tried to contact Spanish art galleries, to no avail. These are beautiful paintings, with "Granada" written by the signatures. I would appreciate any info you may find, or e amil addresses of specialists who may point me in the right direction. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.161.205 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Charisma in U.S. Presidental elections

Is there any historical precedent of an American president making a strong showing in the primaries/elections or even making it into the White House largely due to his charisma or personal appeal?

202.156.14.10 (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy was seen as more charismatic than Richard Nixon in the 1960 campaign, and won despite Nixon's greater experience and paper qualifications. Kennedy's charisma [4] served him well in televised debates [5]. His personal appeal was an important factor in his election. Edison (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He's the first person that came to mind and is an excellent example, but my question probably didn't properly qualify that I'm looking for someone that was an unmitigated disaster elsewhere, being an actual president would also help immensely. Sort of like Huckabee if he made it into the Oval Office, if such an example's necessary. 202.156.14.10 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Warren Harding is mentioned by Malcolm Gladwell in the book Blink - the power of thinking without thinking, as an example of a charismatic individual who was actually not very good, but did well because of his charisma. I forget the details as i've passed the book to a friend, but I recall him being mentioned as a mediocre president. ny156uk (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This can be phrased a different way: Has there been any U.S. President who was elected without having charisma or personal appeal? Nixon, Lincoln, and Jackson are the only ones that come to mind. As for "disaster" - that is an opinionated statement in politics. What you call "disaster", another person calls "experience". -- kainaw™ 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That there isn't a objective standard is true, but there is still a broad consensus that can be reached. Thank you, Warren Harding fit the bill perfectly. I'm trying to illustrate how past all the feel-good rhetoric Obama is espousing and the sentiment that endgenders, there really isn't anything that points towards aptitude, but I don't think he has precedent in someone trying to heal divisions, so I'll have to settle for old Harding. 202.156.14.10 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in political talk about healing divisions, see the Lincoln-Douglas debates (which should be called the Douglas-Lincoln debates in my opinion since Douglas won). Lincoln was trying very hard to straddle the fence and make everyone happy while Douglas was constantly bringing up inconsistencies and lack of aptitude in Lincoln's past. It is my opinion that the reason we don't include these debates when we teach youngsters about Lincoln is because they make him look like a politician who is just trying to make people like him so he can get elected. Of course, we don't want to get derailed into a debate over the content of the Lincoln-Douglas debates here. I just feel it is a good precedent for a politician trying to be the big "healer" and not a "divider". Many politicians have claimed to be healers since then, but haven't done much in speeches or actions to follow up on the claim. -- kainaw™ 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter comes to mind as well. Reagan was a lot more charismatic. Wrad (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Martin Van Buren could ever have been considered charismatic, but in those pre-mass media days, it really didn't matter so much. Corvus cornix_talk 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In 2000, George W. Bush was seen as more charismatic than Al Gore. Whether Bush has been a disaster, I leave you to decide. Marco polo (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bombardier Q Series

Hello. Is the Bombardier Q Series indirectly named after the Quiet Revolution? Thanks in advance. Have a happy new year! --Mayfare (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Joshua Gianavel

Does anybody have any information about Joshua Gianavel, other than what's written about him in Foxe's Book of Martyrs? Corvus cornix_talk 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Try this [6] --n1yaNt 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you see: Mitchell, A. W., & Muston, A. (1853). The Waldenses sketches of the evangelical Christians of the valleys of Piedmont, comp. for the Board of publication chiefly from "The Israel of the Alps.". Making of America. Philadelphia: Presbyterian board of publication and Sabbath school-work. [7]. The Amazon preview quotes "... Captain Joshua Gianavel, who alone had foreseen the contemplated treachery, kept the hostile army in check, and by degrees drove it from the ..." on page 195, but i can't yet find that passage in the University of Michigan online edition. Is this the same Captain Gianavel you're interested in?—eric 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)