Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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!

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 16

Bengali Asian Eyes

According to the Bengali people article, it states that Bengalis have Tibeto-Burman ancestry. Some Bengalis especially the Bengali-speaking Bengladeshis have oriental eyes. What mongoloid tribes did the Bengali people mix with in history? Sonic99 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your question involves a couple of assumptions, none of which is probably true. You assume that 1) a given ethnic group on the borderlands of South Asia and Southeast Asia can be assigned cleanly to one or another Western racial category; 2) that we can identify present-day tribes with people who may have intermarried with members of different ethnic groups in Bangladesh in the past; and 3) that there was a people that could be called Bengali before they intermarried with people that could be identified as Mongoloid. (Your question also assumes that Western racial categories are a meaningful way of classifying people, but I will not address that assumption.) Putting aside your assumptions, it isn't possible to give a certain answer to your question, which I will take to be something like "What present-day people with physical features akin to those of East Asians historically intermarried with the ancestors of today's Bangladeshis?" In fact, I don't think that there is a historic record of such intermarriage, but genetic evidence indicates that it occurred in prehistoric times. Marco polo (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bangladesh is next to Burma (hint: Tibeto-Burman). Aside from the Burmese, there are a number of Tibeto-Burman minorities in the area (Lolo, for example). There's a good chance that there's been some historical intermarriage there. But equally, the British were in the area for centuries, as well as the Portuguese and the Indo-Aryans. Lots of mixing = hard to tell. Steewi (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary philosophy

After looking around Wikipedia, I came to the conclusion that philosophy kind of died after deconstruction, meaning that there were no other real new movements. Is this accurate or did I miss something? Evaunit♥666♥ 03:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean movements in Continental philosophy, because analytic philosophy has paid little attention to the trends of its cousin (although, as mentioned in Wikipedia's deconstruction article, Derrida has been criticized by a number of analytic philosophers namely Quine and Searle). Jean Baudrillard seems to be a reasonable big name in Continental philosophy who produced ideas outside of the spectre of deconstructionism. Slavoj Žižek's ideas seem to go against deconstruction. I am sure someone more well-versed in Continental philosophy can provide more insight, since I am an outsider.--droptone (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In the continental tradition there's been a lot of developments in feminist philosophy over the past 20 or 30 years (although the major figures like Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva come from a post-structuralist background) and gender/queer theory (Judith Butler is best known, but again draws heavily on people like Michel Foucault). There are still people doing work in a Marxist tradition, e.g. Slavoj Žižek, Fredric Jameson, and to some extent Jürgen Habermas. Outside of work in specific fields (feminism, gender, maybe race) there's no big new movement, just steady progress by people from different traditions - although post-structuralism and deconstructionism was hardly a coherent unified movement either. Bernard-Henri Lévy is probably still the leading figure in French philosophy, and I think some French people are rather upset about the nation's philosophical decline. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, among philosophers Bernard-Henri Lévy is considered a preposterous clown. French philosophers who have recently attempted to return to ontology and a kind of metaphysics, rejecting postmodernism and poststructuralism, are Alain Badiou and Quentin Meillassoux. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Grashchenko?

I'm trying to ascertain the identity and full name of a "Prof. Grashchenko" who was the USSR's representative on a post-WWII commission of inquiry (presumably international) into the Nazi-era Majdanek camp. This 1964 photo was taken on a visit to the Ghetto Fighters' House (also in the photo: Sara Shner-Neshamit and Yitzhak Zuckerman). Per this photodocumentation, he couldn't be Viktor Gerashchenko, who would have been 27 years old at the time; however, I suggest there appears to be a family resemblance. I'd appreciate any help in pursuing this further. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be a coincidence, but the picture you showed does show a family resemblance between Viktor and the unnamed "Professor". While I would agree that, given the age, it is obviously not Viktor, I would not rule out a father/uncle/cousin connection somewhere... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a google search for both spellings: Grashchenko and Gerashchenko and it turned up enough hits (even removing all of the links to Viktor) to indicate that both are common enough Russian names to make this a somewhat difficult search. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

British laws of war on land

I like to know what was the forreign policy of Britain about laws of war on land (laws and customs of war on land) during the 19th century especially on the second half of the 19th century. Was the policy of laws of war on sea was different? Did they act differently from other countries? Did they acted differently when they fought against armies in asia or africa (native) and other way when they fought white peoples (was the recorded policy different?) oded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.227.168 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added a subject heading to your post. Please take the time to read the reference desk header as it will help you get a faster response Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Brits were the first to use concentration camps against civilians, in the Second Boer War. The Boers were Africans of mostly Dutch descent. StuRat (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so. The Spanish used them first, in Cuba. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. He beat the Brits by a few years, but was apparently less successful in their use. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop saying "the Brits", by the way. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that an acceptable shortening of "the British" ? StuRat (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether the Turkish dislike being called Turks has absolutely no bearing on whether the British dislike being called Brits. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect, if a Japanese person asked you to stop talking about 'the Japs', would you argue the point with him? If some British people profess to dislike the term (as one of the posters in the Turks thread indeed does), it would be courteous to respect that.

Certainly the phrase 'the Brits' has an implicit air of condescension - a 'Yo, Blair' quality to it - that some people find distasteful. It'll only take two extra keystrokes to type 'the British', and you won't get people's backs up by doing so. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, whether one ethnic group dislikes a shortened form of their name has no bearing on what another group likes. Do Australians object to being called Aussies ? Or, for that matter, how about non-shortened nicknames. Do New Zealanders object to being called Kiwis ? Do Americans object to being called Yanks ? (As for the last case, I certainly don't object.) And what any one person prefers tells me nothing about how the term is taken in general. If you can find a dictionary entry that says it's a pejorative term, or some survey that shows that a large portion of the Britsh find the term offensive, then I'll stop using it. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How about you bother to listen when people ask you not to do something? I'd have thought WP:DICK strongly applies here. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not likely to respect the opinions of people who insult me like that. StuRat (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh the irony, it burns. —Tamfang (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying 'the Brits" btw?82.22.4.63 (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Brit Awards. Sorry, just commenting on "Brits" really. ~ R.T.G 06:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a British person I've met here in the UK in the last six years who would find "Brit" the least bit objectionable or offensive, though it's not common usage at all here (the way "Aussie" and "Kiwi" are in their respective countries) and would lead the listener to guess the speaker is American.

Which isn't the question asked, but we've hopefully all learnt a few new things ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Junkeeper

Could you please tell me what occupation was a JUNKEEPER in Scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.193.29 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an example of this word in use? I am struck that it may be a transcription error for "jun. keeper" - a junior keeper. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am working on my family tree and my third generation grandfather occupation is listed as Junkeeper.Robert Steel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert steel (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Duncan on this. About 120 years ago? Game keeper. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to ask on the Scots language version of wikipedia as it may be a scots term which they're likely to be more familiar with than most of the folk here at the English site. AllanHainey (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is the devils tri tone so disturbing?

Why does it make my backhairs grow legs and crawl up my spine? What is so subconsciouly disturbing about well spaced notes? Does it somehow draw in a dark spirit solely from its physical makeup? I'm scientific but sometimes.....could someone tell me what's happening here?--Dr. Carefree (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Some information in Tritone may help. Or not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also explained here[1] and some at dissonance. More eeriness here[2] on the effect of a minor scale. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that those who wrote about the "disturbing" nature of the tritone tended to be listening to music in meantone temperament. It seems to be less disturbing to modern ears, at least in part because equal temperament makes it an interval of 600 cents rather than 579 cents. The "pure" tritone would be 583 cents. Do you find West Side Story unnerving? - Nunh-huh 00:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Flattened fifth needs to resolve onto the fourth of the scale. Thats why its a bit tension creating. Listen to bars 3 & 4 of Ellington's 'Take the A train' for the flattened fifth effect. Personally, I like it--GreenSpigot (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In what context do you find it disturbing? The tritone is found throughout music. It gives the dominant seventh chord its zing, for example. And that is very a common chord I doubt few would find dark or disturbing. Think of that first chord, sung note by note, in the song Twist and Shout. When the 4th note comes in, making a tritone, does it turn dark? To my ears it rather becomes a bit energized. If one plays a tritone "bare", without other notes or harmonic context, it is fairly dissonant, but not as much as the minor second. There's some historical baggage about the tritone being "diabolical", but as other have said, that comes from old tuning systems in which the tritone often did sound awful. But in modern 12-tone equal temperament the awfulness has been greatly reduced--albeit at the expense of other intervals. I mean, listen to the equal tempered major third carefully. The way is it jarringly sharp from the pure resonance of 5:4 is quite disturbing! ...or perhaps energizing. Pfly (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For further perplexing energizing/evil quandry check out some of Mars Volta's Omar Rodriguez-Lopez's use of it.NByz (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with dog meat?

Why is it forbidden in many countries to eat dog meat? The article makes some general comment on friendliness and emotion of dogs. The same could be said about pretty much any other domestic animal we eat (maybe with the exception of crocodile, but I'm not sure that really qualifies as "domestic"). So what's wrong about eating dogs (for non-vegetarians)? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say intelligence is important, too. Pigs are about as intelligent as dogs, but cows and especially chickens are less intelligent. Dogs have also been kept as pets the longest of any animal, so gained a special status from that. StuRat (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I like the "privilege as longest pet" idea. As for intelligence, I heard that pigs are more intelligent than dogs (in fact, the most intelligent domestic animal) though I don't remember if this comes from a trustable source. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: To clarify: I'm not so much looking for dog defenders (though they're invited to join the discussion, of course!), but I'm trying to understand why certain people or institutions feel so strongly about the issue. See dog meat for examples where people talk about "unnecessary cruelty" and ask for boycots etc. The Muslim prohibition could explain outrage among Muslims (though there actually isn't, at least not to my knowledge), but the most outspoken opponents don't even seem to have religious reasons. So... what's going on? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it has something to do with the dog's status as a working animal (almost a tool when used skilfully). To eat a trained hunting dog would fill your belly for a day, but deprive you of food for much longer. DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

People generally oppose the eating of pet animals. Dogs and cats are strongly associated with being pets, and people interact with pets like they interact with other family members, particularly the way they interact with children. Thus, to some, someone eating a dog hooks into the same emotion as someone eating a child, although generally not as strong. Cultures that eat dog appear to be more common than those that eat cat, plus dogs have the whole 'loyalty, unthinking sacrifice' thing. Voilà. 79.66.58.154 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I also think that this is just one of those cultural "accidents". Different cultures have different do's-and-dont's when it comes to food. Muslims can't eat pigs, Jews can't eat shellfish, Hindus can't eat cows, westerners can't eat cats. Meanwhile, it's completely acceptable to eat a snail or frog in France, a dog in China, bull-testicles in Mongolia, or fermented herring in Sweden (that might not sound as bad as the others, but trust me, it stinks like nothing else). Different cultures simply have different hang-ups when it comes to food. Belisarius (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Belisarius, it is entirely cultural. There is no real logic to it.--Eriastrum (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is one good reason not to eat dog: it's a carnivore. Raising cows is great because you're using the cow to process grass (something you can't eat) into meat (something you can eat). Raising dogs uses meat (something you can eat anyway) to make less meat. This doesn't make as much of a difference now (since the cows are mostly eating corn that could feed people), but traditionally it made eating dog rather wasteful. SDY (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

People not in the habit of performing such acts seem inclined to prevent them. Preventing all animal slaughter is less likely than preventing one or two types of animal slaughter first beginning, perhaps, with the one they grow up playing with and love, their little alien brother or sister (woof, woof)? Sigmund Freud (granddaddy of psychology?) says that our subconcsious reacts in a highly intelligent manner such as would support that teaching people evolution, that other creatures are less developed or infantile species, equates eating animals to eating children. This would lead to strong paranoia and a strong urge to prevent this paranoia without accepting the fact that anything unnacceptable has occured,or performing worse acts to convince the mind that it is not a bad thing to do. Now, Freud would equate an imagined brick to a remembered penis if he could convince himself but he convinced a lot of other people too. @SDY, Hasn't made as much sense for quite some time. At one time taking the skin off an animals back was priceless to any human and food which grew on trees was not available in such large fields and supermarkets. Winter would be a nightmare. ~ R.T.G 04:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote by Emerson

Transcendentalist Emerson made some vivid comment on that he doesn't care if he changes his mind. I don't remember if he says you could shoot him with a cannon or whatever. The bottomline, however, is that if he said something different before, who cares, now this is his opinion. Anyone knows from this vague description which quote I might refer to? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about Emerson offhand, but Whitman expressed something similar when he wrote "Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." Deor (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the essay Self-Reliance. The famous quote is: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Fullobeans (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fullobeans is right. This is a glorious essay, worth reading in full, and then reading again once a year. The paragraph you are thinking of is this:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Out upon your guarded lips! Sew them up with pockthread, do. Else if you would be a man speak what you think today in words as hard as cannon balls, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today. Ah, then, exclaim the aged ladies, you shall be sure to be misunderstood! Misunderstood! It is a right fool's word. Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood." (From Self-Reliance)

Would that we had more such thinkers. Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We need a "WP:FOOLISHCONSISTENCY" page. (Or maybe IAR covers that.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

William Randolph Hearst has been quoted as saying something to the effect that "it is better to be correct than consistent". I can't seem to find the source, though, right now.--Eriastrum (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So what happens when you apply this to WP:MOS? :) Wrad (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley wrote: "Too much consistency is as bad for the mind as it is for the body. Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead". That reminds me of what my Dad used to say: "Moderation in all things - including moderation". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell (i think) remarked that, while it would be irresponsible not to change one's views upon improved understanding, such a change is (culturally) seen as a sin for a philosopher because philosophy grew out of theology. —Tamfang (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

December 17

today the Fed cut its interest rate to practically 0 -- is a NEGATIVE rate possible?

if institutions STILL don't want to borrow ANY money (exposing themselves to debt), could the Fed lower interest rates further, to slightly below zero, ie paying institutions to finally expose themselves to some debt by taking loans, and being paid to do so?

or is this not possible for some reason I'm not seeing...

source:

• "Fed Cuts Benchmark Rate to Near Zero" (the top headline in today's new york times) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.213.98 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be an arbitrage situation, and anyone who can access the federal fund rate would, rationally, immediately borrow infinite amounts of money, creating a run on the reserve (since you get money for borrowing, so the more you borrow the more income you get) and collapse the economic system. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that repayment is necessary, a deflationary environment would strongly discourage borrowing, even at mildly negative interest rates. After all, who wants to repay a debt with money that is more valuable than before? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DOR, I might be late to the party, but I believe I see a flaw in your reasoning: nobody wants to repay debt with money that is more valuable before IF THEY DONT GET ANYTHING FOR IT -- but if they are paid to do so, they can borrow the money, do NOTHING with it (keep it in the envelope) and then it doesn't matter if the value appreciates,depreciates, etc. They still HAVE the original moneryr. That's why it would be an arbitrage situation -- wouldn't you accept $10,000 now in exchange for not opening an envelope for a year that has a $1 billion dollar bill in it -- ie you have to return the $1 billion dollar in a year. It doesn't matter if by that time it is worth a trillion in current dollars because of insane deflation. You still have the money. You chose not to spend it, because you were doing arbitrage on the payment you get for taking it and returning it later (keeping it safe). Obviously the only way to do this risk-free is not to turn the dollars into goods/services/anything else, hoping to be able to turn them back into dollars. Just keep it in dollars you are safe. So, under those conditions, everyone WOULD borrow infinite money (or as much as they can) and, suspecting deflation, not spend it... 79.122.88.197 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

True. I should amend the above by inserting "real" after negative. Clearly a nominal negative rate is no different from a marginally positive nominal rate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Any imposition of negative real interest rates would need to include an imposed "cost of holding real money balances (bills)." Some suggestions have included putting expiration dates on banknotes, and letting people (mostly through banks, who would deal with the central bank directly) redeem them for a discounted number of new 'fresh' bills every year or two.

It's been suggested that banks could respond to a system like this by suspending the one-to-one ratio between a chequing account balance and cash. Early in a redemption period, the ratio would be nearly one-to-one, but as the first expiration date approaches, the ratio would slowly fall to (let's say the discounted value of fresh bills you got was .95 of your original amount) .95:1. Once redeemed with the central bank, the ratio would go back to 1:1.

Administrative costs for a program like this would be large. There would be "menu costs" as merchants would have to post different prices when payments are made in cash then when they are made by cheque/card. The Fed and Big Banks would have to hire people just to administer and audit the program. There would also be a "sub-optimal allocation opportunity cost" as certain, otherwise "positive Net Present Value, free market" transactions that could have taken place using cash may not take place if bank deposits or credit wasn't available. That opportunity cost would only exist if accessing bank deposits wasn't exactly as easy as accessing cash. In this day in age, I think there is an argument that this cost would be small because we almost always have a bank or credit card on hand. This program may actually improve efficiency be making black market transactions (wealth that has to either saved in cash or be converted to hard assets to paper trail) less profitable! It's long been argued that a nice high inflation rate acted as a tax on crime!

There has been some serious discussion lately about a program like this being put in place (for just a few years, then back to normal). However, it's my feeling that the Fed has chosen it's aggressive cutting strategy (when there is some doubt before an FOMC announcement about what the cut will be, the actual cut has been bigger than what is suggested by the CBOT Fed Futures contract throughout this cutting campaign) with the knowledge that they are using up the last of their interest rate "ammo". I don't think they want to try a program like this. It might be unfairly compared to Nixonesque price controls or Depression era protectionism; a risky ride into uncharted territory. It would be politically dangerous. Remember, though! Short term interest rates can be thought of as the time-price of short-term money! If the problem is that the Fed Funds rate cuts aren't translating into cuts in real rates, the Fed's strategy of injecting money via asset purchases and guaranteeing loans will effectively increase that money supply, forcing down that price. The Fed has other policy options available! NByz (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Back to real world examples. Due to the need to reduce interest rates so as to protect the currency board exchange rate peg, Hong Kong some time back (1998?) imposed negative interest rates on large (HK$1 million+, about US$128,000) bank deposits. A fee was charged against the account, but the effect was a negative interest rate. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Nationalism in Pakistan

Is there such thing as Sindhi Nationalism, Baloch Nationalism, Pashtun Nationalism, Punjabi Nationalism, Hindko Nationalism and Saraiki Nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know for sure that there are/were nationalist movements in all those case, except Hindko. I never heard of any Hindko nationalist movement, but perhaps there is. As per Punjabi nationalism, there was definately Punjabi separatism in India, but I suppose your query related to Pakistan. I don't know of any movement to separate Punjab from Pakistan. --Soman (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Khalistan

Does this sound controversy?: I am a Bangladeshi Muslim and I believe that Indian Punjab should be called Khalistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But what is your question? Xn4 (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If your question is, "does it sound controversial if I refer to the Indian state of Punjab as Khalistan," I'd say that it probably sounds controversial to some. The Khalistan movement aims to create an independent, theocratic, Sikh state; the article says that secession is not permitted by the Indian constitution. I don't know anything about Indian politics, but I see at least some parallel to the issue of separation/sovereignty for Québec sounding controversial to some Canadians. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Nationalism in India

Is there, in India, such thing as Marathi Nationalism, Gujarati Nationalism, Oriya Nationalism, Bengali Nationalism, Kashmiri Nationalism, Punjabi Nationalism, Tamil Nationalism, Telugu Nationalism, Malayalam Nationalism and Kannada Nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But why does your question stop there? India is an ancient sub-continent, made up of a huge number of potential 'nationalisms'. There are great stresses and strains. Xn4 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you by nationalism mean the wish to establish a separate national state, then there is Kashmiri, Punjab (Khalistani) and Tamil nationalisms. If you define nationalism more broadly, for example the wish to have a linguistic state inside India, then there is a wider scope. --Soman (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Amra Bangalee is a Bengali nationalist movement in India. --Soman (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In both India and China, many provinces have populations and areas comparable to major European countries -- and India is less unified by language than China is. I certainly know that Tamil nationalism exists, since it keeps intruding itself in a rather annoying way into a linguistics-related article that I have on my watchlist... AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kurds in Syria

I notice that the Kurds didn't do the same thing as their Iraqi counterparts did in order to independent from Syria. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Because there are proportionately fewer Kurds in Syria (about nine per cent) they are not perceived as a threat to the central state in the way that they are in Iraq and Turkey. See Demographics of Syria. Xn4 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are also some geopolitical reasons, Syria supported the Kurdish movement in Turkey to get leverage against Turkey. It also had good relations with the KRG during the Saddam period. After the occupation of Iraq this has changed somewhat, and political life in Syrian Kurdistan is gradually developing more along the lines of Iraq. --Soman (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon and Syria

Aren't Lebanon and Syria the same? They Sunni, Shi'a, Maronite and Druze population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Other factors made for differences. Whether before or since Lebanon was torn apart by war, I'm not aware that anyone has ever called Syria "the Switzerland of the Middle East". Xn4 (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party certainly considers Lebanon and Syria as part of the same nation. Historically, the division between the two states was made by the colonial power for political reasons, culturally and linguistically Lebanon and western Syria used to be one region. --Soman (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In the nineteenth century, there were few commonly-perceived "national" distinctions (in the modern sense of the word) among the inhabitants of the middle east, and the word "Syria" was very often used to refer to the whole Levant region. Many of the residents of Mount Lebanon (a much smaller area than the whole territory of modern Lebanon) certainly had distinctive localist feelings, but real nationalism was mainly due to European influences very late in the century. Faisal of the Hashemites certainly was ambitious for the Arab state promised to him by the British to include the area of both modern Lebanon and modern Syria (among others). It wasn't until 1936 when the French definitively separated Lebanon from Syria, by leaving Lebanon out of the union of the other French Syrian mandate territories (Damascus, Aleppo, Latakia, Jebel-Druze). Unfortunately, the French created a "Greater Lebanon", which expanded from the Maronite-Druze core Mount Lebanon area to include areas predominantly inhabited by Shi`ites and Sunnis. The political history of Lebanon from 1958 on would probably have been much more stable if the French hadn't expanded the definition of Lebanon in this way...

In any case, I'm not sure that Syria and Lebanon have the same overall religious mix -- I would guess that there is a greater proportion of Maronites in Lebanon, and a greater proportion of Alawites in Syria. AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Eating humans

The passengers of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crashed and were stranded without food for more than two months. They cannabalised other dead passengers which prevented them freezing or starving to death. Is this the only such disaster situation in recorded history where people are known to have resorted to cannabalism (I do not mean eating strangers passing through the village for fun or to please the Gods) ~ R.T.G 02:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a case in the 19th century involving sailors in a lifeboat, I'll have a hunt around as I am sure we have an article. DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Found it, it was R. v. Dudley and Stephens, and there are more at Category:Incidents of cannibalism. DuncanHill (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Duncan, it is related to debating some content flavour so the category will be useful as well. I am trying to establish how unusual the event was. Thanks. ~ R.T.G 02:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty more not included in the category, particularly sieges and poorly planned expeditions. The first-hand account by Josephus of the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD is harrowing in the extreme (curiously our article does not mention the cannibalism reported by Josephus). A very fine new article that just appeared on the main page, Coppermine Expedition of 1819–1822, discusses the "Man Who Ate his Boots" (and evidently a few other things). I think I'll spend my winters in southern California, thanks. Antandrus (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Donner Party is arguably the most famous example of this in the USA. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly uncommon. See Custom of the Sea. There appears to have been quite a bit of cannibalism during the Siege of Leningrad, and, more recently, there were some survivors of the Bay of Pigs Invasion who apparently resorted to cannibalism while stuck in a small boat en route back to the US. There are several more instances mentioned at Cannibalism#During_starvation. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a famous (well, to me) case of cannibalism during the First Crusade...it's mentioned in the cannibalism article but that source is unreliable. In the re-featured-article-ization of the First Crusade article, I'm almost up to that part, so hopefully it will be fixed everywhere soon. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get a real (ahem) flavor for what it's like to arrive at this extremity, I highly recommend the historical fiction novel The Ungodly: A Novel of the Donner Party, by Pulitzer-winning historian Richard Rhodes. --Sean 15:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems now that the Category:Incidents of cannibalism isn't often used and maybe the whole Category:Cannibalism is not used all the time. ~ R.T.G 04:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories don't seem to be a labor of love for most editors, and are often overlooked. Somebody may have created Category:Incidents of cannibalism, populated it with all the articles they could think of, and then never looked at it again. So by all means, if you're researching cannibalism, add the articles you come across to the category! The only way to get anything done around here is to do it yourself. ;) --Fullobeans (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ismaili Ethnic Groups

I have heard of Khoja, but what about Mumani, Shahi, Punjabi, and Kasmiri? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What particular branch of Ismailism did you mean? AnonMoos (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean the Nizaris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.233 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Latino Muslims

Why women were the only Latinos to convert to Islam according to your article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.31 (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Our article doesn't say that the only Latinos to convert are women. It says a majority of converts are women. The source provided for this is audio and I can't listen to it right now. But I'd guess (WP:OR warning) it has something to do with women generally being more religious than men. Dismas|^(talk) 04:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps that is due to the fact that woman tend to adapt more to their partners than men. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The one who received most media coverage in recent years was actually Jose Padilla... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Adam Walsh/Ottis Toole

There's something that I'm missing from all the articles that I've read thus far about the recent closing of the murder of Adam Walsh case. If the blood/DNA samples have been lost, how can Ottis Toole be ruled as the murderer? I realize that he admitted to it on his death bed but he had admitted to the murder before only to recant his story. So why believe him on his deathbed? I just don't see how this case can be closed and Toole singled out as the culprit.

Also, a minor question about the whole thing. From what I've read, his niece heard his deathbed confession. Yet our article says that Toole was buried in the prison cemetery because nobody claimed his body. Can a family member, his niece in this example, refuse to claim the body of an inmate? Do they have to cite financial reasons or some other reason when doing so? Dismas|^(talk) 04:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to answer: "You must claim your relative's body from prison. If you don't, they'll leave it on your porch." :-) StuRat (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Believe it or not, people did sometimes get correctly convicted of murder before the advent of DNA evidence. Merely because the DNA evidence does not exist does not automatically mean that there is reasonable doubt as to his involvement in the murder. I have no specific information on this particular case, but don't assume that the non-existence DNA evidence is in any way exculpatory... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I realize that but, from everything that I've read, nothing changed between last week and this week. Why now? Maybe I worded my original question poorly. I wasn't saying that DNA evidence was needed. Dismas|^(talk) 05:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the second question, a niece has no obligation to bury her uncle. She doesn't have to specify any reason for not doing so. - Nunh-huh 05:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 05:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just about everywhere I know, the police like to close cases. I expect we should, too, if we were the police. Too many unsolved murders can look bad. Xn4 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It also looks pretty bad when they can't close a case for decades, and then all they can do is pin it on a dead guy. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, there was no additional evidence. It sounds like a new police administration was just clearing the decks. --Sean 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"How very conveeenient," as the character The Church Lady often said on Saturday Night Live. These fine crime solvers had previously lost bloody carpet from Toole's car, rendering modern DNA testing impossible. Edison (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they lost the whole car! --Sean 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It did turn up again in 2015, but now we have to wait six years to access the evidence. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interest rate and Treasury bonds

If the Treasury bonds' interest rate is higher than the Fed's interest rate, do banks borrow money at 0.25% and buy Treasury bonds? That would, of course, spoil the whole idea of reactivating the economy. Is there any mechanism to avoid this? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Short term treasury bonds aren't higher - 3 month bond yields are currently 0.03%, essentially nothing. It's only long term bonds that are higher and that involves tying up your money for longer (or risking selling the bonds on the secondary market for a loss), so banks can't necessarily do that. The price of treasury bonds is determined by market forces, so if banks could borrow at 0.25% and buy treasury bonds with a higher yield, they would do so and that would push the yields down until they stopped doing it. --Tango (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember that governent bonds (in addition to having a coupon) will sell at a discount or premium to their redemption value. By adding the effect of the discount or premium to the coupon, you get the effective "yield to maturity" the real rate of return on the investment. If short-term money is cheap (the fed funds rate is low), banks will use it to bid up the price of the bond, reducing it's yield to maturity (or effective interest rate) without changing the actual coupon rate. Government "bills" (any bond with a maturity of one year or less) don't even have a coupon. They are pure discount. Your intuition is right. Except a lower fed funds rate will actually reduce government debt yields. Since government debt represents the "risk free rate of return" a lower yield will mean that investors (businesses, banks and otherwise) will demand equivalently lower yields on other, riskier projects. This encourages real investment in the economy, improving employment and GDP growth. NByz (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you're right that a lot of this newly injected money (the only way to reduce short-term interest rates is to increase - or be willing to increase - the supply of money) is just flowing straight to goverment debt. Normally this doesn't happen. It's representative of widening "risk spreads" being demanded by investors. That is to say, investors are demanding higher and higher rates of return on risky projects or investments, even as the risk-free rate is dropping. This is unusual, but simply represents fear. The fed is trying to reduce this demanded risk premium by guaranteeing interbank loans and using government money to introduce price floors for risky assets. They are also capitalizing the banks. These tools are, in theory, working. Hank Paulson was talking to Maria Bartiromo last night, and his underlying message was: "Imagine how bad it would be if we weren't doing any of this." I agree. NByz (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Punching people

Do you ever want to punch people you don't know, right in the face, for superficial reasons (the way they grin, their clothes, their voice,etc)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No. --- Q Chris (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--droptone (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I really wanted to punch some idiot for wearing tons of 9/11 "truth" paraphernalia (t-shit, hat, buttons, etc.). But thankfully, I didn't. I did however confront him verbally and he babbled some nonsense about the towers falling at freefall speed (as if gravity should behave any other way). 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether that can be called a superficial reason (although punching them would still not be acceptable) Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tempting, though! --Tango (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I want to punch people in the face for no reason at all. SN0WKITT3N 13:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This hardly seems like a valid reference desk question. It appears to be an opinion poll or request to start a discussion. When people post silly questions like this, it makes me want to...well, you know. 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it make you want to stab them in the face over the internet? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not a difficult device to invent. The hard part will be getting people to install it. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disposed to punching people in any circumstances, but if I were, my first victims would be the shop attendants who, instead of asking "Have you been served yet?" or "How may I help you?", say "Are you right?" or "Are you right, there?". I usually retort with "I'm sure you're aware that the customer is always right; and no, I haven't been served yet" (or "but I'm being served, thank you"). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

@JackofOz: I think "Are you right?" is strictly an expression from your part of the world. I've only ever heard it in Australia and from travelling Aussies. "Are you right?" here would likely mean "Are you correct?", and not "Are you all right on your own or would you like some assistance)?" On the good side of service, I will buy things I don't want and don't need from any service person who says "May I help you?" or "How may I assist you?". ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, Bielle? What a shocking thing for Aussies to have to accept ownership of. If I were Prime Minister, I would introduce a law making it an offence punishable by lengthy imprisonment to utter this revolting phrase. And if I were a shop owner/manager, the very first thing I'd teach my staff would be how to address customers. I'm not completely hardline about it, though. It's less unacceptable when a customer's browsing and the attendant comes over to see if they need any help. That's the "Are you all right on your own or would you like some assistance?" context. Even if they merely ask "Are you right?", at least they've made an effort to help me, which mitigates it some degree. But where I'm standing at a counter, obviously waiting to be served, and I'm asked by the person on the other side of the counter "Are you right?", it comes across as "I'm busy here and you're an unwelcome interruption but if you can be quick about it I'll see if I can squeeze you in so that I can get rid of you and get back to my much more important work". And as for "Are you right, there?", that's completely out of the question under any circumstances. They may as well shout "You! You there! What do you want?". I wouldn't want to create the impression that we're an unhelpful or uncourteous people, and it's by no means all shop assistants who say this, but there are some things (and people) that really could do with a kick up the arse. I must stop now otherwise I'm liable to punch the first person who walks into my study. Luckily for him, I'm home alone at the moment. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I agree with Bielle. On my first visit (to Melbourne) I had a hard time figuring out ways to order coffee ("flat white," was it?) and how to respond to "are you right?" It was easier to ask direct questions about the coffee; in context (and with lots of opportunity) I figured "are you right?" I haven't heard the latter in the U.S., Canada, England, or Scotland (which is not to say people don't say it in those places). --- OtherDave (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Here in the UK it is quite common to hear people, usually younger people, say what sounds like "are you right" but in fact they are saying "are you alright". It is a generic greeting or enquiry depending on the context. 86.4.182.202 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't just order "a coffee" here. You'll be asked what variety you want - flat white, cappuccino, latte, large mug or small, ..... Same with "a ham salad sandwich" - they'll want to know whether it's white or wholemeal bread, margarine or butter, all the salads or not, onion or not, beetroot or not, salt and pepper or not, mayonnaise or not .... -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Flat white"? DuncanHill (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Flat white.--droptone (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Truly, we have articles on everything. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's basically a cappuccino without the froth, hence "flat". I always assumed it was a term used all over, so that's something useful I've learned today. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would ask what the difference is between a flat white and a latte, but I'm too busy being horrified by that sandwich. Fortunately, our ham salad article deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject, so I'm not picturing the sandwich too vividly. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A bowl of ham salad would contain chopped up bits of chunky-ish ham and salad vegetables. A ham salad sandwich = a "ham and salad sandwich". It has a couple of sandwich-size slices of ham, topped with the veges that usually go in a ham salad. Sliced tomato, sliced cucumber, grated carrot and lettuce are the core ingredients. Some people don't like some or all of onion rings, beetroot, mayonnaise, or salt and pepper, so they ask for these to be excluded; otherwise, they'd usually be there as well. You need a plate to eat it, because some of the filling often falls out unless you grab it with both hands and squeeze it flat, which gentlepersons naturally never do. There is an alternative version, though. Some places make up their own "ham salad spread", which is thin matchstick-size julienne strips of ham mixed in a creamy, tangy, herby sauce of a dubious grey-green colour, which is spread thickly on the bread. That probably sounds ghastly, but it's ok once in a while. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I have never been tempted to, if there is some superficial reason that bothers you so much, that would mean you should talk to a doctor about it, which would render this not only a science desk question, but a science desk question that can't be answered becuase we can't give medical advice. :-)209.244.187.155 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not a medical question. "Ham salad sandwich phobia" was nowhere to be found in the DSM IV; it skipped right from "halvah mania" to "Haribo rumination disorder." But now I'm actually wondering: what's the difference between a flat white and a latte?--Fullobeans (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer, believe it or not, is at Latte: "Outside Italy, a latte is typically prepared with approximately one third espresso and two-thirds steamed milk, with a layer of foamed milk approximately 5 mm (¼ inch) thick on the top. The drink is similar to a cappuccino, the difference being that a cappuccino has half the amount of milk. Lattes also typically have a far lower amount of foam than a cappuccino. A variant on the latte is the flat white, which is a serving fill of about one-third espresso, with steamed milk then added, while holding no froth at the top".

For most practical purposes, as far as I can tell, if you poured flat white into a latte glass, added a bit of foam, and served it up as a latte, nobody would ever know the difference. The main distinction seems to be the smaller glass cups in which lattes are served vs. the mugs in which flat whites are served. Unless it's takeaway, that is, in which case they both come in a paper/plastic cup/mug. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jack – as barista deceptions go, the joke is, it's the little glass and napkin makes the difference. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

President George W. Bush

Despite his unpopularity, has President George W. Bush done anything notable while in office? I mean anything that would positively impact USA or the world presently and in the future? Not a fan of him but just to be the devil's advocate..... --Emyn ned (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are assuming that ANY President does anything. It is easy to argue that all the decisions and actions come from others behind the scenes. Assuming President Bush is responsible for anything during his Presidency, there are arguable positive things. For example, OPEC announced a couple months ago that it was going to quickly limit production of oil to increase prices. Iraq didn't comply. So, Iran didn't comply. So, there is no real reduction of supply. So, there is no sudden increase in oil price. Why didn't Iraq comply? Could it possibly have anything to do with a new government that is leaning more towards the U.S. than OPEC? Then, there is terrorism. Is it real? Have there been terrorist attacks in other countries since 9/11? Have there been any inside the U.S? Does the lack of U.S. attacks have anything to do with the Patriot Act or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? You can lighten up the mood a lot by discussing other things. He made people realize how dangerous a pretzel could be. How about late-night TV? Do you think they'll survive with 4 years of Obama to make fun of? And, we almost got a few of the Baldwins to move to Canada. That can't be bad. -- kainaw™ 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do presidents do anything?!? They are the friendly face and PR campaign that gets their cabinet and ideology past the masses and into the white house! That's doing something. NByz (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There was certainly a time in the 19th century when the Presidency was viewed as a sort of a "do nothing" job, but during the 20th century, largely due to the Presidency of FDR, the President has become essentially the CEO of an enormous bureaucracy. Insofar as any CEO could be said to "do" anything, the President is actually a very busy person. Presidents shape policy greatly by affecting the implementation of legislation via their control over the huge regulatory apparatus that is the executive branch of the U.S. government. That the President holds a certain political viewpoint means that he will appoint people who share that viewpoint to various positions in his administration, that he will direct those people to institute regulations in line with his viewpoint, etc. etc. In that regard, the President is quite powerful.

I'd say that Bush perhaps is somewhat less so than other Presidents (due in large part to the rise of the Éminence grise role of the V.P. in this administration), but he has certainly done a lot during his time in office. The Bush Doctrine represents a huge foreign policy change from earlier administrations. The No Child Left Behind act, championed by Bush himself as the cornerstone of his education policy, has as a single policy made greater changes to the U.S. Education System than almost any single act has done in some 50 years. Bush has profoundly changed the role of the executive branch of the U.S. government compared to earlier administrations, by strengthening its control over legislation through somewhat liberal use of the signing statement and the executive order. His sponsorship of the Annapolis Conference has probably been a strong move towards resolving the Palestinian question (though whether it will be more important than its predecessor conferences at Dayton or Camp David will remain to be seen). Whether history views any of these actions as positive or negative is probably yet to be seen. Remember that Harry Truman was as hated as Bush when he left office, and yet history tends to view Truman as a pretty good president! It is completely inaccurate to say that Bush hasn't "done anything" while in office; the actions of him and his administration have had profound impacts on the U.S. and on the world... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well certainly he's done many notable things, it's just that most of them haven't turned out well (depending on your politics, of course). The first things that comes to mind for me are his significant increase in AIDS funding (PEPFAR), and that he didn't join the worst elements of his party in anti-Muslim demagoguery after 9/11. --Sean 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is that every program will have things people disagree about. Let's use PEPFAR, Bush's plan to help Africa with the AIDS problem, as an example. A "good thing," right? Some are unhappy with it because of the strings attached (abstinence education, for one), others are unhappy because they feel that it's not an appropriate use of US taxpayer money, others are unhappy with it because domestic spending on AIDS isn't adequate. It's hard to identify anything where someone will not have a perfectly logical reason to find it a "bad thing." SDY (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem; undoubtedly some people picked nits with obvious triumphs like the Apollo program and ending slavery in the US. As for the strings attached to PEPFAR, so what? At my alma mater a wealthy donor asked that all undergraduates be taught how to swim; not too high a burden for a Brazilian dollars. Also, spending millions on trying to get humans to abandon their million-year pastime of fucking like howler monkeys is high comedy, in my book! --76.182.94.172 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I agree with any of those objections in particular (I do, but that doesn't really matter). The point is that people make them and they're not crazy or stupid to object, they just value different things. SDY (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

On June 15, 2006 Bush created the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument [3]. This amazing act on his part is a complete mystery to me--I was shocked at the time, unable to believe this destroyer of the environment created such a huge reserve. This is the only good thing he ever did as a president, as far as I know.--Eriastrum (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, our leaders are complex people with complex personalities and motivations, and aren't the monolithic and single-minded characatures that we're made to believe they are? I am not defending Bush in any way; but I don't doubt he is not the source of pure evil that people make him out to be... A certain measure of Hanlon's razor is probably the best way to understand his Presidency! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, people will cling to their conspiracy theories. TresÁrboles (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Notable" does not always mean "good" or "praise-worthy." Bush launched the Global War on Terror, thereby furthering the aims of the Project for the New American Century. Civil liberties in the U.S. were limited, oil prices went up, and the economy went into a deep recession, due at least in part to his economic policies. All these results were quite notable and are expected to have long lasting implications. On the positive side, some think his educational reforms were a step in the right direction, although modification is expected in the Obama administration. Edison (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ironic tale of lovers trying to please each other

I believe there's a parable or short story about a pair of lovers, each of whom made sacrifices to please the other, but ironically the gifts canceled out. On the one hand, the woman cut off her beautiful hair to sell and buy something for the man; but he had bought her a silver comb for her hair. Don't recall the other part. Anybody know the source? Thanks. --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No. But in cartoon form: http://xkcd.com/506/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Gift of the Magi by O. Henry. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a naughty parody of the story in, i think, National Lampoon thirty-some years ago. —Tamfang (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

She sold her hair to buy him a watch chain, he sold his watch to buy her combs. O, cruel irony. O, Henry. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

She was dis-tressed only for a time, and treasured the "beautiful combs, pure tortoise shell, with jewelled rims" always. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, after turtles became extinct she was able to sell the comb for a fortune and buy not only a wig but also a watch.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, surely her hair grew again? so why would she buy a wig. Hmm? Ah well back to the real world. 86.4.182.202 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Phenomenological life

I'm an engineer by trade and not much into philosophy. Is the 3.7 year old article - Phenomenological life - a genuine article full of technical jargon or is it actually a load of gibberish mixed with bad English? I incline towards the latter, but worry that it might truly have meaning to somebody somewhere. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to have been written by someone whose first language is French or who translated very literally from French. My main clue is the use of the definite article before the generic noun in "the life", where a native speaker would write simply "life". A better title for the article might have been "The phenomenological conception of life", but I question whether such a topic merits an encyclopedia article. It probably has meaning to somebody somewhere, but then so do university students' term papers, but most of those do not belong in an encyclopedia. Marco polo (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the article author, User:Philippe Audinos "I have written a quite complete article on the phenomenology of life from the philosopher Michel Henry in the French version of Wikipedia, and I have translated it in English." Reference to Michel Henry suggests it is a serious proposition, albeit with lost-in-translation issues right now. Go on, SGBailey. Make it your life's work :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and also article asserts philosophical views as fact. Instead of saying "Michel Henry says this life is..." it says "This life is...". Terms such as "A feeling for example can never be seen from the exterior..." is probably jargon and terms such as "subjective experience" and "philosophical method" are certainly technical. ~ R.T.G 03:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a direct answer to your question, but you might be interested in reading about the Sokal Hoax. --noosphere 07:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So Mary and Joseph had to go all the way to Bethlehem because of a dude that died a millennia earlier?

Something I've been curious about for a while now: supposedly, Mary and Joseph had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to participate in a census because Joseph was of the "house of David". But according to the bible, King David lived around 1000 BC, right? That's a thousand years between them! How could you possibly be forced to register for a census because one of your ancestors lived in a certain place a thousand years ago? That would be like forcing English people to register for a census at the place where their ancestors from the Doomsday book lived. It seems like a terrible policy for a census to me, isn't the point to find out where people are living now, for tax purposes? Arethere records left from the Romans detailing their policy for counting people during censuses?

And really, even if that were true, by that time King David must've had tens of thousands, if not even millions, of direct descendants. Were they all forced to register at Bethlehem? And how the hell did people keep track? How did Joseph know he was of the house of David? Over a thousand years, that's roughly 50 generations of people to keep straight. Even today there's exceedingly few people who can trace their lineage that far back, how did a poor carpenter in the first century do it?

I realize that it's a fools errand to ask for logical consistency in the Bible, but I'm curious about whether Christians have some response to this objection? It seems to me to be a pretty obvious hole in the story. Belisarius (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm no christian, but as the Romans were the occupying power, maybe they were just being dicks?82.22.4.63 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps better phrased - is there evidence of a Roman or Roman-Judaean administrative policy of counting people by their ancestral places of residence?

I know that in East Asian countries, one's "origin" as displayed on one's identity card (etc) could be 3, 4, perhaps many generations out of date. In those countries that still retain the family register system, one's registered address can similarly be decades out of date, sometimes even deliberately ficitious because of inheritance implications.

Where the government was "being dicks", this could result in strange situations, such as people who were born and raised in one place being "repatriated" to their registered place of origin - which is where their 3rd or 4th generation ancestor was born - such as quite frequently happened in the early People's Republic of China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a journey of about 80 miles. I'd guess that it's more likely that migrants were being sent back to their place of birth. But good question: I hope we get a better answer than this one :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've heard something similar of Switzerland: canton citizenship is hereditary, and it's not hard to change but many people don't bother, so they vote not in their actual home canton but in the ancestral one. —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Honest Christians aver that the story about the census was inserted into the Bible to emphasize Jesus's purported Davidic lineage rather than as a reflection of actual events. There's no historical record of such a census, and the Bible's chronology is demonstrably and unsalvagably wrong (since it has Jesus being born in or after 6 C.E, when Quirinius became legate of Syria (because Herod had died), but also has him alive before King Herod dies in 4. B.C.E.) For some of the past efforts trying to explain away the difficulties, you might want to take a look at Serious Problems with Luke's Census. - Nunh-huh

There appears to be an apologetic christian site which offers a couple of explanations here under the question "Q: In Lk 2:1-5, why would Caesar Augustus allegedly cause chaos by allegedly making everyone return to their hometown?". just testing my google-fu --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I understand it, and this is just from memory, so I won't be able to provide sources to back it up. A) Jewish people back then tended to know their lineage better than we do now. Especially when it came to relation to royalty or significant patriarchal figures. Even today, semitic cultures for the most part are more aware of their genealogy than westerners. B) I've heard that it wasn't Caesar's idea to send everyone to the city of his birth, but the more local government. Caesar, as I understand it, didn't care how the numbers were gathered so long as they were gathered. C) The issue isn't that the trip was long. Bethlehem is just outside of Jerusalem. All Jews at the time traveled to Jerusalem regularly. The issue is that Mary was pregnant. Distance really wasn't the thing that set the trip apart. Wrad (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But Nazareth is much farther away (I forget exactly how far, but more than a few hours of walking, anyway). Of course, Nazareth apparently didn't even exist then. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't "much farther away" at all. Bethlehem is right next to Jerusalem. Nothing is "much farther away" from Jerusalem than from Bethlehem. Nothing at all. And Nazareth did exist. You have to admit that much at least, lets be reasonable here. Wrad (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Bethlehem, I said Nazareth, which is not next to Jerusalem at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Joseph would have been arrested if not found to be living in Bethlehem as was his highest possible status. Perhaps Joseph was in Nazereth to avoid arrest or taxes for some reason and felt the best thing to say was that he got counted in this little Bethlehem place somewhere in the middle of nowhere. In a land where you got stoned to death for being cheeky (buried up to the neck and beat with stones until stopping movements and sound) you would go where your father was told to go and not question it so much for as long as it took. Imagine needing told what to do by anyone except your closest friends. You would get slapped a lot. ~ R.T.G 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, for the debate on the existence or status of Nazareth during the times of the New Testament, see Nazareth#New Testament times and associations. This isn't a religious hate-war. There is no need to be overly sensitive. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being. That article contradicts itself anyway. At one point it states that scholars don't think Nazareth existed in Christ's day at all. At another it states that Christ was probably born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem. Seems to me scholars don't really know enough to make a call either way. Also, the fact remains that Bethlehem was very close to Jerusalem, and all jews made frequent trips to Jerusalem, so what was an extra few miles to Bethlehem? Not much at all. The length of the trip wasn't a big deal, the pregnancy was. Therefore, the questioner exagerrates the journey a bit. Wrad (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The story I heard was that at the time of Jesus, there were two Jewish nations, Israel and Judea. Both wanted to claim Jesus as there own, so the Biblical authors made up some stories to show he was partially associated with both Bethlehem, in Judea, and Nazareth, in Israel. StuRat (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the connection to Nazareth is explained fairly well; Matthew clearly states that after Herod's death, the southern area (Judea) came to be ruled by Archelaus, who was a bit of a prick. So Joseph, when Jesus was still a boy, picked up his family and moved them to Nazareth in Galilee. Plus, Matthew plays a little double entendre when he says Jesus "dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, for he should be called a Nazarene." The term Nazarene was supposed to indicate a dispised half-breed, much like Samaritan. Think of the term "redneck" in modern parlance; it was an indication that Jesus being an outcast had been specifically predicted by the OT writers, such as Isaiah 49:7 "This is what the LORD says to the despised one, to the one scorned by the nation, to the slave of rulers: Kings will see [you] and stand. Princes will see [you] and bow. The LORD is faithful. The Holy One of Israel has chosen you." As the people from the northen parts of the Kingdom (Galilee, outside of Judea proper) were despised, by calling Jesus a "Nazarene", Matthew was using both meanings; that he was actually from Nazareth, and that he was an outcast.

To respond to StuRat, the Jewish province at the time of Christ was actually pretty decentralized. The "two state" Jewish nation existed after King Solomon divided the nation between his sons, about 800-900 years before Christ. The Northern State (Isreal), AKA the Ten Lost Tribes, was much shorter lived, lasting about 200 years, before being wiped out by the Assyrians in the 700's BC. The southern Kingdom of Judah (from whence the name "Jews" and "Judaism" actually comes), lasted another 200 years, until the 500's BC, from which point the Jewish lands ceased to be self-ruled, except for some brief periods under the Hasmoneans prior to the Romans taking over. Even under Roman rule, the local monarchy was left in place, and local administration was left up to the Jews themselves.

After King Herod the Great dies, the land was divided up among his sons and grandsons into four "tetrarchies", each ruled essentially independently. There was also, outside of the rule of the Herodians, the Decapolis, an independent league of ten cities which was generally outside of the jurisdiction of the monarchy directly. At the time, the lands of Judea proper (the territory of the former Kingdom of Judah), roughly centered on Jerusalem, was thought to be where the "pure" Jews lived, while the people other territories were viewed as something of a "half-breed", i.e. not full members of "God's Chosen People". Jesus's connection to Bethlehem, firmly in Jewish lands, and city of David, the founder of the Jewish State, establishes him as a True Jew, while his having grown up in Galilee in the north establishes his position as an outcast.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this entire discussion rest on the false assumption (or at least not demonstrably true assumption) that Joseph's family had not lived in Bethlehem since 1000 BC/BCE? I am relying on memory here, but it seems to me that the Gospel accounts give no indication of where Joseph's father had lived...or for that matter, where Joseph himself was born. Surely it's entirely possible that Joseph really was returning to his hometown for registration? Yes, I know, if it was his birthplace, the Gospel writers could have said so, but as has already been mentioned, the symbolic power of Jesus being from the house of David is important, and this is an easy time to mention it. Joseph's not just a Bethlehemian (Bethlehemite?), he's descended from THE Bethlehemian. As for the veracity of the whole story, I can see a few editors ready to pounce on the assertions in Luke's tale, but surely an "honest Christian" can allow that Luke, being human, may have had the governor's name wrong, or may have assumed a census of Palestine was part of a worldwide census which did not occur...and that this does not automatically mean that he fabricated the entire story out of whole cloth. If I tell the story of my first day of school, and later comparisons with other printed authorities demonstrate that it was not, in fact, raining on that day, and that my father had not yet shaved his beard, I would hope that the people listening to me would not assume that I had invented my educational history. But I'm drifting now into an argument I don't really want to enter--my apologies. My original point stands, however--if we grant that some sort of census took place, and that people were required to register in their birth cities, no records exist which preclude us from assuming that Joseph did this very thing. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.35.226 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A note to Luke's doubters, though...until 1960, one of the strikes people had against the Gospels was that one of the central figures of the narrative was an alleged Roman official named Pontius Pilate, but that no physical evidence existed that a man of that name ruled the land. I remember reading books that seriously contended that he was a fiction. You can read his article now, though, and see that physical evidence (accepted by secular and religious scholars alike) now very convincingly establishes his existence. One of the things we have to remember about the ancient world is how little survives. If we have only the New Testament's word that an event took place, it may, admittedly, mean that the event is invented. It may also mean that it's an event that, like thousands of other events in the ancient world, is preserved in only one document. If Luke was merely a Greek-speaking chronicler of events in a minor Roman province, we wouldn't subject him to the scrutiny that is often aimed at him because his works served a religious purpose. This is not say that anyone is compelled to believe in the accuracy of the Gospels, or to take from an argument in favor of their historical accuracy any obligation that the reader must assent to any creed or faith. It's just to say that history's more complicated and less documented than we wish it was. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.35.226 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you remember which books argued Pilate had never governed Judaea? Similar statements have been added to the Pontius Pilate article in the past, but never with references. EALacey (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I'd thought it might have been G. A. Wells, but he's writing too late for that. It seems that Christian web sites are content to repeat rumors without giving any indication of who the critics might have been...as the suggestion that Pilate was fictional is now untenable, even if it was perpetuated once by skeptics, it's certainly not a feature of any anti-Christianity web sites out there now. I may, of course, be misremembering, but I'll keep looking around -- I think the book is still among the thousands lying around my too-cluttered apartment, and will add the information (with citation) if I can verifiably do so. Thanks for keeping me honest...and for being on the lookout for a way to improve the Pilate article! 71.112.35.226 (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case, Pilate is mentioned multiple times in Josephus... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

December 18

Bethlehem: singular or plural

Is it true that there were in fact two Bethlehems in the time of Jesus and that he was actually born in the other one?--GreenSpigot (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner (one of my many slightly nutty country men) proposed that there were two Jesus children, so I suspect that two Bethlehems would be no surprise: There is one in the North, near Nazareth in Galilee and one in the South, near Jerusalem in Judea. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Jesus shares a hometown with noted creationist Michael Behe? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence the phrasing "Bethlehem in Judea," much as Americans will say "Washington State" to avoid confusion with "Washington D.C." Or "Springfield, [name of state]" as opposed to "Springfield, [name of a different state]." ---Unsigned comment added by User:OtherDave 12:19, 18 December 2008 ---

What's current in Israel, and certainly reflected in the pages names right here in the English WP, is that Bethlehem ("in Judea", as OtherDave put it, though I've neither seen nor heard that wrote) is the "default," as it were, and the other locale is Bethlehem of Galilee, or directly translated from the Hebrew Beit Lehem ha-G'lilit, always referred to as "Galilean Bethlehem." -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Deborahjay: I was just thinking of Matthew 2:5-6:

They (the wise men from the east) told him (Herod the Great, who asked where the child destined to rule Israel would be born), “In Bethlehem of Judea, because that is what was written by the prophet:

O Bethlehem in the land of Judah, you are by no means least among the rulers of Judah,

because from you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel. (a reference to Micah 5:2)

--- OtherDave (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha, helpful indeed, OD, as:

• Matthew is a "closed book" to me, and as for Micah, we non-Christian Israelis are still waiting...
• I'd have done better to write, above: **among non-Christian Hebrew-speakers in Israel unconversant with the New Testament and relating to these as two unambiguously distinctive geographic locales**

-- Deborahjay (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all -- it was just a clarification, a phrase whose context I happened to know, the way someone else might know "if not for myself..." or "the rest is commentary." --- OtherDave (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Such a situation was not all that unusual. The Bible itself differentiates between several Antiochs, Pisidian Antioch and Syrian Antioch, as well as Tarsus (city), St. Paul's home town, which was also known as Antioch on the Cydnus. The ancient world also had mulitple Tripoli's (in Libya, Lebanon, and Greece) and names such as Alexandria and Caesarea and Colonia existed for up to a dozen cities. I would not be surprised that there were two Bethlehem's, though contextually and explicitly, the Bible is refers exclusively to the Judean Bethlehem as Jesus's birthplace and ancestral home. There is no evidence at all that the Bible may have meant Gallilean Bethlehem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a technical note. The word "Bethlehem" is grammatically singular. The word "Bethlehems" (e.g. Were there two Bethlehems?) is grammatically plural. But the existence of more than one Bethlehem does not make the name "Bethelehem" "Bethlehem" plural. We don't say that "eye" is plural just because we happen to have more than one of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WTH is Bethelehem?--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's how you get Bethel's attention. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be Ahem-Bethel. A completely different Jewish word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenSpigot (talk • contribs) 02:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's living proof that I - yes, even I - am merely human and fallible. I know this must come as a great shock and disappointment to many. Get over it.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

See, I would be perfect, except this one time a few years ago, I thought I had been wrong about something. Turns out that I was right in the first place, but that tarnished my perfection!!! Oh well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The strong historical likelihood is that Jesus was born in Nazareth, the town where he grew up. In John 7:42, it is mentioned as a challenge to Jesus that he was not born in Bethlehem or of the lineage of David, as required by prophecy. The birth stories in Matthew and Luke address these concerns but otherwise give radically different accounts (e.g., in Matthew Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem; in Luke they live in Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem for the census). John M Baker (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Slit, Log drums

Log drums were used in southeast asia to communicate between villages to warn villagers of pirates activities in the area. I heard these drums when I was along the South border of China. These were hollowed tree trunks ten feet long and three feet in diameter. The villagers understood the coded messages. Any information about this mean of communication —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.139.32 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We've got this article Drum (communication), but I don't see any mention of the area you visited. DuncanHill (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are these two?

• 
  Tsarina Praskovia Ioanovna, 1714
• 
  Tsarina Natalia Alekseyevna 1716

Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The one on the left, according to the image description page at commons is "Tsarevna Praskovia Ioannovna (Прасковья Иоанновна) was daughter of Ivan V of Russia and tsarina Praskovia Fedorovna (nee Saltykova). She lives during the reign of her uncle, Peter the Great". DuncanHill (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The one on the right is "Natalya Alexeevna (1673–1716)", daughter of Alexis I of Russia. DuncanHill (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(A bit late) Googling indicates that the picture on the right is a portrait of Tsarevna Natalia, the youngest sister of Peter the Great, by Ivan Nikitin. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why would it be titled Tsarina (wife of tsar) instead of Tsarevna (daughter of tsar)?Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This [4] shows two portraits of her, including the above picture (right), entitled Portrait of Tsarevna Natalia. Ivan Nikitin, 1716. Another site [5] mentions that it can be seen at the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia. The left painting, of Tzarevna Praskovya Ivanovna, also from the same painter, hangs in the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg. Ivan Nikitin was the favourite artist of Peter the Great. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Federal reserve

So now the interest rate is zero. Does this mean they are basically printing money on demand from whatever financial institution asks it? Why do low interest rates result in inflation? Please keep your explanation concise and simple; visuals would be nice. (I'm in high school and have never taken any course related to economics, and I live outside of the United States. This subject is a complete mystery to me.) 99.245.92.47 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, US interest rates are not zero. There are two different rates involved here:

• The federal funds rate is a target rate that the Federal Reserve sets for US banks lending money to one another. At the moment it is a range rather than a single rate - and the range is 0% to 0.25%. The Federal Reserve cannot force banks to lend to one another within this range (indeed, it cannot force them to lend to one another at all), but it can and does encourage this through open market operations.
• The discount rate is the interest rate at which the Federal Reserve itself will lend money to US banks. At the moment this is 0.5%. This rate is normally set higher than the federal funds rate because the Federal Reserve prefers banks to borrow money from one another as much as possible - it wants to be seen as a lender of last resort.
• Even if one bank did lend money to another at 0% interest, the loan must still be secured with collateral - usually government bonds. So the borrowing bank cannot borrow as much as it likes - its borrowing capacity is limited by the amount of collateral that it can provide.

The relation between central bank interest rates, money supply and inflation is complex and not fully understood - whenever economists think they have understood it, some country's economy goes and does something unexpected. Our inflation article summarises various theories around the causes and control of inflation. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Low interest rates can have an effect on inflation this way: Think of interest as the rent you pay when you borrow money. If the rent is low and you feel confident you can pay it, then it's easy to borrow more money -- just as you might rent a larger apartment if the rent seems low for the amount and quality of space. Now you've got more money, so you can buy more things. And if you think prices might go up soon, you feel likelier to buy now (because things will cost more in the future).

Combine this with lots of other people thinking the same way -- more people trying to buy the new car or rent the big apartment. In the short run, the supply of goods for sale doesn't increase as fast (because it takes time to build cars or erect apartments). So, if you're a seller of cars or a renter of apartments, you feel able to increase your prices to increase your profit. (Increase = inflation. Could be mild, could be severe.)

As the car dealer or the landlord, you also might borrow money at low interest to have more cars in stock or buy another apartment building. As you spend, more and more money is circulating, triggering more demand, which in turn makes it likelier that prices will increase.

This works for money, too: as the demand for loans rises, the bank can increase its interest rates.

None of this is inevitable, but it's a common pattern. Right now in the U.S., lenders are very hesitant to make loans -- I heard the other day that some finance companies was a credit score of 780 for an auto loan, which means that most people couldn't qualify. The lowering of rates by the Fed, and the bailouts by the government, are (to oversimplify) aimed at getting money flowing through the system, overcoming that hesitation. (Note: I am not an economist; this is not investment advice.) --- OtherDave (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, all of this bank de-leveraging (and less credit generally!) is actually acting to reduce the effective money supply somewhat. This is deflationary (makes money more valuable) and will 'absorb' some of the 'inflationary effects' of Fed policies. This is uncharted territory for the current Fed. A lot of the data that they will use to determine if they are doing the right thing (CPI, PPI) is delayed, and is often revised over many months as more data comes in.NByz (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

east asia

What are some major themes that came from early china that still exist in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shschrgrs (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese writing is strongly based on Chinese writing, and the same was true of Vietnam and Korea through the 19th century (though since then Vietnam and North Korea have completely dispensed with Chinese characters in non-historic contexts, while they're somewhat vestigial in South Korea). AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Some aspects of Chinese culture and tradition which are still prevalent to various extents in Korea, Japan and Vietnam include:

• Chinese characters, see also Sinoxenic language, see also Chinese language
• Chinese calendar, see also holidays such as Duanwu, Chinese New Year and Lunar New Year.
• Chinese philosophy, especially Confucianism
• East Asian Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism; Chinese mythology, Chinese folk religion, etc.
• Chinese cuisine, Chinese alcoholic beverages
• Chinese architecture - elements such as dougong; caisson (Asian architecture); forms such as pagoda; the Yingzao Fashi.
• More generally, see Culture of Asia and East Asia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Madoff's degree

Has Bernie Madoff any sort of college degree?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Madoff graduated from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, in 1960. - Nunh-huh 16:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Financial criminals from Ivy league

Are Ivy league's alumni overrepresented under the financial criminals?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Its hard to say. Many Ivy League schools (for those that don't know, they are Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale) are known for atttracting many students with familial political connections, and political connections lead to higher positions of authority, and higher positions of authority tend to afford greater opportunities for corruption, in both the public and private sectors). One would probably have to dig up, say, a random sampling of a few hundred "white collar criminals" (embezzling, securities fraud, influence peddling, etc.) and see what their educational background was. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus we can only account for mediocre financial criminals, since presumably those more adept at swindling operate within legal loopholes or find ways of not getting caught. --Fullobeans (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

...At not getting caught right away. Even this guy ran outta time... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

...at age 70. His great mistake was failure to chainsmoke from an early age. But Madoff was a Hofstra grad, so that's one check in the non-Ivy column. Perhaps the OP would find Category:American white-collar criminals an interesting read? --Fullobeans (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I just pulled 10 out of that category... Here's the results I came up with:

• Mark Whitacre: Went to Ohio State and Cornell
• Michael Milken: Went to Cal and Penn
• Adam Kidan: Went to GWU
• Charles Keating: Went to Cincinnati
• Andrew Fastow: Went to Tufts and Northwestern
• Ivan Boesky: Went to Michigan State
• Bernard Ebbers: Went to University of Alberta, Calvin College, and Mississippi College
• Richard Whitney (financier): Went to Harvard
• Stevin Hoover: Went to the Air Force Academy, Texas, and Boston University
• Carroll Hubbard: Went to Georgetown and the University of Louisville

That's 33% of our decidedly unscientific poll of notable white-collar criminals. Seeing as the Ivy League does not represent 33% of college graduates in the U.S. (not even close), I would say that the thesis is somewhat confirmed; however as I noted about the Ivy League's connection to political power, this result does not seem surprising. There may be many more "white collar criminals" who just don't rate on Wikipedia who never went to an Ivy League school; and those two facts may be related. I wouldn't read much into this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the subset of senior managers (i.e. white collar criminals that are likely to be notorious), I wouldn't be surprised if you saw a much larger percent that went to an Ivy. A more interesting comparison would be "ranking of business school attended" to "likelihood of white collar crime." The two Penns listed there are from the Wharton School, which is one of the top (if not the top) ranked MBA programs in the country. SDY (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

JayRon, I think you overestimate the "connection to political power" as the relevant issue here. I think you'd find that most Wall Street financiers in general went to Ivy League schools—that's part of how you end up on Wall Street to being with! It's not a question of whether the Ivy League schools are over-represented compared to all possible college graduates, but compared to the overall representation of Ivy League educations on Wall Street. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because your missing the part of the equation, which is why people end up in Ivy League schools. How did you end up at Princeton? Because your dad, who is now a COO of a Fortune 500 company went there. What do you do when you get out of Princeton? Get an MBA from Wharton at Penn, and work your way up to COO of a Fortune 500 company, and send your kids to Princeton. Its a closed cycle. The reason you find more people in positions of power who went to Ivy League schools is because more people who are in positions of power have children who go to Ivy League schools. It's no coincidence that Senator Prescott Bush, a Yale grad, had a son who went to Yale and became President, and HE had a son who went to Yale and became President. The poor kid from the other side of the tracks who is at Yale on scholarship? He's not going to become President... Lots of public universities have very well respected business programs. But graduates of those schools don't get into the high powered Wall Street jobs mostly because their dads didn't have those jobs. If their dads DID have those jobs, then they didn't go to the public university... Its a self-perpetuating cycle. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not quite as bleak as all that... just mostly. The obvious rebuttal would be that the current American president, though hardly "the poor kid from the other side of the tracks," was certainly not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Bill Clinton, even less so. One of the main perks of a fancy-schmancy education, for the ambitious poor kid on scholarship, is having the opportunity to shmooze with the affluent and well-connected, and to take advantage of the alumni network after graduation. But anyways. The question now is, "What percentage of CEOs are Ivy League grads?" (Presumably we're just talking about big-time crime here, not Office Space) If 85% of CEOs are Ivy League, and 33% of big-time financial criminals are Ivy League, well then, it looks like those Ivy League grads are a fine, upstanding bunch of fellows by comparison. If only 10% of CEOs are Ivy League, well then they're all a bunch of crooks. --Fullobeans (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you mean the next American president, not the current one. But both are equally Ivy League! Barack Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School. His wife is also Ivy League, having graduated from Princeton. - Nunh-huh 17:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Determining National Profits After Tax

Dear Sir/Madam, I'm trying to work out for a political paper what the average take home wage per worker would be in a nation by dividing national profits after tax by national workforces. Would national gross domestic product be the figure used to calculate this? Thank you in advance 78.152.211.162 (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

GDP includes all production taking place within the country, versus GNP, which measures all income by "nationals" of that country (so it doesn't include foreigners (and foreign capital) working in the country, but does include nationals (and national capital) working overseas). The inclusion of capital in GDP makes it tricky. A country with a low savings rate and therefore high foreign ownership of capital, could have very low income per capita (GDP attributable to residents or nationals), but high GDP. If you use GNP, however, you're ignoring income attributable to foreign capital in the country, but also ignoring income attributable to foreign workers in the country. Plus you'd be including wages and rents of people and capital not in the country. Depending on your application, either or both of these methods may be inappropriate.

Taxes also plays a role. A country with a high personal tax rate (Sweden, say) will have lower "take-home" wages at any given level of GDP (or GNP, depending on if taxes are based on citizenship, like in the US, or residence, like up here in Canada) than a country with a low tax rate. But they still may be able to consume the same value of services.

Also, investment income, or rents derived from capital IS included in GDP and GNP, (in the way that is mentioned above), but wouldn't be considered a 'wage', as a wage is reimbursement for labour services. Again, this may be inappropriate for your application.

Also, because Purchasing Power Parity doesn't hold for non-tradable goods, any of these measures (including direct wage estimates) may not act as a good proxy for standard of living. If that's what you're after, that is.

I think these will be your top four issues (that I can think of!) using per capita GDP as a proxy for wages. I'm sure there are others. If you're doing a multi-country comparison, finding local statistics from Department's of Labo(u)r's will be easy for countries like the US (here it is), but more difficult for smaller countries. Also, methods will differ by country.

As for other data sources, this seems to have a good database of wages up to 2007. It looks like you may have to extract them one country at a time. It looks like this might be a good amalgamation of the very same data into one file (although it's only up to 2003). I can't vouch for the methodology. In order to get the .csv file to display properly, I had to open it in excel, select column A, then go "Data->Text to Columns->Next-Next-Next...". In order to interpret it, you'll have to know the country and occupation codes. If you make a legend, you could use formulas to auto-populate the fields though. NByz (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, before even using that data source, I guess I should clarify: For the purposes of your paper, are you interested in residents (people who live in the country?) or nationals (people who are nationally affiliated, usually through citizenship, with the country)? Also, are you interested in wage (income from labour) per person, income (both labour wages and capital rents (investment income)) per person, or are you just looking for a good proxy for 'standard of living'? I probably should have asked those questions first... NByz (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Interest Rates on Bank Deposits

When did Federal Reserve stop setting rates that Banks could pay on their deposits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.179.2 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that happened in 1980, as part of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. --LarryMac | Talk 16:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tax and gross domestic product (GDP)

is tax included in gross domestic product (GDP) figures? 78.152.211.162 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Gross income without tax is called disposable income. However, disposable gross domestic product (GDP=Gross domestic income) is really difficult to calculate due to complexities in calculating taxes. See Taxes#Kinds_of_taxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.22.11 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is another thing regarding GDP and taxes. If you read an economics textbook, there is something called GDP at factor cost and GDP at market price. GDP at factor cost + indirect taxes – subsidies = GDP at market price. Hence, indirect taxes are included in GDP at market price but not in GDP at factor cost. 132.206.22.11 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Father vs. Unwilling Mother

Has there ever been a court case, US or other, where the female was impregnated accidently (like a one night stand) and wanted to terminate the pregnancy but the biological father legally prevented her from doing that? --Emyn ned (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In 1989 there was a famous case in Quebec (as in, front page news of all newspapers). The mother, Chantal Daigle, wanted an abortion, but the father, Jean-Guy Tremblay tried to obtain an injunction to prevent her from doing so. They were an unmarried couple and he had a history of domestic violence. A lower-court judge granted the injunction, but it was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada (and meanwhile, the mother had obtained an abortion in the US). There is a lot of information on the case available in French, such as here. We even have an article: Tremblay v. Daigle ! --Xuxl (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The article Paternal rights and abortion lists several examples from the UK where fathers have unsuccessfully attempted to prevent pregnant women obtaining abortions (as well as the above Canadian example) but also lists countries in which the law requires the consent of a woman's husband for an abortion. It's not clear from the article if in these countries this requirement of consent extends to fathers who are not married to the mother. Valiantis (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Canadian banks

What has been the policy of Canadian banks during the recent economic crisis ? Why have they fared rather well ? 69.157.229.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

Speaking anecdotally, Canadian banks were better capitalized and less exposed. In terms of capitalization, I can't seem to find a good source right now, (which is why I said speaking anecdotally :) ) but I saw a source that suggested that the average Canadian Bank had a tier one capital adequacy ratio of 9.6%. this source puts Citigroups as low as 2.4%. Most of the regulated banks (as opposed to "investment banks" or previously unregulated financial institutions; many are now "Bank Holding Companys") had highly levered capital ratios.

The Capital Adequacy ratio is a measure of how much "investor capital" vs. "depositor capital" is being used to finance the firm. Since Assets = Liabilities (depositor capital) + Equity (investor capital), and any loss in asset value reduces equity and less-senior claims first, a firm with a low ratio of investor capital to depositor capital tends to be more profitable (on a per share basis) when times are good, but risks wiping out equity, and eroding customer accounts when times are bad (when their assets get devalued). Because of this moral hazard (the desire for profits in good times encourages banks to over-lever; it's exacerbated by FDIC insurance and Fed money market intervention) banks have a tendency to over-lever, so regulators maintain minimum capital adequacy standards, and force banks to gather more investor capital when it falls below certain thresholds.

In terms of exposure, Canadian banks had less. I think that a large part of it has to do with the fact that there was never any sort of Glass-Steagal Act-like legislation in Canada forcing banks and investment banks to remain separate. My own personal theory on why the financial crisis got as bad as it did for the banks in the US is that so much financial capital was being put into essentially unregulated firms (MS, G, MER, LEH), which had no capital adequacy restrictions, contributing to the total leverage in the system. More mainstream explanations include stricter mortgage credit restrictions (very little bad residential debt created in canada) and investor nationalism (very little US bad debt held in Canada). NByz (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got to remember that five banks take up the vast majority of market share in Canada. This is different from the U.S., where every region has its own banks. Canadian banks are therefore very diversified. You don't have firms like Morgan Stanley that are so focused on and exposed to one segment of the market. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And which wasn't regulated as a bank until this fall. NByz (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

December 19

Banks Make Me Nervous

During my high school years, 1956 - 1961, I came across a poem in one of my text books, it was - to me - very funny. I think it was by a famous American author but he could have been British. One line was: Banks make me nervous OR Banks frighten me. Can anyone help me to find the poem and the author?Aster43 (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What I think of immediately isn't a poem, but a short story, and the author is Canadian, not American or British. The title is "My Financial Career" by humourist Stephen Leacock. It is from an era when banks took themselves very seriously indeed, when they were only open to the public from 10 until 3 five days a week, which is where the expression "banker's hours" originated. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical Equations in Das Kapital

What are the main Mathematical Equations in Marx's Das Kapital? --Gary123 (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Offhand, I'm afraid I don't know. But your question puzzles and interests me. Your user page announces that you supports Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and The Three Represents; how can you claim to support Marxism without a familiarity with Marx's most famous book? Tama1988 (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it any different from saying you support capitalism without being familiar with the equations used to model money-supply or macroeconomic theory? He may be familiar with the book but not the mathematics - he certainly wouldn't be the first person to skip equations when reading a book! -- Q Chris (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit different. There aren't any non-trivial mathematical equations that model Marxism for a couple of reasons. First, Marx was principally a philosopher, not an economist. Second, if of adequate complexity, the equations would either end up being self-contradictory or rely on false premises. Wikiant (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In Capital Marx does express some of his ideas in algebraic format. C is Capital, L Labour S Surplus Value etc. This should not be confused with the equations that are used for modelling economic relationships (e.g. in structural equation modelling) in present-day econometrics. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Countries with a Protestant heritage more secular in the 21st century than those with a Catholic or Orthodox heritage?

If you look at these maps [6] [7] and examine them, it seems like that the people in the countries which were once Protestant in Europe are more likely to have abandoned religious belief altogether than those countries which Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity dominate. This is pretty much a definite link - the only real exceptions to the rule should be that France is quite secular for a Catholic country, Germany a mixed Catholic/Protestant coutnry is not too secular, and of course Iceland which still maintains strong religious traditions. But definitely in the UK, Holland, Scandinavia this rings very true. The opposite can also be observed in the strong religious traditions of such European countries as Italy, Poland and Romania. Is there any academic work on this? Also, in countries with a large secular population whose ancestors would have been Christian, are there more Muslim immigrants in these countries?--Nubile Servant (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to edit the last couple lines out of your post before someone decides it's soap-boxing, or debate-inciting, and therefore against Ref Desk rules, and deletes your question. APL (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.-Nubile Servant (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You want to be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. While religious belief and practice may be weaker in many European countries with a Protestant tradition than in those with a Catholic tradition, you can observe almost the opposite in the United States. Churchgoing and belief tend to be weaker in the parts of the United States with relatively large Catholic populations than in those with predominantly Protestant populations. Also, the United States is a country with a Protestant majority that is decidedly more religious than most European countries. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I recently heard that the main reason people choose Protestantism or Catholicism has little to do with dogma or doctrine. The underlying key is a person's belief about individual determination. Protestants do not seem to believe in power determinations outside of one's self. 75Janice (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)75Janice

---

I can think of two possible reasons for differences in religious fervor between Protestant and Catholic nations:

1) Protestants tend to have more of a "question everything" attitude than Catholics, which can ultimately lead to questioning, and deciding to reject, one's own religion.

2) Catholic nations tend to be poorer and less developed. These are conditions in which religion thrives. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated, correlation does not imply causation, but if you were to look for a cause, maybe the fact that the protestant countries switched religions once implies that they, as a people, are more willing to consider ideas that go against their current belief. Belisarius (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the maps a second time, though, I'm not so convinced that there really is a correlation. There's way to many exceptions, look at the France, Iceland, Bulgaria, Austria, Slovenia and especially the Czech Republic, the most atheist country on in Europe, apparently. Atheism might skew a little more towards protestantism, but I'm don't think it's enough that pure random chance alone can't explain it. Belisarius (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Belisarius's points pretty much refute the thesis. There does not look to be any real correlation; Iceland has strong connections to evangelical christianity, and is protestant, and places liek France and the Czech Republic, which were largely historically Catholic are highly secular societies today. Nope, don't see any connection at all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"... poore and less developed" also tends to mean less educated. Is that the correlation, perhaps, rather than poverty or even original brand of Christianity? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on my knowledge of religiosity in the United States, I'd guess that there is a negative correlation between it and education here, though of course educational status does not solely determine religiosity here. There may also be a negative correlation between the size of an urban area (or rural community) and religiosity. I suspect that churchgoing is more common in rural areas and small towns than large metropolitan areas. Marco polo (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't really count France because of the French revolution. And the US, which some have mentioned, seem too much of an exception as well, given that they got for a long time all the Protestants who left Europe because of their (strongly-held) beliefs; in addition, many young Christian denominations (= Prostestants) started there. - Not sure if that helps with the original question. I'm hesitant, however, to rely much on that misnamed map. What exactly does it mean that "there is a God"? That they are religious? That they believe in a Christian God? (...) And how was it measured? Who did it? (...) Too little data, even though I have confirming "anecdotal evidence." --Ibn Battuta (talk)01:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if I didn't make clear that the correlation I was drawing between education and religiosity was the inverse of the correlation StuRat had noted between poverty and religiosity; that is, the greater the poverty, the greater the religiosity, and thus, the less the education, the greater the religiosity. My post was awkward. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I agree that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, and that even the correlation is questionable. Compare the Czech Republic and Slovakia. According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, 70.2% of Slovaks were Catholic and 23% Protestant. 96.5% of Czechs were Catholic, 2.4% Protestant. So, at the time of Czechoslovakia's formation in 1918, the Czechs were, by far, the more uniform in their religious identification, and they were very strongly Catholic. Today, 27.4% of Czechs are Catholic (estimate), whereas 59% self-identify as "atheist, agnostic, non-believer or no-organized believer." Meanwhile, 69% of Slovaks are Catholic, 13% atheist, and 6.9% Protestant. (From Demographics of Slovakia/Demographics of the Czech Republic) You could write a book theorizing why Catholicism took a nosedive in the Czech lands while remaining strong (and, indeed, becoming part of the national identity) in Slovakia, but I doubt you could apply your results to many other countries. There are just too many factors that contribute to the religiosity of a given population.

Religion is also something that comes and goes in waves; communities tend to stick with their general religious affiliation, but just how strongly a group feels about its religion may vary between generations or in response to outside events (think Croatia). There are also those individuals who rarely go to church, or even rail against the hypocrisy of religious institutions, but who nonetheless identify themselves as religious when filling out surveys because they believe their religion to be an important part of their cultural identity (see, for instance, Religion in Italy). And even if nobody ever converted/lost faith, the religious makeup of any country would change over time due to immigration and the like (compare the Poland of 1931 to the Poland of today). So even the question of "Which country is more religious: x or y?" can be answered in a variety of ways. As for Muslim immigration, that has a lot more to do with economics than it does with religion. Immigration laws, availability of jobs, and willingness to accept refugees are generally the deciding factors. --Fullobeans (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated, one should be very careful in attaching causation. You can divide european countries in Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, but you'll soon discover that that all these three categories contain remarkable diversities. The role of religion and politics in Ireland and France are starkly different. The issue of church-n-state relations is starkly different in Scandinavia compared to other protestant-dominated regions. And so forth. As per protestantism and secularism, I'd say that the complete dominance of Protestantism in Scandinavia (as compared to Germany, Britain, Netherlands, where Protestantism was continously challenged by presence of non-protestant minorities) enabled an historic transition towards secularism, as state and church were completly merged (as opposed to catholic countries, were the church had a parallel structure with loyalty to vatican) the church was subject to the same democratization process as the state as a whole. Thus it could not act as an effective counterforce against modernization and secularization of the state, at least not in a larger timespan.

Talking about migration, whatever the religious identity of the migrants in question, colonial relationships tend to be the most important factor in European former colonial powers. The fact that Pakistanis have migrated to Britain and Algerians have migrated to France in larger numbers has virtually nothing to do with the the Protestant/Catholic divide. --Soman (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

is it worth buying the dvd of monarchy tv series?

Hi, I saw a dvd for the tv series Monarchy, and was thinking of buying it, then I thought I'd better seek advice first. Is it reliable, and is it good? It's been emotional (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable? Probably. Good? Depends on what you like really. I'm guessing you might have an interest in the history of the Monarchy (or know someone who does) so I'd say go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.99.97 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

David Starkey's article shows him as qualified and ascerbic, so that he doesn't offer the party line without critique=entertaining and thought-provoking. Afaik, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ta for the advice, I think I'll get it, since I also had the opportunity to watch it on tv (didn't know it was being repeated here on oz tv, so how good is that), cheers, It's been emotional (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ganymedes picture

From where is this picture of Ganymedes. ----Seans Potato Business 20:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a Pierre et Gilles picture. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You would appear to be correct. Thanks :) ----Seans Potato Business 23:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How old is this picture of Ganymedes? ----Seans Potato Business 00:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Found it on Commons, according to which it is an engraving after F. Kirchbach, 1892. DuncanHill (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

F. Kirchbach, 1892

And Budweiser adapted it in for an ad in 1906DuncanHill (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Budweiser ad

Ganymede has no 's'. Ganymedes is someone else. Xn4 (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ganymede can have an "s". DuncanHill (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see that the question I was answering was changed while I was answering - to make it clear "Ganymedes" is a valid spelling for the mythological youth, and Ganymedes should redirect to Ganymede (mythology). DuncanHill (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bodies buried in Great Wall of China

Is there any truth to the rumor that workers were entombed inside the Great Wall of China while it was being built(their remains being discovered when sections of the wall collapsed or were damaged)? I have heard similar apocryphal stories about the Hoover Dam, which I understand are false. 69.224.113.5 (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Did the Chinese dispose of Jimmy Hoffa? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There apparently was some kind of fanciful legend that it was prophesied that Shih Huang Ti's work on the Wall would result in the death of ten thousand, so he had someone named Wan (a word meaning "ten thousand") killed to avert such misfortune... AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy from here. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

American television commercials

I remember a series of commercials for Philip's Milk of Magnesia a few years ago, in which a wife typically would tell her husband that he should have used Philip's. I'm guessing that, in the commercial, the husband was named Raymond: I think she addressed him by name in virtually every commercial. Does anyone remember these commercials, and if so (1) can you confirm that it was "Raymond", and (2) any idea what the wife's name was? Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally remember, but apparently the couple were "Raymond" and "Maureen": [8]. - Nunh-huh 03:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Poverty gap in Israel/Palestine; Jews & Palestinians

Where do I find data on the difference between the wealthy and the poor in Israel, and if possible, with separate data for Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians?

In the last few weeks, I've read somewhere that Israel has the widest gap between wealthy and poor citizens of all developed (or industrialized or OECD?) countries. I've tried forever to find that article again (maybe Haaretz?) and trace it to its (original = data!) source, but to no avail. I'd appreciate any suggestions as well as other (original) sources about the poverty gap(s) in Israel/Palestine. Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The article did appear in Yedioth Ahronoth in Hebrew, possibly including "again" or "still" in its title. I'll have to leave the search for others, but will add the following points for general background context:

• The comparison, if I recall correctly, was probably with "Western" countries in Europe.
• It (probably) covered the population of the State of Israel excluding the Palestinian territories of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, which also means excluding Jewish Israeli citizens (a.k.a. "settlers") residing in those territories.
• Mainstream reportage of socioeconomic studies of Israel refers to population "deciles" ( 'asironim, עשירונים) plus an "upper one-thousandth" (alpiyon 'elyon, אלפיון עליון).
• That topmost icing on the cake (= thin and rich ;-) are those whose income goes through the ceiling. To appreciate the income range, the breaking point between the fourth and fifth decile (the only one I know by heart, as it's my household's), is 10,000 NIS, or at the time of the most recent survey (when the exchange rate was roughly 4NIS=US$1.00), the equivalent of US$2,500. :*The large cluster at the low end of the income scale is characterized by low-income households, many in the ultra-orthodox and Arab sectors, with a sole (or no) wage earner and an above-average number of children.
• Bear in mind that (a) V.A.T. is 15.5% and levied on foods including bread, dairy, and fresh produce, (b) parents pay annual fees for primary and secondary education despite the so-called "free public education," (c) both public and private transportation costs are high, and (d) etc.
• To offset the detrimental facts in the previous point, consider that the health care system based in the nationwide HMOs provides some significant quality-of-life in that sphere, which in other Western economies would be more costly and difficult to obtain, possibly out of reach for low- and middle-income inhabitants.

I hope this helps shed light on the picture, and believe me it's not a pretty one. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Deborah, Thanks so much for your answers, they're a treat every time! Yes, I'm exactly curious about the income gap for Jewish non-ultra-Orthodox Israelis and Arab Israelis (as compared to other developed countries) and for Palestinians (from one statistic I've seen, the gap is rather low, apparently because there aren't so many rich Palestinians, compared to other areas and countries??). --Ibn Battuta (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Natalia/Maria Petrovna of Russia

Somebody must have messed up somewhere when creating these articles, Grand Duchess Natalia Petrovna of Russia (1713-1715) and Grand Duchess Natalia Petrovna of Russia (1718-1725). One of them is Maria Petrovna 1713-1715 instead. I not sure maybe they were both named Natalia. And also which Natalia is this really?Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter and Catherine (whose children, with very few exceptions, died in infancy or shortly afterward) had a tendency to re-use names for their children: if I remember right, they had several little boys named Peter and several named Paul. I don't remember these two little girls; you could consult Massie's biography of Peter the Great. As far as the portrait: the description says that it was painted in 1722, so if the articles themselves are correct it's surely the younger Natalia: she was a few years old at the time, while her sister had been dead for seven years. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

December 20

Overtone singing vs throat singing

Overtone singing is, according to our article, often wrongly called "throat singing". However, throat singing does not redirect to the former, but to Inuit throat singing. That article says it is "also known (and commonly confused) under the generic term overtone singing", but the only difference it describes is that it's sung by a duet of women. Given that there are all kinds of overtone singing ensembles (especially with modern composers discovering it), I don't see this as a big enough difference to call it a "confusion". Or is there really a difference that I'm not aware of? — Sebastian 08:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I will assume the articles changed since you posted this question... The article on overtone singing states that throat singing is incorrectly used to describe unconstricted overtone singing. I've personally never heard it referred to that way. I've heard unconstrained overtone singing. Why would I have heard that before? I have had a few nasty accidents - hit by a bus, fell off a cliff, went through a speeding car - and if I attempt to hold a singing note loudly, I often produce two notes. I've been told that it is due to damage to my throat causing two sections of the vocal chords to vibrate at different rates. I also know about throat singing because I can do throat singing. Therefore, I understand what the constrained part means. When singing, you open your jaw to increase the air pocket in your mouth. Then, you close your lips into a circle - not as small as whistling. By closing your lips, you constrain the air so the vibrations reflect from the lips, back through the mouth. If you get the right tone, you will hit a point that the vibrations going back and forth create at least one overtone. I can usually do three tones easily (I practice out of boredom when I have to drive long distances). So - I hope all this cleared up a bit that unconstrained overtone singing produces more than one note in the vocal chords. Throat singing (aka overtone singing) produces more than one note through sound-wave interference inside the mouth. -- kainaw™ 04:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing with your rich experience! If I understand you correctly, "constrained overtone singing" is constraint by the lips. However, the article seems to use the term "constricted" referring to a constriction of the larynx. Maybe it is always either one or the other, and there's no such thing as "unconstrained/unconstricted overtone singing"? I'm not sure how your experience fits into this; I can't imagine how different sections of the vocal chords could vibrate at different frequencies, any more than a violin string could. (There is a nice illustration at de:Stimmlippe.) BTW, the way you describe reminds me of the way vowels are created (See Mol, H. (1970). "Fundamentals of Phonetics: II. Acoustical Models Generating the Formants of the Vowel Phonemes". (Den Haag, Mouton & Co.)). Another interesting link in this context is this: http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/medicine/2000/m.p.de.vries/thesis.pdf. — Sebastian 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The vocal folds are not like a single violin string. Kainaw probably has some sort of damage that perhaps shortens or tightens one of the folds so that it can't vibrate in synch with the other one. Also, what Kainaw describes sounds more like modern "western overtone" singing than true throat-singing. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, of course: They're not the same, since strings can vibrate freely. But at least I can't imagine how this could work. I should better have compared it with a double-reed mouthpiece (another topic that is not well covered). If anyone has one handy, it would be interesting to see how it sounds if you tie reeds of different tightness together. (The single-reed mouthpiece can be seen as the extreme case, with one reed being infinitely tight. The fact that neither produces two frequencies led me to intuitively assume that you won't get them at all, but I now realize that the these two borderline cases could just be degenerated.) — Sebastian 00:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Some constriction of the larynx is a key feature of traditional throat-singing styles such as are found all over Siberia. Some of these styles do not emphasize the creation of a melody using overtones. The overtones are instead an embellishment or ornamentation. I don't know enough about Inuit throat-singing to comment. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitions are not made any easier when the professionals in the field have not apparently created a clear distinction between the different styles around the world. Take for example in Ted Levin's (with Valentina Suzukei) most recent book on Tuvan throatsinging "Where Rivers and Mountains Sing" in the preface, "In throat-singing, a single vocalist can simultaneously produce two distinct pitches by selectively amplifying harmonics naturally present in the voice." This is a clear description of overtone singing, yet the Tuvan throatsinging sounds quite different from modern overtone singing due to the addition of the larynx constriction. Levin's description is excusable though since he's an ethnomusicologist, not a phonologist. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The experts seem to confuse more than they clarify. I think it is just because there are so many ways to make extra noises. Overtone singing by causing sound to echo back and forth inside the mouth is easy - anyone can do that. I can make a two tones - not really an overtone - due to vocal chord damage at sometime in my past. I'm sure some people can train their throat to do the same without damage. I've heard people who could vibrate the uvula to make a buzzing noise. I've tried and sometimes I've got it to buzz. It makes me gag though, so I can't do it very long. I went to see some Mongolians perform who could get their rib cage to vibrate, making a low rumbling sound. You can touch their sides and feel it vibrating - it feels weird. It is possible to make whistling noises through the nose as well. So, what do you call someone who can do one or two of the above? A throat singer? I think it is just a general term since nobody wants to be referred to as an overtone singer with a nose whistle and a rib vibration. -- kainaw™ 12:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your replies! We currently have the article "Overtone singing" and the "category:Throat singing". Should we rename one of them so that the names are the same? — Sebastian 00:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thomas More quote

It appears that Gustav Mahler once attributed an aphorism, "tradition is the passing on of the fire, not the worship of the ashes" as based on Thomas More. Strangely, I fail to find the original quote. The attribution to More is invariably in German language sources[9] that seem to just take Mahler's attribution for granted. Benjamin Franklin appears to have said something similar, about "guarding the ashes" and "rekindling the embers", but again, vexingly, the English language "quote" is only found on German language websites[10] I even fail to find a decent source for Mahler's aphorism. here the Mahler quote is even translated back into English, but with no other "source" other than simply "Gustav Mahler".

The only thing I could find was a quote by Sir John Denham who in 1647 prefaced a translation of Il Pastor Fido by Giovanni Battista Guarini with

A new and nobler way thou dost pursue

To make translations, and translators too;

They but preserve the ashes, thou the flame,

True to his sense, but truer to his fame.

So, is there a genuine quote by Thomas More this is all based on, and is there really a Franklin and a Mahler version? --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol chronology

A Christmas Carol was published in 1843. It makes no mention of how old Scrooge is, only that he and Marley had been partners for many years, and that Marley had been dead for several years before the story opens. In the "Ghost of Christmas Past" episode, Scrooge was a young man at Fezziwig's. Would it be right to assume that the Fezziwig episode takes place in the early 1820s, at the latest? Could we therefore infer that the Christmas celebration that takes place at Fezziwig's was a common occurrence in the 1820s? There was a recent discussion about when the Christmas celebrations as we know them began, but it seems that at least some sort of celebration was taking place in parts of England at least in the 1820s. The illustrations by John Leech show mistletoe and possibly holly being used as decorations (though no Christmas tree as of yet), thus leading me to assume that such decoration was reasonably common. Dickens's audience in 1843 would surely have thought it odd if he was writing about celebrations which they themselves were not celebrating some 20 years before their time. Am I right in this analysis? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One prob with that analysis is that it assumes that either such celebrations did not happen at all on a given date or happened everywhere. It's possible that tradition could have started in the author's home town of Portsmouth and only slowly spread to the rest of England. Therefore, he might have written about such things before they were commonplace. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I did say in parts of England.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to take the illustrations as indicative of Christmas practices of the date they were drawn (1843), but less so for the putative date illustrated (1820). I don't think an anachronistic illustration or two would have bothered Dickens's readers at all. The drawings were meant for a contemporary audience rather than as a historical document; I think if it's important for you to know how Christmas celebrations changed between 1820 and 1843, you'll have to look at documents from both times. - Nunh-huh 19:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Give a read to The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal, London, 1821, p105 which describes the history and practice of celebrating Christmas. It included in times before the writing the appointing of a "Lord of Misrule" and which said the Christmas celebration in early days had taken much from Saturnalia, including candles, torches, and boughs and laurels suspended, and presents exchanged. The same magazine from 1822 [11] p641 talked of the yule log, evergreens decking the windows, boisterous sport, heavy dance, and the "smoking board." Sounds right Fezziwickian. The celebration was said to be more festive in the country than in London, with merchants allowing less drunkenness and gluttony. Plum puddings, mince pies, the wassail bowl, mistletoe and turkeys are mentioned, but it says Christmas festivities in 1822 London was less raucous and festive than formerly. The public singing of carols on Christmas was more seen in the country than in the city. It is noted that in America traditional revelry was still common. Looking back from 1849, Chamber's Information for the People (London, 1849), p447 describes Christmas celebrations then and in the past: Formerly the house was decked with greens, large candles were lit, there was a yule log, folks sat around drinking beer. People went carolling from house to house, thern there was a midnight church service. On Christmas day there was a feast, and social distinctions were ignored. The article says little about 1840's customs.See also "A gossip about Merry Christmas by Bell, from 1850 [12] which distinguishes the "Christmas of the Rich" from the "Christmas of the Poor.".Edison (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Edison, those are great reads. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Geffrye Museum in London does a good job each year of decorating its rooms in appropriate Xmas garb -- appropriate to the middle class English interior from c. 1600 to the present. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion of parts of this on BBC Radio 3 yesterday (Sun 21 Dec). One of the points I recall was that in Sketches by Boz in 1836, there is an account of grandpa singing a song at Christmas, but no mention of carols; but by the time of A Christmas Carol in 1843, Dickens apparently expected his readers to be familiar with carol-singing.

Nativity scene ideas + queries

Help! Christmas is almost here...and I would like some ideas for a Nativity scene. I have a few of my own, and this time I want to make it as authentic as possible.

1. Would a stable 2,000 years ago be made of wood or some other material?
2. Was the place where Jesus was born far away from town, or close to the city?
3. What was the geography of Bethlehem back them (too many houses in all the pics I see, can't discern properly). Is it a sandy or rocky place?
4. What would have been the fauna like? (Jerusalem mentions that it would have been forested—but there are no sources)
5. Water sources back then for a stable would have been rivers or wells? (I read there would have been a lot of wadis in the region)

I know the timeline... just have 4 days with me to implement a scene but I want to bag the first prize. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Church of the Nativity may be useful. Nativity scenes are usually a literal stable, as in Luke's Gospel, but there were equally ancient traditions that said he was born in a cave, which is what the church in Bethlehem shows (that's also how it was depicted in the huge Nativity scene at the Catholic church I went to as a kid). It's close to Jerusalem, I assume it's like a suburb today, and back then it was maybe a few hours walking distance (close enough to see in the distance, surely). It's not sandy there, it's in the Judean Mountains. I'm not sure about the rest. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like I'll have to abandon using sand. Any clues on the stable material? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not merely a cave as an alternative, but Matthew's Gospel specifies a house, Joseph and Mary being residents of Bethlehem, not Nazareth. One often finds nativity scenes including an ox and a donkey based up the Protevangelion of James. B00P (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forge to include a caganer.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus has some information on the location. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it proposed that it was a cave being used as a stable by the inn owner — this being what I've grown up hearing as "maybe what it was like". If this were really it, you'll have trouble, as I don't expect you really feel like digging yourself a cave. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

do people have the right to lie on their resume?

I'm surprised Googling this question ("do people have the right to lie on their resume") didn't turn up anything relevant. I'm not asking for legal advice, just curious: if someone reasons "my right to work trumps my company's right to know the truth about me" and just lies outright on their resume, is that like, fraud, like when a company lies in advertising? I'm not asking for legal advice, I'm just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.90.7 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You can lie all you want, but don't expect to be there much longer after they find out. See job fraud, and for a recent example Ali Kordan. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think "You can lie all you want" is true on many jurisdictions - if someone lies on a resume and gains a job as a result, they've gained monies by dint of a fraud, which is a crime in most places ("gaining money by deception", etc.). Although such a lier is very unlikely to be prosecuted, its' not impossible that they are 87.114.130.249 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, of course there's no right to lie on your resume. Of course, many people do so and never get caught, but if they eventually do get caught, and if the lie is material to their qualifications for the job, they can be fired for having done so - even years before. Of course, the specifics vary with local law, which you aren't asking about, but the general principle holds most places: If the employer has a right to ask you a question (i.e., the question is material to your qualifications), and you lie when you answer it, kiss your paycheck goodbye. On the other hand, if they don't have a right to ask you a question, and they ask it anyway, it's likely the lie can't be used against you [13] - Nunh-huh 21:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's lies and there's ways of presenting things. You may choose to keep quiet about some bad things, you may wish to shout about good things. The "hobbies" section of a CV probably doesn't want to say "I drink beer and watch TV every evening and weekends", even if that is what you do. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say that maybe the question could have been phrased "Is lying on a resume ever justified?", in which case I'd say it depends on what you mean by lying, and it would also depend on your personal circumstances and your personal moral code. Withholding all the truth can sometimes have the effect of misleading people into thinking something that just isn't true. If you choose words deliberately intended to create that misleading impression, even if you don't overtly claim something that's not true, some would say that's a form of lying, and would be judged by whatever their position is on lying generally. If you had no intent to create that misleading impression, but that's the impression they got anyway, then that's not lying, but you might have a communication issue to consider. If you claim to have a degree from Harvard when you have no such degree, that's obviously blatant and overt lying, and as others have said, you run a risk of being exposed and your name blackened. As to the general question "do I have a right to lie", that's one for the philosophers, not the Reference Desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not legal advice, but in many cases misrepresenting information (i.e. lying) for the purpose of gaining something of value (in this case, a pay check) generally falls under the legal definition of fraud, and as such many employers will terminate you with extreme prejudice should such fraud be exposed. See George O'Leary who was hired by Notre Dame to coach their football team, and was fired 5 days later for lying on his resume... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they won't actually kill you, which is what "terminate with extreme prejudice" is usually taken to mean.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

to follow on from a point raised earlier, there are some questions that you can lie about. In the UK at least (and i imagine in most developed countries, although the US may be different), companies are only allowed to ask very specific questions regarding your criminal record (do you have any unspent criminal convictions). If they ask a more general question (have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence), assuming a given amount of time has elapsed since your conviction, you are allowed to lie quite legitmately. I would imagine the same principle works in order to comply with discrimination legislation. Its now for example no longer advisable to put your date of birth on your CV, as it puts your perspective employer in a difficult position vis-a-vis age discrimination. I would guess that if you were asked and you took 10 years off your age, i tihnk that would be Ok, should the truth ever become known. (Ok, that was a crap example, but the same thing works with less obvious things -religion for example)82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i've been drinking.. you wouldn't put those things on your CV anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Some convictions are never spent on this regard; those convicted of sexual crimes must always disclose that for relevant jobs (and many jobs that don't seem relevant two). 87.114.130.249 (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In the UK the relevant legislation is Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The period before a conviction is considered spent under the act depends on both the original sentence, and the age of the offender at that time. Convictions resulting in a prison sentence of over two-and-a-half years are never spent. Certain occupations are exempt from the legislation. DuncanHill (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

a lot of you have mentioned being fired, but none of you have mentioned having to give back your paychecks. Can anyone think of an example of this? I think if you lie and work for 5 days, or 5 weeks, or 5 months, or 5 years, you can be fired once you're found out, but you don't have to give any of your pay back -- EVER. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.3.252 (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a rather cavalier attitude to the workplace in general and to your own reputation in particular. If you are charged with fraud for your deception (an unlikely, but possible, outcome), you could be fined, and in that way some or all of your paycheque might be recalled for all practical purposes. The principal consequence is much more likely to be that you have considerable difficulty finding another paycheque as your tarnished reputation precedes you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You say you are not looking for legal advice, but it seems you would not be satisfied until someone came out and said "yes, the maximum penalty is that you'll get locked up and fined $1 million", which, by the way, is possible depending on your jurisdiction. The following is not legal advice but general observations about the general law in common law jurisdictions, which may in fact be quite different from the actual law in your jurisdiction.

Basically, your contract of employment is a contract like any other. Lying on your resume to obtain employment is fraud. As a matter of contract, if the fraud is fundamental enough, the contract is void ab initio ("from the start"), you would in principle have to give back all your pay cheques, but of course the employer would need to make an account for the work you actually did.

Fraud is, of course, also a crime in many jurisdictions, and the prison sentence or fine you will receive will vary depending on the severity of your offence and the laws in your jurisdiction. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course if the reason they realised you were a fraud was because of your utter incompetence you may not only have to pay back your wages but they could probably sue you for additional damages for whatever harm you cause the company as a result of that incompetence. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Extension School

Do any of the other Ivy league schools have programs simmilar to the Harvard Extension School? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.98.202 (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly the same, but I know Cornell, as a private institution, also runs 4 colleges which are considered part of the public State University of New York (SUNY) system. See Statutory college for more information. Columbia University School of General Studies seems to be about the exact same thing as the Harvard Extension School. The other Ivy League schools (Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, Princeton, and Yale) do not appear to run similar "open admissions" or "public" programs. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

December 21

Why dont those people who "talk to the dead" get put to the test?

Where are the regulatory agencies when you need them? Why dont they send someone undercover to one of thier shows to look around and ask them some hard questions? Other people that sell products get tested rigorously, why not these guys!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk • contribs) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Consumer products like drugs and food get tested and such because if something goes wrong, they could kill you. Going to a psychic doesn't have a likelihood of killing or injuring you. And if you're willing to believe it, why shouldn't they be allowed to take your money? Dismas|^(talk) 03:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you might also be interested in the articles on James Randi and James Randi Educational Foundation which has offered a one million dollar prize for anyone who can prove paranormal claims. Last I heard, nobody had even agreed to be tested. Dismas|^(talk) 03:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

People who get taken in by psychic scams probably deserve to lose their money anyway. Unfortunately such charlatans do harm society however by creating an irrational, unscientific culture awash with superstition and fallacious thinking. --S.dedalus (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do people looking for hope and answers deserve to lose their money? Does ignorance and being gullible translate into moral failing? What about being elderly (the aged are the primary targets of scammers)? I don't think anyone "deserves" to lose their money when someone is pretending to provide them with some sort of service but is really conning them. Personally I think even the question of whether someone who gambles "deserves" to lose their money because they are ignorant of basic laws of probability is dubious. There are relatively limited scenarios when people really "deserve" to be duped. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there are a few poor souls who, for one reason or another, are not responsible for their behavior, such as the senile. However, all adults capable of rational thought and investigation are perfectly able to do the tiny bit of research necessary to expose these frauds. It would be foolish to invest money in ANYTHING without doing research first. Getting burned is simply how you learn that you did something really dumb. Hopefully next time these people will be more skeptical. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing the moral aspect, let's just look at whether it's good for society for such people to be duped. One could argue that when people who can't think logically lose their money, and thus power and influence, to some scam, that this is good for society in that it removes such people from the pool of powerful and influential people who run the nation. It is hoped that this will lead to rational policies, as opposed to the current irrational policies. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way: some drugs work, while others do not. It is thus imperative that regulatory bodies determine which drugs work, so people don't end up buying the ones that do not. Since no medium is capable of maing good on their claims, there would be nothing for a regulatory body to do. Algebraist 09:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The OP might want to check out this video in which Bruno asks a psychic to ask the late Gianni Versace what Bruno should do with his hair. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually in the UK there are regulations that limit the claims that mediums (media?) are allowed to make. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in the "good old days", policemen actively shutdown tarot card readers and psychic mediums who set up commercial facilities, and prosecuted them as frauds. Regrettably, these days seem to be completely over in the U.S., but in the UK the "Fraudulent Mediums Act" (which required proof of intent to defraud, and resulted in only 10 prosecutions in 20 years) was replaced in mid-2008 by the new "Consumer Protection Regulations" which apparently makes mediums at least issue disclaimers [14]. - Nunh-huh 16:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is an excellent question. Isn't this fraud? If I am a mechanic and I tell you that I fixed your car and I don't, isn't that illegal? How is this any different? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you can scientifically test the mechanics work. Does the car run? Have new parts been fitted? If I take an oil sample, is it clear rather than than fouled? Psychic phenomena are not yet scientifically testable. Exxolon (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretensions to psychic ability are eminently testable. - Nunh-huh 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is why these people rarely make testable predictions. They don't say "you will do well in your career", but "if you work hard you will do well in your career". It's worthless but the punters should have realised that before they paid anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The smart ones certify that they are "for entertainment purposes only" (nudge-nudge-wink-wink). The rest tend to be small community folks who don't draw much attention outside their clientelle. I do recall a news story a few years ago of a woman being pulled into her child's school and accused of abusing her own child... and it turns out, the accusation came from a teacher who was "advised" by a psychic that the child was being abused. I don't think the teacher or the psychic got punished for that one, which boggles my mind. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to sue in some jurisdictions; Uri Geller was sued in Israel by a customer of one of his demonstrations of psychic power: the litigant was awarded money by a judge who felt Geller had lied about possessing psychic powers (see Uri Geller#Litigation).

The English Witchcraft Act (1735) punished people who pretended to have contact with evil spirits; this was replaced by the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951; that was repealed in 2008 but there have been plans to replace it by allowing mediums, faith healers, etc to be prosecuted for making false claims if they charge money, making them conform to EU consumer rights directives[15]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The date of Christmas

Why do we celebrate Christmas on different dates when we are all Christians?

I know that some use the Old calendar and some use the New calendar,but what interests me is which one is correct and why isnt it possible for both sides to get to an agreement?

So basiclly my question is which calendar is right and which side moved away from the original religios interpretation?

Thank you.

87.116.154.181 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a different date; it's still December 25 in the Julian calendar, but for anyone using the Gregorian calendar, it's January 7. I guess they've both moved away from the original interpretation, which was that CHrist was born in March or May, or that his birthday was unimportant. December 25 just happens to be a Roman festival day, co-opted by the Christians. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have Julian and Gregorian confused, Adam. It's 25 December in the Gregorian calendar (that's the one most of the world uses); it's also 25 December in the Julian calendar, but the Gregorian equivalent of that date is 7 January because the Gregorian is currently 13 days ahead of the Julian. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Right...that's what I meant to say. What I wrote is much different from what I thought I wrote! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

In any case, the majority of Christians whose denominations traditionally used the Julian calendar have shifted the observance of non-Easter-related holy days to the Gregorian calendar (or to the "Revised Julian calendar", which is the same as the Gregorian calendar until 2800 A.D., and was actually mainly a way of effectively adopting the Gregorian calendar while still loudly refusing to recognize the authority of the Pope), and this has left a relatively smaller number of "Old Calendarists" (the one big hold out is Russian Orthodoxy). The observance of Easter-related holy days is a different matter -- all Orthodox denominations still use the Julian calendar calculations for the dat of Easter. Of course, the Gregorian reform was not too relevant to those churches (such as the Ethiopian etc.) which never used the Julian calendar in the first place... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

there's actually a conspiracy-theory answer: pagans used to celebrate the winter solstice around this date, so early christians "coopted" these pagan celebrations into Christmas (ie arbitrarily selected Jesus's birhtday to fall on these celebrations) 79.122.3.252 (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Especially since, by Biblical description, Jesus was likely born in late Spring or early Summer, so the date is arbitrarily chosen by the church anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. In my country we celebrate Christams on January 7th and I know that many other countries like Russia,Greece,Romania,Bulgaria and other celebrate it on 7th as well.

My question was really why cant the churches make an agreement so that we all celebrate it on the same day? Because its very strange to me that we are all christians and we all celebrate the same thing,but we do it on different dates?!?

When did the different dates of Christmas celebration started? And is there any intention that there will be an agreement during our lifetime?

87.116.154.181 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that, as a Christian, Christ's birth is not what saved you from sin. It was his death. For nearly all of Christian history, Christmas was a relatively minor celebration, and Easter was the big deal. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See Nativity of Jesus#Date of birth. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of "The Honorable"

Is it proper or standard to affix the prefix "The Honorable" before the names of U.S. Marshals? Neutrality^talk 06:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No. B00P (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, indeed, but make sure you're not confusing them with U.S. magistrates, where it would be appropriate. --Sean 13:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

small jewish rules

is there a name for small jewish rules? such as (from the hannukah article): "the purpose of the extra light is to adhere to the prohibition, specified in the Talmud (Tracate Shabbat 21b–23a), against using the Hanukkah lights for anything other than publicizing and meditating on the Hanukkah story."

what is the weirdest of these rules? (realize this is subjective, but what are some of the strangest of these to people not familiar with them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.3.252 (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

See Halakha. As for weird... there are a lot of weird ones. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

613 mitzvot, or if you want to single out one, a perennial favorite is Shaatnez -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

See The Year of Living Biblically, in which a modern secular New York journalist tries to do what it says on the tin. He tries to be a better person through the big ones (thou shalt not covet etc.) but also tries to get into the mindset by discovering the little ones and following them too (no fruit from young trees, no mixed-fibre clothing). BrainyBabe (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone identify this painting for me?

I'm trying to get any information I can on this picture:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k241/agochar/GnosticSoul.jpg

It is on the cover of Stephan Hoeller's Gnosticism. One thing I'm wondering about in particular: I have seen color versions of this and black and white versions; does anyone know about coloration, whether or not the color was a later addition?

Thanks in advance, if it doesn't get answered here it just doesn't get answered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.98.10 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article Flammarion woodcut. It says that the print was colourised by a local (from my point of abode) 10 years ago. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy of entities in Greek mythology

Were Titans, Zeus and co, and their parents and grandparents (respectively) all the same "species", e.g. Titans (as the only named "type")? If not, what separates them? I realise this is fictional, but the Greeks were quite rational, right? They considered the world in terms of logic, and applied reasoning, surely?

I've read through the articles for Twelve_Olympians and Titans.--Rixxin 20:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The creation/foundation myths (i.e. what came before Zeus, etc.) are actually something of a mess in Greek mythology, but insofar as there was a quasi-standard accepted account, it was probably Hesiod's Theogony. You might be interested in the semi-classic book "The Greeks and the Irrational" by E.R. Dodds (there seems to be no Wikipedia article which refers to it). -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"... the Greeks were quite rational, right?"
Well, not entirely from our point of view. To begin with, their notion of what things could breed and produce viable and non-sterile offspring - almost the definition of what a species is - was, shall we say, peculiar. (cf Minotaur and Leda) Now since Zeus had children with female Titans (eg Apollo, Artemis, Hermes), then their Gods and the Titans were the same species, essentially just different generations. On the other hand, Zeus also sired Dionysus and Heracles upon human women. (He got around.)
On the whole, though, I'd say, "Yes."
— B00P (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It also depends on which Greeks. There are attempts to rationalize the stories (like Hesiod, or Apollodorus), but educated Greeks (like, most of the Greeks whose names you know) didn't really believe that stuff. They usually believed in some sort of supernatural divine forces, but they didn't literally believe in the myths. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that Greek mythology included a rather noted case of assexual reproduction. I think trying to find some sort of Linnean consistancy to understanding a complex mythology like this isn't all that feasible. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Why do (neo)nazis deny the holocaust? If they hate Jews they should be happy that it happened... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.238.59 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. As long as the Holocaust is a known historical fact, Nazism and Neo-nazism are very unlikely to be considered acceptable political positions. These people want legitimacy, but first they have to "prove" that the Holocaust didn't happen. Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment. They would argue, quite correctly, that the burden of proof lies on those who claim it did happen, and that there needs to be substantial and incontrovertible evidence of it happening. Most of the world considers the evidence to be overwhelmingly abundant (although I, like the vast majority of others, have never personally gone to the primary sources, but I am prepared to accept the word of those who claim to have done so, because there are so many of them.) However, some people know it happened but just deny it, for whatever perverse reasons they might have. A small percentage of people are genuinely not convinced by the evidence they've seen, but they're in the same group as those who genuinely believe the Earth is flat. Nevertheless, they're entitled to their opinions (even if, in some countries, they're not entitled to express them.) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

the same reason the political left wants to establish that 911 was committed by Bush and friends: the WHOLE US POPULAQTION opposed the war on Iraq, just as THE WHOLE US POPULATION opposes America invading Iran right now. As long as Bush could suppress democracy just by saying "look, we are invading Iran now" boo! boo! 90% disapproval ratings. boo! boo! "... because let us never forget September the 11th"... that's why we deny it. (I think). Guantano bay is "justified" by 911, so if you can deny 911 was caused by terrorists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.163.211 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the juvenile rant above... The holocaust is seen by some people (particularly those who don't like Jews) as a "badge of honor" for the Jews. They get to claim a special status for being the target of great persecution. When I was in Germany, there was a big argument about the right to discuss the holocaust. I believe that the final ruling came down to state that nobody could legally question the existence of the holocaust and any appearance of nazism would be considered a hate crime - very much limiting any freedom of expression. (Someone who knows what the laws actually are should correct my interpretation.) So, neonazis can nullify all of that by finding a way to claim that the Jews just made up the holocaust in order to falsely get their current "preferred" status which has allowed many things - including the creation of Israel with extensive financial and monetary backing from other countries. There are those who are not so deluded that they seriously believe that the holocaust didn't exist, but still argue against it. They claim that the holocaust wasn't as bad as the stories claim it was. Also, they point out that Jews were not the only people killed in the holocaust, but that a huge Jewish conspiracy has worked to eliminate all proof of anyone else so the Jews could keep it all to themselves. If it were me, I'd stop fighting such a dumb argument and point out that the genocidal wars are continuing and must be stopped regardless of who is involved, nazi or Jew. -- kainaw™ 00:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not everyone who disagrees with the policies of Israel is a Holocaust denier or anti-Semitic (despite what some Zionists claim). Also—look—there are people who claim that we never went to the moon, that 9/11 was the work of federal agents using controlled explosives, that HIV/AIDS doesn’t actually exist. There seems to be a portion of the population that is just perpetually in denial about really obvious historical things. Holocaust denial, though linked to anti-Semitism, is really just another crackpot conspiracy theory. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some interesting historical details here. Initially there were some NS groups that essentially defended the Holocaust (albeit perhaps not in explict terms) immediately after WWII, and later catched up with holocaust denial. We should note here that Holocaust denial isn't just about complete denial of all atrocities during WWII, many 'deniers' will simple reduce the numbers of casualities (stating that concentration camps had 100 000s of victims, not millions), to make the Nazi war crimes smaller in comparison to say the Great Terror. What's the point? Enabling far-right nationalism to re-enter the political arena on the same terms as other political tendencies. --Soman (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward—as one neo-Nazi group put it, ""The real purpose of holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's way too simplistic. Yes that's one reason why some may do it, but there's plenty of other reasons most of which have already been discussed. Many of them are genuinely deluded and so genuinely believe in their claims and are not simply saying them to further their political goals. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Having spent a decent amount of time reading the so-insane-it's-funny Vanguard News Network website, I'd also add that the notion of a powerful international Jewish conspiracy seems important to a lot of white supremacists. The (American) neo-Nazi view of the world seems to be that white people are kept in a state of willing subjugation by the mind control voodoo those horned Jews transmit through the media which they, of course, control all of. Sort of like They Live with Jewish people instead of aliens. The neo-Nazi is, therefore, the enlightened, informed minority who has reclaimed his values and is fighting the good fight against oppression, debasement, and impurity. This underdog aspect is important to a lot of social and political movements; people like identifying themselves with the underdog, but, moreover, when they're convinced they are the underdog (ie, "Hey, whitey! Don't you know you're getting scammed?"), they get angry. Now, if it's crucial for neo-Nazis to get white people angry about oppression by "international Jewry," it's crucial for them to paint Jews as a formidable enemy, protected, at the very least, by wealth and influence. The fact that Hitler managed to liquidate much of the Jewish population of Europe in less then ten years with minimal difficulty, and was only stopped from completing the job by the turning tides of war, does not really say much for the international Jewish conspiracy. Instead, knowledge of the dehumanizing experience of the concentration camps tends to have the reverse effect of humanizing persecuted Jews in the minds of gentiles, and turning Jews, undeniably, into underdogs. Sure, that's not a problem for the confirmed white supremacist who's desensitized to such things, but as others have stated, neo-Nazis want legitimacy; they want to broaden their movement. It's easier to convince people that the Holocaust didn't happen than it is to convince them that Schindler's List is a good-time romp through politics done right. But, and perhaps more importantly, convincing people that the Holocaust didn't happen only confirms the existence of an international Jewish conspiracy, one which rewrites history to play on our sympathies and bring us further under its control. Uh-oh, RaHoWa, time to kick ass and chew bubble gum. For some reason people are often desperate to believe conspiracy theories (Michael Shermer? Care to chime in?), so the value of a good, consistent Jewish conspiracy myth far outweighs the value of gloating over the Holocaust. --Fullobeans (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

December 22

Origins of the Barca family name

While reading Herodotos, I find quite a few references to the "City of Barca" which was (probably) located in what is now Al-Marj in Libya, near Banghazi. It's reasonable to speculate that Hannibal Barca's ancestors were connected with this city, but Herodotos was writing long before Hannibal's time, or I'm sure the old boy would have digressed for a while.

The only references to the origin of the surname "Barca" (or Barcas) is that it derives from the Semitic root for "lightning" (BRQ) or "Blessed" (BRK).

Is there any scholarship on this name?

Thanks Runtape (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles on Barca and the Barcid family, if that helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I had seen those articles; neither of them addresses the question of the relationship between the city and the family name. Runtape (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative Interest Rate Guaranteed Investment Certificate

Hello. What happens to the GIC interest rates when the rate that the bank pays your savings account becomes negative (i.e. you pay the bank interest out of your paycheque)? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be moving my money, for a start. I've known almost-no-interest accounts, where the charges for operating the account are higher than the interest paid, but I have never heard of an account where the interest "paid" is negative. Why would anyone leave money in such an account? Under the mattress, or in my sock drawer, are both better deals. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Because if the bank is robbed, you don't lose all your money. If you leave objects in a bank safe-deposit box, you pay a fee for that, don't you? Well, a negative-interest bank account could be seen as the same thing. And yes, they have existed in some places in the past. --Anonymous, 09:35 UTC, December 22, 2008.

I'd be really pleased to see a ref to a bank that has paid negative interest "in some places in the past." I understand about effective negative rates, but not actual ones. As for safety-deposit boxes, the bank is not using the money in the box to make money for itself, which is the reason for paying interest to depositors. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As an unregistered user posting from a text-only connection, I can't post working external links here, but here's one result from a Google search on "negative interest": everything2.com / index.pl?node_id=1375475 Note the parts about Switzerland and Japan. --Anonymous, 19:30 UTC, December 22, 2008.

A person in the Revolutionary War

Who is a semi-famous in the American Revolution who really influenced the outcome of the war or greatly contributed to its success or really impacted it in some way? I'm looking to research some figure other than Washington, Franklin, etc, the usual suspects. I need to find somebody who isn't too anonymous that I can't research on but that history generally disregards his/her importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.142.63 (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Henry Knox. He was at the Boston Massacre. His march from Ticonderoga was worthy of a Hannibal and broke the British at Boston. He founded the Springfield Armory. He got Washington over the Delaware. He played very good second fiddle, so to speak, and the average schoolboy might just guess that the Fort is named after him, but that's about it. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Knox is a good one to meet the OPs requirements, expecially since he was, like, 26 years old on Independence Day, and thus really young as well. Other possibilities:

• Ethan Allen. Everyone knows he led the Green Mountain Boys. What he, or the Green Mountain Boys, did, however, is largely unknown by most casual history students.
• Tadeusz Kościuszko, who was a genuine hero in both Poland and America, and the tallest mountain in Australia Mount Kosciuszko is named after him.
• Benedict Arnold. OK, so everyone knows he was a traitor, but he was fast on his way to being the hero of the Revolution. He's a facinating character study, and well worth the work to research his life, both before and after his treason.
• John Burgoyne. Sometimes, someone is MORE important for being incompetant as his opponents are for being good. The Saratoga campaign was an unmitigated failure, and Burgoyne's ineptitude and poor generalship, both in terms of strategy and tactics, helped lead to the first major defeat of an entire British fighting force, as well as convincing France that, since American victory was feasible, it would be in their interests to join the war.

Hope this gives you some choices... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My favorite is the Francis Marion ("The Swamp Fox"), a master of military intelligence and asymmetric warfare. Next favorite is Henry Lee III ("Light-Horse Harry"), the father of Robert E. Lee. Neutrality^talk 07:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and John Paul Jones. The naval aspect of the Revolutionary War is all too often ignored. If you like sailors, Abraham Whipple was fascinating: A privateer before the war, he was actually a prisoner of war before being paroled and returning to the farm. Neutrality^talk 07:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Haym Solomon - a Polish Jew who played a great role in the Revolution despite the fact that he had arrived in New York as late as 1775 and died at age 45. He used his fortune to bankroll the Patriots, and was an American spy - captured by the British twice, he once escaping after being sentenced to death. Neutrality^talk 07:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good choices above. There are dozens to chose from, really. My pick would be Joseph Warren, but there's also General Steuben, Nathanael Greene, John Hancock (everyone knows his name, but they don't remember what he did other than on 4 July 1776), John Glover, John Dickinson, etc. There are a lot of Brits to choose from too, if your project allows for that approach. Arguably the most important Brit during the war was someone few now remember by name: George Germain. See also Category:Women in the American Revolution and Category:Native Americans in the American Revolution. It might be fun to do a report on someone like Margaret Gage. —Kevin Myers 15:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How about some of the instigators of the war ? To start, there's Thomas Paine, famous for his pamphlet "Common Sense", and Patrick Henry, famous for "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!". StuRat (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a guy who was the U.S representative in Holland , a friend of John Adams and probably a friend of Benjamin Franklin, commissioned by the Continental Congress, who helped in obtaining loans for the fledgling U.S. from Holland I'm not sure he has an article in Wikipedia, and I can't recall his name at present, but he was an unacclaimed individual who our early leaders said was very important in the American Revolution.He was very helpful to John Adams. circa 1780 in Holland. Edison (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Laurens? The only American ever to be held in the Tower of London. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy I'm thinking of was not Laurens. He was European, a merchant, and fluent in several languages. I recall researching him and finding several references when there was a brief article up for speedy deletion many months ago, but I do not recall if I fixed the article. Edison (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. It took no little search to find the man I referred to. It was Charles Dumas, friend and pre-war correspondant of Benjamin Franklin [16], Swiss journalist based in Holland, and secret American operative designated by the Continental Congress. See [17] , [18] , [19]. In 1775 Dumas devised the first U.S. diplomatic cipher [20]. Appointed U.S. agent at The Hague 1776 [21]. Dumas was Charge d'Affaires in the Netherlands while Adams was at London [22], [23]. He does not have a Wikipedia article. Should he? Edison (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems so, if more than passing references to him can be found. The only biographical sketch of him that I could find is this two page account, which, when combined with the references above, is a reasonable start. —Kevin Myers 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I found him listed in Who Was Who in the American Revolution, and so re-created the stub (and I mean stub) Charles W. F. Dumas. —Kevin Myers 08:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why were Hoovervilles tolerated?

Today, police are sent into similar encampments, the occupants are displaced, the structures (such as they are) are dismantled, and the contents taken to the dump.

So why is the response different today than 75 years ago?

As our Hooverville article states, "Authorities did not officially recognize these Hoovervilles and occasionally removed the occupants for technically trespassing on private lands, but they were frequently tolerated out of necessity." Gwinva (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that you can only dismantle them if the population in such places is small. When they get to Great Depression proportions, authorities risk starting a revolution by doing such things. Zimbabwe is a current example where they go ahead and destroy them anyway, even though a large proportion of the nation lives their. This process is destroying the economy of the country, as the black and gray markets which thrived in such areas were the primary economic engine of Zimbabwe. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There are legal questions, and then there are the pragmatic questions. Lets say that you are a police force of a few hundred people. Do you want to deal with a crowd of 5000 when you ask them to "move along". Bad idea, and even if you get them to move, its bad PR. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I searched newspapers from 1929 through the early FDR years. There were articles about "hobo camps" where "Wandering Willies" made their home, which might be the camp of 8 or 16 unemployed men. There might be a knifing, or someone found dead from homemade alcohol, and the local police would arrest them for vagrancy and close down the camp. Weeks later, it might be inhabited again. There was not the widespread burning them out or destruction by the forces of law or even local landowner vigilantes reported. Then there were "Hoovervilles" which got sympathetic treatment from the 1932 papers, which noted the presence in misery of hundreds of unemployed families. There seemed even less argument for destroying the camps and sending the inhabitants elsewhere. Edison (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See Bonus Army. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Parker-Bowles

Was his first marriage annulled? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This: [24] says it was. --Leif edling (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

EC and spam blacklist problem. I can't seem to find a RS on this. Of the non RS, some say yes http://www. freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1345608/posts?page=9#9 (spam blacklist)[25], some say no [26] [27] Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Zero sum in world economy?

Is the sum total of all financial transactions in the world a part of a zero sum system? Is there any scope for wealth being "created", or is it all just changing hands? If wealth is being created, what exactly is the economic source of it? In the current scenario of global economic downturn, there must be some people who have gained from it, as the wealth everybody is losing must be going somewhere. --Leif edling (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

careful, you're only asking about currency, not wealth. see money supply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.179.199 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am asking about wealth, actually. So, from this above answer, do I consider that all the brouhaha is only about there being a lack of "currency" and not that thousands of investors are actually losing chunks of their wealth out there? My main question is that if wealth can't be destroyed or created (as in a zero sum scenario), where is all the dough going? If someone is losing, someone must be gaining. --Leif edling (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a zero sum system. Wealth can be absolutely totally and completely created or destroyed. Even currency can be created or destroyed though there are more rules about that. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In terms of destroyed, a recent science desk question comes to mind. If we destroy the entire world (ignoring the imposibility of that) most would agree we have destroyed most of the world's wealth Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The article on wealth has a section on it being non zero-sum but some people treat it as zero-sum for short periods. Dmcq (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A good example of trying to understand this point is the Great Depression. It's ludicrous to suggest that what happened in the early 30s was some sort of zero-sum game, obviously the entire world got a lot poorer (regardless of how you define wealth). It's not like there was a small group of people that became unimaginably wealthy by stealing all the resources of everyone else. Some people might have gotten richer (not many, though), but there's no chance in hell that it even came close to compensating for the number of people who became poor. Same thing with the current recession we have, a whole lot of rich people have lost a whole lot of money, but it's not like it's been moved elsewhere. It's just gone. Belisarius (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that many jobs on the modern world simply "move money around", there are some which still produce wealth. Agriculture is one, where the intrinsic value of the food produced is (at least in a good year) far more than the money put into producing it. Manufacturing is another, where the intrinsic value of the items produced exceeds the money put into producing it. Mining and energy production are other examples.

Services are more questionable, with some producing wealth, and some just moving it around. I'd ask "Is the world better off after this service has been performed ?". Garbage collection is a good example where the answer is clearly yes, the world is better off if the garbage is collected and disposed of properly. The gambling industry is an example where the answer is clearly no, the only wealth collected by casinos, winners, and governments (in the form of taxes) all comes from the losers, so no wealth was created. Many other service industries sometimes produce wealth, and sometimes don't. A good teacher can increase wealth indirectly by helping to produce productive workers. If a doctor fixes up a person so they again become a productive worker, that can create wealth indirectly. On the other hand, if a doc keeps people alive indefinitely in a coma, that doesn't create wealth at all. For lawyers, it would appear that lawsuits only move money from one person to another, but they do have the potential to reduce the destruction of wealth by people who would otherwise kill each other or destroy each other's property if they couldn't settle things in court. Similarly, police and firefighters don't create wealth, but can prevent the destruction of wealth. The military, if used to deter attacks, can do the same. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think lawsuits simply prevent people from harming each other. They also (ideally) help ensure contracts work (without the legal means and presuming the other party is unwilling or unable to take matters into my own hands there's little recourse other then to be more careful next time) and people who may be producing little (fraudsters etc) don't get to hoard wealth while those who may make more lose it etc etc. In other words they help to prevent the destruction of wealth and help to protect the creation of wealth (the same can be said of the police and firefighters obviously.) The legal system in a certain country may be out of control but that doesn't mean lawyers are worthless. And of course lawyers also help the police and help ensure the police are doing their jobs properly. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. It also occured to me that for creation of wealth, maybe we could also take mining of minerals which are exchanged for money as a means of cerating it, or rather digging it out! --Leif edling (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Services don't simply "move money around." In fact, the only function that simply moves money around is the government's taxing and spending. When you think you have identified money moving around, look on the other side of the equation and ask what value is received by the person who is giving up the money. Wikiant (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say all services just move money around, only some, like gambling. Do all the losers feel they've gotten their money's worth there ? I also gave some cases where this can be true of other services, like if someone brain-dead must be kept alive by doctors due to the law. Would the family paying for this feel they are getting their money's worth ?

Also, if taxes are properly used, they can create the necessary conditions for the creation and preservation of wealth. Education, roads, airports, police, firefighters, etc., all need to be supported by taxes to work well. If we just take a look at one area, there were volunteer fire departments before the professional (tax supported) fire fighting services were created, and a lot of wealth was destroyed, that could have been saved, because the volunteers weren't as effective. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Subcarpathian elections in the 1920s

When editing Autonomous Agrarian Union, I have encountered to sources giving identical electoral results for two separate elections, http://zakarpattia.net/zakarpatska-ukrajina/historie/ceskoslovensko.html says that the party got 21,161 votes in the 1923 municipal election, whilst http://granik.org/history/index.php?s_id=39&&c_id=52&&m_id=793 says the party got 21,161 votes in the 1924 parliamentary election (Subcarpathia didn't elect MPs in Czechoslovak National Assembly until 1924). Neither ref is perfectly WP:RS, but which is correct? Is there any good, RS, reference to the election results of 1924 parliamentary polls in Subcarpathia? --Soman (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible the election was in 1923 but the elected people didn't take office until 1924 ? (That's how it works in the US, as we need to allow the "lame ducks" time to haul all their bribes out of town before the next batch of corrupt politicians arrives.) StuRat (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this doesn't appear to be the cause of confusion. http://zakarpattia.net/zakarpatska-ukrajina/historie/ceskoslovensko.html mentions two separate elections, 1923 municipal polls and 1924 parliamentary polls, but identifies the result 21,161 votes for AZS as the 1923 municipal polls and gives no results for parliamentary election. One of the links gives the wrong info, the question is which one? --Soman (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Afghanis as Desi?

In your article "Desi", you said the term refers to a person of South Asian heritage, from either India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka or Afghanistan. How Afghani people are "Desi"? Yes, it is true they the same clothing as their Pakistani counterparts, their languages Pashto and Baloch is also spoken in Pakistan, but none of their cuisine dishes are related India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. If I don't understand it, please make me understand. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.241 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I'm pretty sure most Sri Lankan cuisine is quite different from most Pakistani cuisine. For that matter India is very large with quite a number of cultures. North Indian cuisine can be generally quite different from South Indian cuisine. You might want to read our article on Indian cuisine. I'm not familiar with Afghan cuisine but it wouldn't surprise me if at least parts of it (e.g. those on Pashtun areas) are more similar to e.g. some parts of Pakistani cuisine (e.g. ditto) then the same parts of Pakistani cuisine is to e.g. Sri Lankan cuisine. I also read from Bangladeshi cuisine that beef is a staple part, something obviously not the case for many Hindu's in India and many vegetarians in India and Sri Lanka. P.S. If you read the article carefully, you'd find it's predominantly a word used by some South Asians to refer to themselves. Therefore what matters to these people is surely their ethnic and cultural identity which for some is similar enough that they consider themselves all South Asians or Desis. The fact that the word usually refers to food for some other people and that Afghani food doesn't seem to be what one would consider 'desi food' is of little relevance and in any case, the same could probably be said about a lot of South Asian food. Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Desi" might be more used of these people than by them. I must say I'd never come across this word before, but I have a Sri Lankan partner and we spent a month there last year. My experience is that Sri Lankans are very proud of their Lankan-ness, no matter whether they're Singhalese, Burgher, Tamil or expatriates like Arthur C. Clarke (most Tamil Sri Lankans are perfectly happy with the status quo and don't want a separate state). They absolutely hate it when they're confused with people from other south Asian countries, particularly India, just as New Zealanders hate it when someone assumes they're Australian. We're sometimes collectively referred to as "Australasians" in this part of the world, but we never, never refer to ourselves this way. When it comes to cuisine, though, although all the south Asian countries have their individual specialties, there are sufficient similarities to make a grouping reasonable. You'll find curry, for example, in all these countries. Not that you don't find curry elsewhere, but this region is where the dish originated. I've seen restaurants offering "South Asian cuisine", but I've never seen "Desi cuisine". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the OP is basically correct. I doubt that Afgans would refer to themselves as Desi. This is a label of identity based on shared cultural heritage, which takes in Punjab and Sind in Pakistan but not the arid plateaus in the west of the country, which like Afganistan have stronger cultural connections to Iran and Central Asia than to the Indo-Gangetic Plain, which is the cultural heartland of South Asia. Afghanistan is often included in western definitions of South Asia because the British aimed for it to be part of their Indian sphere of influence, unlike other parts of Central Asia, which were in the Russian sphere. However, its culture (from cuisine to patterns of agriculture to language) has closer links to the north and west than to the east. Marco polo (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your supporting my point albeit in a different way. I have no idea whether Afghans refer to themselves as Desi but it seems unlikely to me that the word would be equally likely to apply to all Pakistani's but to no Afghans. Cultural and ethnic divisions (and similarities) often trumph national ones particularly for those who emigrated before those national distinctions even existed. The OP seemed to me to think that all Pakistanis would be equally comfortable with being Desi along with Sri Lankans, but no Afghans, which seems unlikely to me. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on how likely it is for an Afghan or Sri Lankan to refer to themselves as desi but I don't know if you're right about "might be more used of these people than by them". While I haven't encountered the word that much, when I have it appears to have been from people who would describe themselves as desi and a search for desi should show a lot of sites and references, most of them seem to be from people who would call themselves desi e.g. [28] and not by people calling others desi. To be frank, it seems a somewhat odd choice to me, people are far more likely to take a word from their language to refer to another people then to take some word from the other's peoples language never used by the people themselves. If there is any word used to refer to South Asians collectively it's more like to be Indian (regardless of origin) or some other more offensive word and not desi. Also in general terms, I would say most first generation immigrants consider their country of origin of great importance and a matter of pride. However it usually takes on less importance to second and third generation ones. This is likely particularly the case in the past where the state of technology (both in terms of communication and transport) etc meant there was far less opportunity to stay in contact with ones country of origin and the lower number of immigrants combined with lower inclusiveness of society meant that people tended to try to fit in rather then maintain a cultural identity. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In terms of cuisine, I think your missing the point. (I wrote a very long reply but lost it when some scissors fell on my keyboard. IE7 never again!) Obviously South Asian cuisine shares enough similarities that the term isn't meangingless. However as with so many things, it's a bit silly to try and divide it into precise groups. At the borders its too fuzzy. It's quite likely that some parts of Pakistani cuisine is more similar to some parts of Afghan cuisine then it is to Sri Lankan cuisine. And Afghan cuisine does include curries. (This reminds me of race, where genetically we can see, that the precise borders some people like to pretend are there are not.) So to say no Afghan cuisine is not a part of South Asian cuisine but all Pakistani cuisine is, is silly unless we're thinking of a meaningless arbitary geo-political seperation which doesn't make sense for cuisine. In any case, what people think of as South Asian cuisine in the Western world is often quite different from the cuisine of South Asia (nothing unique about this of course) although South Asian cuisine in the Western world does influence the cuisine of South Asia. P.S. As for your point about curries, I would also like to nitpick there. The word curry originated from India, likely old Tamil and curries spread to the Western world largely from India. But older Middle Eastern dishes apparently have similarities to what we now identify as curry [29] which hardly surprises me. (There are some books about the origina of corry that I've seen mentioned which I've never read which may be of interest) I'm not trying to say that Indian curries shouldn't be thought of as an Indian invention but rather so should Thai curries be consider Thai or for that matter other cuisine with a long tradition. There is sufficient cross-cultural influence that it's meaningless to try and say this dish is truly and solely an invention of X but this Y dish isn't because it has influeces from X because X surely has influences too. (Except for Pavlova which is a truly remarkable Kiwi invention with absolutely no influence from Australia or anywhere else.) In any case, what we consider to be representative of X nowadays is often quite different from what would have been X centurites ago (it's remarkable when we think that as far as we known chillies only came in to the so called 'old world' slightly over 500 years ago yet are now so pervasive.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Searching for an infamous NHL player and coach

Dear Sir/Madam,

I tried searching on Google but it was ultimately unfruitful. I belive that I read this in a book on Google Books.

The player's father murdered the employees of a CBC station because they were diffusing another game than one involving the Toronto Maple Leafs, where his son was making his first appearance in the NHL. The son subsequently had a rather short career and died of a drug-related accident.

The coach was infamous for finding loopholes in the league's rulebook. He once used a forward instead of a goalie during a shootout because it was more effective, and once sent an infinite number of men on the ice because before the rule was altered, only one penalty could be attributed. I believe he was also one of the first to popularise the use of video recordings in professional ice hockey.

Sincerely, Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am directly familiar with an actual NHL coach who murdered CBC employees, but if you want to read about a truly bizzare hockey incident, the story of Mike Danton is at least as weird (if not stranger) than the story you recount above. Sports Illustrated: [30] did a series of articles about him. Its an interesting read. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

On the "too many men on the ice" thing, that behavior does not seem to make sense. As soon as the referee notices that there are too many men, play will be stopped as soon as any of them touches the puck. So if the coach was willing to take a penalty, he could put the whole team of about 20 men on the ice, but so what? They wouldn't be able to score. --Anonymous, 19:40 UTC, December 22, 2008.

Roger Nielson did that. He was also the first to use videotape to analyse previous games. I have no idea what player the question is referring to, though; John Kordic was a Leafs player who died of a drug overdose, but I have never heard a story about CBC employees being killed. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. He was trying to get play repeatedly stopped, not to score. I suppose the ref could give a delay-of-game penalty in addition, but that would also be a nullity in that situation. Thanks. --Anonymous, 06:22 UTC, December 23, 2008.

Roger Neilson was the coach I was searching for. Thanks.

As for the player, I finally found out that it was Brian Spencer's father. He did not murder CBC employees as I first thought, but he actually held them at gunpoint and was subsequently killed in a firefight with the RCMP. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rest periods of work

Quick question about employment in the united kingdom.

I am working 1330-2200 tomorrow evening, then 0900-1800 the next day. I am aware that workers are entitled to 11 hours rest period between shifts, but does this include the time it takes to travel to and from work, as taking this into account, by the time I leave work and get home it will be around 2300 hours, and I will have to get up at 0630 hours the following day to get to work for 0900.

Is there such an allowance for travel or not? 92.3.53.98 (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not allowed to give legal advice here. Having said that, I don't think travel time is taken into account in working hours regulations in the UK. You need to ask your trade union about this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's one of the reasons why dormitory suburbs develop. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Most employers in countries such as the UK do not tell workers whether to live next to the factory or to live an hours travel or 2 hours travel away. Employees who live near the workplace might resent special consideration such as longer rest periods between work periods being given to those who live farther away. Edison (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If wealth can be destroyed, isn't its creation largely illusory?

e.g. the trillions of dollars of wealth recently lost in the housing and stock markets.

When those markets rose, was the wealth created real or was it an illusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomerpdx (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question, in my opinion. I've been wondering about that myself.Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be clear about what you mean by wealth. In a real sense, wealth is a function of the subjective value you place on things you own. For example, suppose you have a plot of land that, to you, is worth $100,000 (that is, you would not be willing to sell it for less than $100,000 but would be willing to sell if for $100,001 or more). Suppose that, today, the market value of the plot (the value *other people* place on your land) is $90,000 and tomorrow the value drops (for reasons unrelated to the plot itself) to $80,000. According to the accountants, you have lost $10,000 in wealth. But, according to the economists, you have lost no wealth -- yesterday you had a plot that you valued at $100,000 and today you have a plot that you value at $100,000. Wikiant (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation is the cause of illusory wealth, or the representation (and mass hysteria) of significant wealth associated with a product or service that has no real value. Such as the speculation involved in dot com companies that offered nothing more real than actual stores. This kind of temporary wealth is an illusion, and a bust or crash is inevitable because it is not sustainable. This most recent slip is associated with inflated real estate prices far beyond what they were actually worth. This kind of wealth is illusory for those who expect to get paid and don't, and those who receive lots of payment but see it disappear, and perhaps face fines and criminal charges for illegal practices. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's better to think of wealth as transitory rather than illusory. Depending on how your welth is distributed, and when you use it on what, will affect how it works for you. For example, let's say that you "cashed out" at the peak of the stock market, and put all of your cash you got from that transaction into a simple, insured, savings account. In that case, the wealth you made on the "rise" of the stock market is still just as useful to you today as the day the market started to tank. The money was made during the "bubble" but it is "real wealth" under the OP's definition because it is still availible to spend.

Another way to think of this. Lets say you own stock ONLY in a really secure companies that isn't going away any time soon, like say Disney or Pepsi or something like that. Let's say that your stock portfolio has tanked in the past year, losing 1/2 of its value. What do you do? Your brain says "sell my shares" in an attempt to avoid further losses. However, most financial advisors would recommend that you buy more shares. Assuming you don't need the cash right now, you should always increase your buying on the way down. Why? It has to do with the difference between "price" and "value". If you are certain beyond all reasonable doubt that the company you are buying into will survive the current economic downturn, then its price is being depressed because of the general market trends, and not because the company is mismanaged or poorly run or anything like that. In that case, you should look at the stock as being at a bargain; it is currently priced below its value, meaning that in a few years, when the price rebounds, you will make MUCH more money than if you did nothing (i.e. hold and wait) or if you actually sold the shares of the stable company. What does all of this mean per the bubble? Well, during the bubble, prices were MORE than the value of the company, meaning that you were paying a premium for your shares. Assuming you sold at the right time, you would have actually made real wealth which you could be spending right now. Or, if you expected the company to last forever, then "buying on the way down" will increase your stake in a company you expect to be around for a long time in the future, thus increasing your wealth in the future in exchange for temporarily having less cash on hand today. However, you still own something of value (shares of a good company) even if its price is too low. Riding the wave of the difference between price and value is how people make GOBS of cash in the stock market; and as long as you can wait out a low point like we are in right now, you can easily make a lot of money off of this downturn...

The problem becomes when you overspend, i.e. buy more in stocks than you can afford to keep tied up for long periods of time. If you are foolishly counting on stock returns to pay for day to day living expenses, then you are probably screwed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that both of you guys first mentioned the "wealth lost" in dollar (or money) terms. Money is an instrument of savings, yes, but inflation ensures that it's not a very common one. If you chose any unit of measurement other than money (say loaves of bread... hear me out) and used that as your unit of account, you'd find that a lot more "loaves of bread"-worth of wealth was being saved in other things: hard assets, claims to land, claims to ownership of companies (stocks) or debt (bonds) etc. (even 'bank deposits' are just a kind of credit; they're not money in it's pure form). Then I suppose you'd think about how silly it was to measure things in terms of loaves of bread... (as I am right now, of course...) If bread didn't depreciate (go bad), though, in many ways it would be much better for us to pay for these assets with loaves of bread, and then hope to be able to sell them to someone else for more loaves in the future. Bread provides us with a pretty obvious consumption service - money can, at best, be used to light a cigar. But anyway: when prices of these "savings instruments" change in terms of "loaves of bread you're willing to give up for claims to future loaves of bread", it lets us think very rationally about how people's changing tastes, the scarcity of bread, or a change in the social discount (how much stuff people generally are willing to give up now for stuff tomorrow) would affect the number of "loaves of bread" we'd give up for any of those assets: at what rate we'll exchange bread now for bread tomorrow. If we were starving, that rate (this is the "interest rate") would probably be pretty high. This is no different for money. Except the service we get from money isn't nutrition. It's liquidity. Money helps us liquidly convert one asset (savings, consumption or otherwise) to another; despite having no inherent value, it's pretty great that money is generally accepted as valuable for this purpose. I guess my meandering point is, when we say "wealth is lost" (because of a 'stock market crash') it's best not to think of it in terms of money, but rather in terms of the "relative prices" between a general 'consumption' asset, representing consumption now and a savings asset, representing consumption tomorrow. And the best part is, if your life circumstances haven't changed in the last year, it means that chances are that "willingness to trade-off consumption now for consumption tomorrow" ratio hasn't changed for you this year! If you're using an "asset allocation investment approach" (where you switch your portfolio between a majority of fixed income assets as you approach slowdowns, and a majority equity assets when approaching a period of growth), a period of low interest rates (remember, interest rates aren't reflected in Bond prices (low rate = high price), they're also reflected in the interest rate used to discount stock earnings to present value!!) means that stocks should appear especially attractive to you! Just like Jayron says! Buy when the "implied market rate of return" is greater than the rate at which you're willing to trade off present consumption for future, and sell when it's lower. Hmmm... this is starting to sound like investment advice... 24.68.54.11 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the original question and connecting the two; when you bake a loaf wealth is created - if you then throw it in the dustbin wealth is destroyed. There's nothing illusionary about that. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Women and university

When (in which year) were women in Europe first able to attend university and graduate as B.A./B.Sc. etc.? Are there any countries where they still cannot even nowadays? I checked in Female education, but cannot see this information (perhaps I am overlooking it?). Thanks for info., cheers, Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that first a woman attended pretending to be a man, then later women were allowed at one university in one particularly "feminine" field, like nursing, then the number of universities and programs at each were slowly expanded. I doubt if any European nations currently prohibit women from attending universities, as even Turkey seems too advanced for that. However, some universities may be male only, still. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the actual sequence, at least in Great Britain, was that, in the mid-1800s, women's colleges were founded, and during the 1870s, they began to be admitted to formerly all-male universities. While other Western European countries may not have had women's colleges, women apparently began gaining admission to universities in a similar 1870s-1880s time range. Interestingly, the United States seems to have been a couple of decades ahead of Europe in this area. Marco polo (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the first place in Britain where women could get a somewhat "official" degree was Girton College (which was heavily satrized by Gilbert and Sullivan). AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In Ian McEwan's Atonement, Cecilia attends Girton and passes with third-class honours, but cannot actually graduate from the University of Cambridge. This was in the 1930s. By this time women were graduating from other universities in the UK. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in mixed-sex education. According to that article, the first university in the UK to confer degrees upon women was the University of London, in 1878. This book says the first European college to admit women was the University of Zurich, in 1865. Denmark was 1875, Belgium was 1883, the Netherlands 1884, and Greece 1895, and Spain and Norway hopped on the wagon at some point before this publication in 1903. This book says that women in France were, theoretically, able to attend University after 1880, but were not prepared during secondary school for the university entrance exams. German and Austrian universities apparently did not admit women until the 20th century, which presumably also covers all of what was Austria-Hungary; there appear to have been exceptions, though, in some universities and departments. In Russia, women could attend lectures beginning in 1869 (although policies were changed from time to time), but could not receive degrees until 1911.

At least one woman in Spain, Doña María Isidra Quintina de Guzmán y de la Cerda, managed to get a doctorate in 1785, and a woman was awarded a medical in Prussia in 1754, but these don't appear to have been routine occurences. According to that last link, women (notably Trotula of Salerno) were studying and teaching medicine as far back as the 11th century, but were increasingly barred from universities in the centuries that followed.

It looks like the US was indeed ahead the curve on this one: the first co-ed universities in the US were Franklin College, which was coed upon its inception in 1787 (but soon closed its doors due to financial problems), and Oberlin College, which began admitting women in 1837. Oberlin appears to have initially offered only a restricted "ladies course," but Antioch College began admitting women on equal terms with men in 1852, and a slew of public and private universities followed suit in the 1860s. Now I guess I should add all that to the Wikipedia article.... --Fullobeans (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be examples predating all of the above. According to Female education and Madrasah#Female education there was some definite female involvement in education including the ability to earn degrees (ijazah), and otherwise participation in what could probably be accurately called universities during the Islamic Golden Age. Limited yes, and not without controversy in some instances but definitely there was some. The oldest continuously operating university is University of Al-Karaouine and arose out of a mosque constructed by a female and the second oldest Al-Azhar University was named after Mohammed's daughter. While neither of these were in Europe, it seems possible that this extended to Islamic regions of Europe at the time like at Al-Andalus. According to Madrasah, Daw al-lami has a volume mentioning 1075 female scholars, it wouldn't surprise me if a few were in Europe and had degrees. Sadly whatever the case this early influence didn't continue in many cases either in Europe or many other areas which remained Muslim dominated. Of course presuming you aren't referring exclusively to degrees it's possible there was female involvement in earlier institutions of higher learning in Europe. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As late as 1897, the (male) undergraduates of Cambridge rioted to prevent women being granted degrees. Newnham College gives the history here, including the iconic photograph of a woman hung in effigy, mounted on a bicycle, symbolising the New Woman they found so threatening. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese Political Parties

Which Lebanese Political Parties gets the support from the following communities: a)Shi'a Muslims? b)Sunni Muslims? c)Maronite Christians? d)Druzes? And which political parties are rivals to each other: a)Maronite Christians vs. Maronite Christians b)Sunni Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims c)Shi'a Muslims vs. Shi'a Muslims d)Sunni Muslims vs. Shi'a Muslims e)Druze vs. Druze —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response below. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese Political Parties II

Which political parties are Pro-Syrian and Which are Anti-Syrian? a)Pro-Syrian Sunni b)Anti-Syrian Sunni c)Pro-Syrian Maronite Christian d)Anti-Syrian Maronite Christian e)Pro-Syrian Druze f)Anti-Syrian Druze g)Anti-Syrian Shi'a Muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article Politics of Lebanon. Then go to our List of political parties in Lebanon. In this list, you will find links to our articles on the major political parties of Lebanon. Read through our article on each of these parties. You will find most of the information you want. If you need further help, please let us know. Marco polo (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

December 23

Bangladeshi Pro- and Anti-Pakistani, -Indian, -Bangladeshi

Which political parties and its members are: a)Pro-Pakistani b)Anti-Pakistani c)Pro-Indian d)Anti-Indian e)Pro-Bangladeshi g)Pro-Pakistani Muslim h)Anti-Pakistani Muslim i)Pro-Indian Muslim j)Anti-Indian Muslim l)Pro-Indian Hindu m)Anti-Indian Hindu(who supports Bangladesh Nationalist Party) n)Anti-Pakistani Hindu o)Pro-Indian Buddhist p)Anti-Indian Buddhist q)Pro-Pakistani Buddhist r)Anti-Pakistani Buddhist s)Pro-Indian Christian t)Anti-Indian Christian u)Pro-Pakistani Christian v)Anti-Pakistani Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article Politics of Bangladesh. Then go to our List of political parties in Bangladesh. In this list, you will find links to our articles on the major political parties of Lebanon. Read through our article on each of these parties. You will find most of the information you want. If you need further help, please let us know. Marco polo (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Very few in Bangladesh are "pro-Pakistani" except for the Biharis. For many Bangladeshis, to call them either "anti-Indian" or "pro-Indian" would probably be rather simplistic... AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Indigenous people

Which Indigenous people of Bangladesh follow Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism? a)Santali b)Garo c)Mundari d)Rajbanshi e)Kurukh(Kurux) f)Oraon Sadri g)Kok Borok h)Mru i)Mizo j)Meitei k)Bishnupriya l)Trippera or Tripuri m)Assamese n)Arakanese o)Khumi Chin p)Burmese q)Sylheti r)Chakma s)Bhaya t)Rajbongshi u)War Language v)Hakha-chin w)Hajong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles on many of these ethnic groups. Please look up our articles, most of which will discuss the religion of each ethnic group. For example, our article on the Kurukh or Oraon people has a discussion of their religion. If we do not have an article on one of these groups, or if the article fails to give information on the group's religion, let us know and we will do our best to help you find more information on that group. Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Social Security not transferred to some countries?

The U.S. Social Security Administration won't pay retirees who live in Vietnam, Cambodia, or in some of the former Soviet states. What is the rationale behind that rule? AxelBoldt (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Most countries have a general rule that social security will not be paid to people who reside permanantly overseas. However, many countried have reciprocal social security agreements where each country agrees to pay to recipients who have qualified in another country. Those countries probably don't have a reciprocal agreement with the US. I know this is the case with Australia (where I live) and it is likely similar in the US. --Jabberwalkee (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I believe the issue of reciprocal agreements cannot be the full answer though: the (rather small) list of countries with reciprocal agreements with the U.S. is given here, yet Social Security will also be paid to Americans retiring in almost all other countries. The publication states "Social Security restrictions prohibit sending payments to individuals in Cambodia, Vietnam or areas that were in the former Soviet Union" but doesn't give the rationale. AxelBoldt (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This site states that Cambodia adopted its first social security law only in 2002; maybe that's a factor? The link you posted suggests that you can get exceptions in places like Cambodia (if you're willing to go to the embassy to get your check), but not in North Korea or Cuba (which don't have American embassies). --- OtherDave (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

If I were to make a bootsplash theme for Splashy based on Windows Vista images and make it publicly available under the GNU license (though explicitly stating the rights to the images are reserved to Microsoft and therefore not included under the GNU license) would this be a violation of any law? TIA, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 06:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice and your question is likely impossible to answer without knowing where you live. However it's meaningless to claim something is under a GPL/GFDL license (what GNU license specifically are you talking about?) when it's clearly not. Neither license allows such exceptions. It is unlikely your theme would be accepted in any site which requires freely licensed content since your content is clearly not freely licensed. In general terms, using Microsoft's copyrighted content without their permission may fall foul of the law which some exceptions, e.g. those used in accordance to fair use in the US which is unlikely to be the case here. Even if it doesn't violate the law, Microsoft could probably still ask you to remove the content and/or sue you for copyright violation. Suffice to say it's unlikely to be a goold idea to do whatever you are trying to do. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am in the U.S. The site to which I would be submitting this content does not require freely licensed material. I saw a theme there based on OS X. This made me assume that perhaps this was acceptable. However, would this be a violation of copyright? I would use their images, yes, but I would state in the documentation provided with the theme I create that these images are copyrighted by Microsoft and are not public domain. Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 06:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can only talk in general terms but yes, generally speaking creating a theme using content from Microsoft and then distributing that theme would be violating Microsoft's copyright. If you create a theme similar to that used in Microsoft's products but without actually using any of their content it can get more tricky I believe. Note that saying you don't own the copyright, Microsoft does, doesn't actually change matters much since you need Microsoft's permission to re-distribute their copyrighted works which it is unlikely you have or can secure. You may be interested in an actual legal case Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporationas well as the general concept of Look and feel. Although in this case Microsoft won, bear in mind the key issues here were they had a license and they weren't simply copying Apple's content. See also Aqua (user interface) which has mention of various threats Apple has made and [31]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

At the core of copyright in the U.S. is the right to control the display and duplication of the work in question, including so-called derivative works. Disney may not yet have created an image of Mickey Mouse as part of the Borg, but since they have the copyright on Mickey, Borg Mickey would likely be a derivative work. So too with Microsoft (in my non-lawyer, non-legal opinion) when it comes to images based on those in Windows Vista -- or, for that matter, Microsoft Bob. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Using "human rights" to justify racism and religious discrimination

I know that Americans care a lot about free speech and human rights and I think that is good. But I find some Americans are racist (I am Asian) because of human rights. They think that because Asians are more conservative and care less about human rights, we are inferior to Americans. They only see the bad sides about Asian cultures (lack human rights) and do not see the good sides (look at all the ancient Chinese inventions). For example, look at Wikipedia's article on Asian values, saying that it is "to justify authoritarian regimes in Asia". In the same way, many Americans hate Muslims because they think about the lack of human rights in Muslim culture, but never think about the good sides. Is there a word or phrase for this kind of racism and religious discrimination? Any websites where I can do more research about it? --59.189.61.144 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a website but if you read books by Geert Hofstede you will find an interesting discussion on the differences in attitudes between societies to human rights, and whether they are construed as individualistic or group-based. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You could probably boil that all down to xenocentrism and xenophobia. If you had this conversation with The Average American, he would probably say, "Sure, you invented fireworks, but then you ran over that guy with a tank." If you pressed him on the issue, he would then admit that he knew nothing else about China, since he had recently discovered that crab rangoon is not an authentic Chinese dish. And the rest of Asia? There's Vietnam (that horrible war), South Korea (that other horrible war), North Korea (where bad people go when they die), Thailand (rampant prostitution), Cambodia (The Killing Fields), Japan (kamikaze and bukkake), and all those other countries that are either names on a map or too far west to be "really" Asian. Most Americans are simply not well-traveled internationally and do not have a nuanced knowledge of world cultures and history. Only major events and catastrophic social problems in other countries make it into the evening news, and only the most strikingly "foreign" actually stick in the minds of viewers. So to many Americans, much of the outside world can be classified as either dismal and impoverished or violent and threatening.

That being said, there are plenty of intelligent, educated Americans who are horrified by other countries' records on human rights. There are plenty of other countries who are horrified by America's record on human rights. The whole concept behind human rights is that they don't vary from country to country; the idea is that human beings have certain, inherent rights which must be respected, and it is the responsibility of individuals and governments to challenge other individuals and governments to uphold those rights. This is a popular idea worldwide, but it's absolutely crucial to American identity. If there's one sentence of the United States Constitution your average American schoolkid can quote, it's this line from the Bill of Rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When you've had that concept drilled into your head from childhood, it is, yes, shocking to hear that some people simply don't much value the concept of human rights. Once you're past the initial shock, some would say that the correct course of action is to work at furthering the cause of human rights worldwide, since inventing paper does not, in fact, give China the right to oppress its own citizens. Others would argue that to do so is cultural colonialism. All would probably agree that declaring yourself superior to any given Asian due to your country's supposedly heightened respect for human rights is complete and utter idiocy. And yet people do tend to get pompous when discussing issues like this, and to descend into either unapologetic xenocentrism or exaggerated allophilia after the first few sentences. But suffice to say, if somebody seems like they're just looking for an excuse to be racist, then they're probably just looking for an excuse to be racist. --Fullobeans (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." comes from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, as you probably knew but temporarily forgot. —Kevin Myers 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And that's why one should not edit Wikipedia in the wee hours during extended bouts of insomnia. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that there is a difference between racism and culturalism. Racism = genetics. That is to say one race is genetically inferior to another. Culture = learned behavior. One can critisize another culture without being a racist. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Ugly American (though a naturalized one), so perhaps I can explain our position. I just don't buy the Chinese government's assertions that Asians are somehow different to the rest of the world and don't want political freedom. I think the true racist position would be to give the backward and repressive Chinese government a pass on such self-serving nonsense on the grounds that its citizens just like a boot in their face. It's similar to how many non-Americans like Americans they've met personally, but loathe our government's policies (ahem). --Sean 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling that postmodernism doesn't get enough airing in the US school curriculum. Sentiments - labels - like "the backward and repressive Chinese government" is what generated the original poster's ire in the first place.

All governments have problems, no government is perfect. Yet each government will try its best to justify its actions and present itself as respecting human rights. Labels are dangerous because they de-humanise. The more reasonable attitude that a person who cares for human rights should adopt, is to avoid judgment of the government or people as a whole, but seek to identify problems and then campaign to have those problems resolved.

For example, the United States goes around the world violating other countries' sovereignty on made-up charges and causing death and destruction. Is that better or worse than gunning down your own citizens on public streets with tanks? To me at least, that's hard to say. What we can certainly say is that both are violations of human rights and should be condemned. Is one government more backward and repressive than the other one? Or is it better to repress foreign people than your own citizens? It all depends on your own value paradigm.

It's sometimes important to remember - and difficult to grasp - that most values are cultural and not universally shared, especially on a comparative basis. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm one of those who loath the US government's policies and hope they can get back on track about human rights once Bush is out. They always have been rather hypocritical in international affairs and I can live with that but the last few years have been just horrible as far as any pretense of being the leaders of a western civilization is concerned. Britain at the same time has been slipping into becoming a police state and the only current beacon of human rights is the other countries in the EU. As to China I don't see how inventing printing can in any way offset not having human rights or the plantation of Tibet, the original poster is free to quote any study they find showing why the two are linked and write it up and cite it in a relevant article. Dmcq (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Race of Santa Claus?

In countries where the population is predominantly non-white, is Santa Claus ever described as belonging to the same race as the majority race of that country? So, are there Black Santas, Arabic Santas, Hispanic Santas, Oriental Santas etc.? Or is he always a white man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.67.81 (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, but in Holland St. Nicholas has a black assistant Zwarte Piet, which has given rise to controversy in recent times. Also, one of the Three Wise Men has been commonly traditionally protrayed as black... AnonMoos (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did some Google image searching on your behalf, using the various names for Santa Claus listed at our Santa Claus article. The only thing I learned is that it's awfully hard to guess at somebody's ethnicity when they've got a giant white beard covering most of their face; Arabic and Hispanic Santas would be impossible to differentiate. The Arabic Wikipedia article about the (I think) Egyptian version, Baba Noel, has a picture of an icon of Saint Nicholas, rather than the stylized jolly ol' Santa we're used to. So that may or may not mean that Egyptian Christians stuck with a more literal version of St. Nick. And I've seen black Santas in the US, in the form of both decorations and actual people in Santa suits, but neither seems particularly common. --Fullobeans (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There are black Santas inside the US. You may have to hunt for the or go to shops in predominately black areas, but they exist.--droptone (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Black Santa" was an aboriginal grandfather who organised gifts for outback Aboriginal children in Australia. He received the OAM in 1989 and has since died, but the only link on the internet is a dud and I can't find his name. There's a santa who wears all-black in Belfast, Ireland[32] who stages sit-outs for charity. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sydney "Doc" Cunningham? (Australian aboriginal Santa) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa Claus in East Asia is certainly a Caucasian man, because he has a curly beard that you are unlikely to find on an old man in those countries (people there would more usually have straight, flowing beards: cf File:Three star gods my ceramic.jpg. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A thin young Palestinian with curly black hair is Santa-in-suit at Bethlehem promoting town safety for tourist reasons as of last night's TV. Like the way some people aren't even trying to make the white wigness convincing. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Binoculars on the Titanic

I happened to read a line in the Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic that the lookouts in the Crow's nest of the Titanic did not have binoculars. Surprised that a luxury ship such as this did not provide binoculars to the crew, I investigated the source of this information. I got different versions on the pages of the lookouts Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee - Frederick Fleet said that the binoculars were "misplaced", and Reginald Lee said the binoculars were not "on board". I modified Frederick Fleet to be consistent with the other lookout's article. Later, I found another version in David Blair (mariner) where it says he had "locked out" the binoculars. An external biography of Blair doesn't talk about the locking out theory, but says he had the binoculars "stowed away" in his cabin. Apparently his key has been auctioned as the key that could have prevented the sinking of the ship. Any idea what is the real story behind the binoculars? Jay (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong

It is a commonplace that people hallucinate based on their cultural experiences. So drugs or psychosis can lead someone raised in a Christian culture to believe they are Christ. There's a recognised phenomenon of pilgrims in the Holy Land, often with no history of mental illness, going doolally: Jerusalem syndrome. What about people from other cultures, when they hallucinate? Do Muslims think they are Mohammed, or is that too taboo for even the ill mind? Do Buddhists think they are Buddha? Who are the most popular world leaders in the asylums of 2008? I wonder if there are many Napoleons left. (The question title, by the way, is from the lyrics of "Industrial Disease" by Dire Straits.) BrainyBabe (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really an answer to your question, but the equivalents you offer for Jesus in Islam and Buddhism are not exactly right; a Muslim who thinks himself the messias would have to believe he is the Mahdi, not Mohammed, and there have been many who claimed that they were. And two Buddhists who both think they are Buddha could actually be correct according to that religion - Buddhahood can be attained more than once. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the songwriters read Rokeach's The Three Christs of Ypsilanti? --- OtherDave (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Religious Minority in Pakistan

When it comes to Shi'a Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism, which provinces has the most numbers of the minorities and which language do they speak, besides Urdu? a)Punjab b)Sindh c)Northwest Frontier Province d)Balochistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.52 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow a multiple choice question on the refdesk! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Islam in India

a)Besides Urdu, which other languages do they speak in India? b)Which ethnic groups have numbers of Shi'a Islam (Ithna Ash'ari, Ismaili) foolowers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.52 (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know b, but for a we have a very nice little article called Languages of India. Look under the section Official languages for a nice little list (we even have an article on this specific topic). The main languages are Hindi and English, with a few more trailing (like Bengali). Urdu is infact a few pegs down on the list. Belisarius (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Muslims generally speak Urdu rather than Hindi. Both are forms of Hindustani and are mutually intelligible at the level of everyday conversation (less so when it comes to learned discourse). While English is a "main language" of India, relatively few Indians—Hindu or Muslim—speak it at home or outside of certain professional contexts. Besides Urdu, which is spoken by Muslims mainly in northwestern and central India as far south as Mumbai and Hyderabad, Indian Muslims in other parts of India tend to speak the same language as their Hindu compatriots in the same region. For example, Muslims in Bihar tend to speak Magahi, Bhojpuri, or Maithili; Muslims in West Bengal tend to speak Bengali; Muslims in Tamil Nadu tend to speak Tamil, and so on. Marco polo (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we had this question before? We've had dozens of extremely similar ones, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Asian languages

Which language groups do Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Cambodian, Filipino, Laotian, Malaysian, Indonesian, Burmese nd Vietnamese people and their mother language belong to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.12 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be some helpful information at Chinese language, Japanese language, Korean language, Thai language, Cambodian language, Filipino language, Laotian language, Malaysian language, Indonesian language, Burmese language and Vietnamese language. The language family for each language is listed in the infobox at the right side of each page. --Lph (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did Depression-era apple sellers get their apples?

There are photos from the Great Depression of men on U.S. city streets selling apples for 5 cents. Where did those men typically obtain the apples? --Lph (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, but the question sent me looking for prices. On the second-last page of this report from the Census Bureau, I saw that the price for a dozen oranges, 1931-1940, varied between 22 and 39 cents a dozen. (I'm simplifying here, as the stats do.) That's 2 to 3 cents an orange. If you sell an orange for a nickel, you'd be doing well. Apples are grown over a much wider area, so may have been cheaper wholesale. If you sold an apple for a nickel (on the small-luxury principle), you'd be doing even better. You could probably get them from central markets, grocery wholesales, farmers, wholesalers, or a country-dwelling friend or relative. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The apples were provided by the International Apple Shippers' Association, which sold them on credit because of an apple surplus in the Pacific Northwest. John M Baker (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian leadership formation throughout church history

Does anyone have any information about Christian leadership formation throughout church history? Specifically the periods A.D. 200-300; A.D. 1000-1200; and the Reformation period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

See History of the Papacy and History of Christianity and History of the Eastern Orthodox Church for some good launching off points. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. I need information on how the church trained it's leaders (preists, etc.) during the forementioned time periods. In modern times, we have Bible Colleges and Seminaries, but what did they do during those times specifically? 209.161.25.62 (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In the middle ages (so, covering 1000-1200) they had schools, not quite like modern bible colleges and seminaries, but the same sort of idea. Youths attended school in the cathedral or the monastery, where they would learn basic Catholic doctrines and Latin, and perhaps other subjects like mathematics. When they were a little older they would learn the trivium and later the quadrivium. They would learn those at the universities, maybe not as early as 1000, but certainly after 1100. In more advanced studies they would learn theology and canon law. This is, at least, the course of study for someone who wanted to advance far in the church; I'm not sure about regular parish priests. Considering the amount of time the bishop had to spend correcting and retraining his parish priests, a lot of them apparently had only the most basic education. I think they would have simply trained as an apprentice to the existing priest, as in any other medieval profession. (I know there is a lot of information about this, since I know so many people studying it; I'll see what else I can find.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There's obvious biblical evidence for younger leaders being trained by others (for example, Timothy travelling with Paul), so I'd be surprised if this weren't done to an extent during the period you're talking about. Given that Christianity was always either illegal or subject to become illegal throughout most of the area that it covered until the Edict of Milan, I would doubt that anything formal would have been established; it would have been much safer for younger men to be mentored by older. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

December 24

Puqu

Puqu was established by China in occupied Tibet in 2004 for Tibetean inhabitants. Is Puqu considered an "illegal settlement" by the international community? Chesdovi (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that China sees Tibet as an integral part of their national territory, and not occupied land; and that China also has veto power in the U.N. security council, and thus itself has a hand in determining legality of such settlements, I highly doubt it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The UN Security Council has neither jurisdiction nor competence to determine the legality of an act.

That said, the international community has always recognised Tibet as part of China, whether before or after 1949. All other relevant parties, including the Dalai Lama, regard Tibet as today part of China. If approached from this position, for a country's government to construct a settlement for its own citizens is certainly not illegal at international law per se.

A second assumption in the OP's question is that the settlement was constructed by "China". Tibet has a functioning sub-national government in the form of the government of the Tibet Autonomous Region, which descends directly from the administration of the Dalai Lama in Tibet; the Dalai Lama was its first Chairman.

Whether a settlement constructed by an occupying power is illegal is an open question. The Palestinian territories are widely seen as under military occupation within the meaning of the law of war, and thus, Israel has certain obligations under the 4th Geneva Convention and also under the Hague Convention. Israeli settlements for Israelis in the Palestinian territories are widely regarded as illegal, because they are inconsistent with the requirements of those conventionsl. However, this position is not universally accepted.

A further point of distinction should be noted: Israeli settlements involve 1) the forced removal of Palestinians from their land, and 2) the settlement of people from Israel, the occupying power, into the occupied territories. A Tibetan settlement for Tibetans is not the same.

Ultimately, the laws of war are unlikely to apply because today, none of the major parties in the debate - the Chinese government, the international community, the Dalai Lama - regard Tibet as being under military occupation in the international legal sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Automobiles and Greek architecture

Yes, they're two rather different subjects, but I have two rather different questions about the same picture, shown here to the right.

• I've put this in Commons:Category:Greek Revival architecture, because of its Doric columns. Is this an appropriate classification?
• On the other subject: can someone identify the cars parked in front of the building? Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The yellow sun chariot appears to be a Mini Cooper S, coupe. Happy holidays, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Patent law book

Can anyone suggest a good book which describes patent law in an interesting manner. I tried reading the MPEP but that's rather drab. Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

date of birth of prophet muhammad

what is the true date of birth of prophet muhammed in Islmic (hajeri) calender, 12th of 3rd month of Islameic calender or 9th of 3rd month of islamic calender . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khubab (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)