Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:50, 28 February 2009

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

February 21

When did Kitty Lange Kielland die?

And before you say January 8, 1914 just as the article says bear with me a moment. The Swedish and Norwegian Wikipedias list it as October 1st, 1914. Yes, I wrote the English article, but I no longer have access to the book I used and I know suspect I read 1/8/2008 in the American way (Month/Day/Year) and not the way it was meant (Day/Month/Year). I've checked around the internet, but can't find anything conclusive. Anybody have anything? Thanks! --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 1, 1914. Citation: Marit Lange and Thea Miller. "Kielland, Kitty." In Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://www.oxfordartonline.com (accessed February 21, 2009). --Milkbreath (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions related to the development of civilization

What was the problematic nature of the term "civilization"? How have a variety of social biases influenced our understanding of western civilization over time?

What were the culture and abilities of our hunter-gatherer ancestors?

How did the Neolithic Revolution establish the necessary preconditions for the development of civilizations?

Which historians defended this statement: "Egypt was in many waysa typical Neolithic civilization; its geography made it distinct"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.220 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 February 2009

Out out courtesy, and assuming good faith, I have combined your related questions into one topic for ease of responding. I have to say that these read exactly like homework questions. While I am sure many people here would be willing to help you with things, we don't really just answer your homework questions for you like that. Have you researched the appropriate Wikipedia pages, like Hunter-gatherer, Neolithic Age, contribs) 22:34, 20 February 2009

First Legal Tender Approved by US Congress

In the March 2009 issue of Popular Mechanics, pp 53, there's an ad for "Silver Dollars of the American Revolution" - ie Spanish Silver Dollars, that claims "Congress Chose This Silver Dollar as Our First Legal Tender" and goes on to say that the Contintental Congress approved it as such. This articleclaims that coin served as the unofficial national currency of the colonies for much of the 17th and 18th centuries, while none of the seemingly pertinent wiki entries, such as the Coinage Act of 1792 or This one on the dollar coin or any entries on the Constitutional Congress make any mention of the Spanish Silver Dollar as the first approved by Congress.

So does anyone know of a reliable source to back up this claim, made by a site called GovMint.com? Thanks Wolfgangus (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of our articles on Dollar coin (United States) and on Spanish Dollar mention that the Spanish Dollar (aka Piece of Eight or Real de a Ocho) was legal tender until 1857. I have not yet found that 1857 act which ended its use... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The act was 11 Stat. 163 (text here). --Cam (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK but neither verifies the ad's claim, that the Spanish silver dollar was the first legal tender for the newly created country; unless this is very loosely interpreted, i.e. it was accepted as legal tender among the colonies and became an ad hoc legal tender following the First or Second Continental Congress. Is this sound? Wolfgangus (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coins from many foreign countries were accepted as legal tender in the American colonies, but the Spanish dollar was the most common. The first legal tender issued by the Continental Congress was paper money (or bills of credit) known as Continental (currency), which was based on the Spanish system and theoretically backed by Spanish dollars. This is perhaps what the ad is referring to. Finding more info on Continental currency will probably help you find the answer. —Kevin Myers 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can work from this. I appreciate the help from both of you. Wolfgangus (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British pound sterling was still used in post-revolution America to pay for things, for one. Edison (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Pound Sterling

Why didn't the Founding Fathers choose an American version of the British currency? -- 16:34, 21 February 2009 68.231.164.27

There were persistent problems with a scarcity of precious-metal circulating in the British north American colonies, and coins of a number of different countries were in de facto use (as mentioned in a previous comment). So it was very easy for the U.S. to start from scratch in creating a new currency, if desired, and several figures (such as Benjamin Franklin) wanted to do this for various reasons, including decimalization... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Why didn't they go the whole hog and have a metric system for weights and measures as well? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the time the metric system was well-established and gaining momentum in use in France, political relations between the U.S. and France were intermittently very tense and strained (see XYZ Affair, Quasi-War, etc.), and grand reform schemes originating in France were rather politically controversial and suspect within the U.S. Currency decimalization was presented as a homegrown reform (not dependent on foreign influence). However, the U.S. actually did adopt the metric system in 1866 (non-exclusively), in matters concerning the federal government (see Metrication in the United States). AnonMoos (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just today reading a book about Zebulon Pike and his explorations of Colorado. In several of his journal entries, he makes extensive notes on the weather and uses Centigrade temperature. However, he also uses standard length measurements (feet, miles, etc.) I expect that for some time, both metric and non-metric systems were in use throughout the U.S. For probably random and arbitrary reasons, the non-metric system "stuck". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That gets me thinking about metrication in the US. In the 1960s, Benson & Hedges, a British cigarette maker, marketed a 100mm cigarette in the US, prompting rival Liggett & Myers to produce a cigarette "a silly millimeter longer", the Chesterfield 101. Who says cigarettes are nothing but harmful? The "100" in cigarette names is 100mm, but I'm not sure how many Americans know that these days. Americans know two liters when they see them, though, thanks to Pepsi in 1970. Soldiers brought the "klick" back from Vietnam in the 1960s, but it never caught on, and Americans still can't picture a kilometer very well, I think. The Olympics has forced the meter upon the US, and Americans know it's about a yard but don't use it in everyday talk. The hippies got pot in "keys", but they sold it by the ounce. All in all, America's resistance to metrication displays remarkable stubbornness when you consider the inroads it's made and the pressure from without. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that, Jayron. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson strongly advocated a metric system of weights and measures. He worked hard on a rather impressive system and tried to have it adopted as the US standard. See Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States. That page is sadly lacking in detail though. There is an in-depth study of Jefferson's proposed system, how it worked, why it made sense in some ways (and not in others), and why it ultimately failed, in the book Measuring America, by Andro Linklater. One of the main problems with Jefferson's system--and any metric system really--was the difficulty of using metric units to quickly and easily surveying land. In early America land surveying was vitally important and done very quickly by mostly untrained surveyors. It turns out to be much quicker and easier to lay out land in squares, or split an existing square parcel into portions using length and area units of measure easily divided and multiplied by 2 and 4, rather than 10. There was more to the failure of Jefferson's metric system than that. But the way Jefferson had cleverly designed his system so that the base units were interconnected to one another meant that if surveyors rejected the system, as they did, it weakened the rational logic of the system itself. There was also something about Jefferson being annoyed that the French had chosen to base the metre on the size of the Earth, which was not even known precisely at the time, rather than the distance a seconds pendulum swang, which anyone who cared to could confirm for themselves. I like that part of Jefferson's system--he ensured that regular people could confirm standard weights and measures for themselves. A bushel was to be a cubic foot, and an ounce the weight of one bushel of rainwater. If I remember right, a foot was to be one fifth of the swing width of a seconds pendulum (one fifth in order to make the metric foot close in length to the traditional foot). He even tied the system in with coinage and the weight of a (metric) ounce of silver. With his interest in anyone being able to confirm the basic units of measure it is no wonder he was annoyed when France chose to set the metre as one ten-millionth of the length from the equator to the north pole. Pfly (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Irish state of Ulaid

Hi, Ulaid is a precursor to the Irish province of Ulster. It is somehow entangled with Ulidia which is a small north east portion roughly covering counties Down and Antrim. Is it fair to say that Ulaid is roughly the same in boundaries as Ulster? What is the relationship between Ulaid and Ulidia? Anyone suggest a book or website that details these two? ~ R.T.G 11:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source [1] seems to state that the terms Uladh, Ulidia and Ulaid were used interchangeably in ancient texts. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments between horizontal rules moved here from Obama puppy section

Thanks for just putting those maps there without a warning - I have a phobia of maps, especially ones showing islands or water. Very considerate.--Wovit! Wovit! (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a phobia of sarcasm. Thanks for using it without warning. Very considerate. What's that? You had no way of knowing and it's not something anyone could reasonably expect? Well, you're still a bad person for doing it, I'm sure. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Barack Obama's daughters ever get their puppy?

If so, where is the Wikipedia article for it? US Presidential pets are apparently notable enough for their own articles.--Wovit! Wovit! (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This op-ed suggests they are waiting for warmer weather before getting one [2]. Exxolon (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

has any work in philosophy ever caused historical change?

Hi, are there any good examples of any book or system of thought in philosophy having a definite causal effect on history? People often talk as if philosophy has been influential, and the preponderance of philosophical works on "great books" courses suggests an assumption of its wider importance, but I'm looking for a fairly concrete example. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Communist Manifesto seems to be an fairly concrete example. The text established a new method of political thinking a new ideology, which was to have an effect on the later history of so many countries.MarquisCostello (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Analects of Confucius exerted (and continue to exert) a massive influence on the course of Asian history. Adam Smith continues to influence economic policy. The works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in particular The Social Contract, were a major cause of the French Revolution, and his novel Emile had a major effect on pedagogy in France and elsewhere. Jeremy Bentham influenced the development of the modern penal system and the welfare state, among other things. The work of Georges Sorel may be partly blamed for the rise of fascism and Nazism, as it fueled anti-parliamentary extremism in the years before the Second World War. LANTZY ^TALK 19:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the fine examples listed above could be categorised as writing on economics, or politics, or sociology, and so forth. Similarly philosophical writings about the shape of the earth or the order of the heavens get called astronomy, writings about how many prime numbers there are get called maths, and writings about the death penalty and who should get a kidney transplant get called ethics. So the cynic might argue that "philosophy" is the name we give for thinking and writing about stuff for which we haven't (get) found a worthwhile application, and if some prior thought was found to actually have use, we'd promote it to being a proper science. So by that definition the answer to you question is a resounding "no!", for if something had ever caused historical change, we wouldn't call it philosophy. Of course I'm being rather contrary here, but when you find someone claiming "there is no use for philosophy", you'll find they're using a tautological definition of philosophy which defines it as only including useless things. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a clearer case if you're allowed one step of removal. Without Hegel, you don't get Marx, for example. Often the greatest influence of pure philosophy is on someone who does not plan to be a pure philosopher themselves. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find applied philosophy interesting for its impact. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those answers. I don't quite agree with Mimetic's point which attempts to answer the issue by redrawing the boundaries of language. Clever, but I would accept that philosophy is a definite area that remains after it's been put to good use. Marx is, to me, an example that requires some care. He is probably best considered part-philosopher, part other stuff (including activist). I believe it's fair to say his impact has come mostly from his work on political (and perhaps economic) theory, but that philosophical aspects of his work have been influential. Rousseau and Bentham I would consider mainly philosophers, and I believe these are good examples, that I will give some thought to. Thanks :) It's been emotional (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there'll be a difficulty in separating philosophy from activism. Pacifism is, in part, a philosophy, but is its practical application still philosophic? If so, folks like Bertrand Russell (to choose a man who was very definitely a philosopher) would seem to qualify as having changed the course of history. A less stringent definition of philosophy nets you folks like Mahatma Gandhi, who had an even greater effect on history. Matt Deres (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam war interview

Hi, I am looking for a video clip from the Vietnam war in which an American officer is being interviewed outdoors. He insists the North Vietnamese are nowhere nearby but immediately afterward there is gunfire and a wounded soldier is carried through the frame. Not sure if it was Tet, Hue or Saigon. Haven't had any luck with my searches on youtube. Thanks!--75.157.250.4 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A descendant of John Sedgwick, one assumes. --Sean 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of science fiction story

Hi, I am trying to find a series of science fiction books on Wikipedia, but I can't remember the name!! The name of the series is simply a year in the 17th century (I thought it was called "1639", but I checked that year and can't find it there). All I need is the correct date and I should be able to find it.

The story is of a circle of land in modern-day US that was switched with an identical circle of land in 17th century Germany, and goes on to tell the story of the American people that were then trapped in the past... a pretty awesome story, no? Jonathan ^talk 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to 1633 (novel)- there were also books entitled 1634 and 1635. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first book in the series was 1632 (novel). It's available from the publishers as a free e-book, see the link in our article if you're interested. The series is Assiti Shards series, and that's part of a larger body of work called the Assiti Shards series -gadfium 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks Jonathan ^talk 05:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Font, Donald Duncan, and Howard Levy

Why don't we have articles about these people? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because nobody's got around to it yet. You could start them off yourself if you wanted to. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because their notability is rather suspect. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inflation

why should inflation happen if the government printed just enough money to pay its foreign debt or to purchase from a foreign company or country?

Because that money just comes from nowhere. By printing more money, all you're doing is making the existing money worth less.67.169.118.40 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the concept of money as equivalent to physical currency is old and antiquated and not at all applicable in the modern world. Modern monetary theory rests on the total supply of money, which has little do with how many bills are printed and coins are pressed in a given nation. It used to, maybe 100 years ago, but since most "money" exists solely as entries in computer spreadsheats. Inflation is controlled mostly by the amount of money that banks will lend out relative to how much money they keep on hand to cover those loans. As banks make greater ratio of loans to capital on hand, inflation tends to increase, since more money is on the market. However, when banks stop loaning cash, people stop spending, and money is taken off the market as it sits around in bank accounts. Since the supply of money is now decreasing, inflation slows down, and you can actually get price deflation, since money is now scarce so its value rises relative to the products it can purchase. Governments can control this sort of money supply by lowering base interest rates; for example, a central bank can lower the rate IT uses when it loans money to commercial banks, thereby theoretically encouraging those banks to lower their interest rates, and encouraging them to loan out more money. This is sort of the modern equivalent of "printing money"; but it isn't the same thing as firing up the printing presses and producing more bills, since bills themselves represent a small portion of the total money on the market. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "dollar" is just a representation of 1/13-trillionth of the US economy. If you print more money, you're not increasing the size of the economy, so now that dollar represents less of the economy than it used to. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that money isn't simply going into a safe or something, either. It's being given to businesses and governments, who will then spend that money, thus putting it back into the economy. And the more money is circulating, the higher inflation is. So while printing more money seems like a good solution, it only causes problems in the end. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 02:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the U.S. Government themselves: [3] there is $829 billion dollars of U.S. currency in circulation. That represents about 0.829 trillion dollars out of a 13 trillion dollar economy, or roughly 6 percent of the total "money" in the economy. Printing more dollar bills will have little to no effect on the overall supply of "money" in the economy. The "money supply" is no longer controled by printed bills; its controlled by the central banks, in the U.S. the Federal Reserve Bank which controls the interest rates with which it will loan money to banks, and to an extent by the Fed's ability to buy up U.S. government debt (Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds), further driving down the supply of "money". If the Bureau of Printing and Engraving knocked out a few million more Benjamin Franklin notes this year, it would have little effect on the total supply of money, and thus would not do much for inflation. Again, inflation in the modern world is controled by the supply of money (well, as it was in ALL times) however, in the modern world, money is not currency. Money is mostly ledger entries in computers. Increasing the numbers in those ledger entries is much more effected by the Monetary policy of central banks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Printing money and adding money out of thin air to computer ledger books is the same thing essentially. Both increase the money supply and both can cause inflation if done irresponsibly. Wrad (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; but sometimes causing inflation can be a rational, intentional policy, sometimes the most responsible course. See Krugman's reissued book on the return of depression economics; there's a real chance it could be the wisest thing in the near future in the USA.John Z (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the question is whether the actual printing of money is likely to have a major effect. Given that printed currency represents 6 percent of the money in the U.S. (and this is a high estimate, since most of the currency printed in the U.S. is used outside of the U.S. and likely not part of the U.S. economy), increasing this number to like 7% will have a slightly inflationary effect. Just not a significant one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See quantitative easing (which is nothing more than a euphemism for "printing money"). --Tango (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

British Royal Crest as displayed on the locomotive Duchess of Sutherland when the royal family is aboard...

Can you give me some information about the crest on the locomotive in your picture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LMS_Princess_Coronation_6233_%27Duchess_of_Sutherland%27_at_Crewe_Works.jpg ? More specifically, what does the R stand for in the crest? I thought it might mean Regina, but a British woman told me that it means Royal. Can you help out?

EIIR stands for Elizabeth II Regina. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Royal Cypher -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York/Law & Order blue paper

In Law and Order, whenever a motion or suit is served on someone it is encased in blue paper. What is this called, and why is it used? EdwinHJ | Talk 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [4]. Some jurisdictions specify blue bindings for court documents. Other sources say blue covers were used for legal documents as far back as the 1700's. Edison (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In England & Wales we use a lot of pink ribbon (for legal documents, that is). --Joe^Talk_Work 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindus in Rome

Is there any historical record of Hindus traveling to the Roman Empire? What about Buddhists? LANTZY ^TALK 00:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main exposure of westerners to eastern religions in classical antiquity was in Bactria (a Greek-ruled kingdom on the northwest edge of the Indian subcontinent), where there were apparent Greek converts to Buddhism like Milinda and Greek converts to Hinduism like Heliodorus, while the ruler Kanishka wrote ΒΟΔΔΟ (i.e. the name of Buddha transcribed as "Boddo" in Greek letters) on some of his coins... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the existence of the Greek Bactrian kingdom was what aroused my curiosity in that direction. But I am specifically interested in Rome. Did Hindus ever set foot in the Roman Empire? Also, was any classical Roman writer aware, however dimly, of Hinduism or of the Hindu pantheon? LANTZY ^TALK 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably some did arrive from time to time, but not in such a way as to create significant historical traces, as far as I'm aware. The Greeks were certainly aware of Hindus, but mainly as "naked philosophers" and ascetic forest hermits... AnonMoos (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Gymnosophists... AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Alexander the Great had frequent contact with Hindus. That doesn't address the Rome connection, though, obviously. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strabo XV i 4 [5] mentions one such embassy from Pandion and there are various other brief mentions scattered throughout ancient literature many of them drawn together in this article Roman trade with India. here are some other books on the subject [6] [7] I expect the religious ideas of India were investigated by Romans at the time but Romans tended to assimilate and say "that Rama, he is just Jupiter under another name" not sure the details of their belief were ever really recorded by the Romans meltBanana 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MeltBanana, that's the sort of thing what I was after. LANTZY ^TALK 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bi bigamist

A hypothetical situation: A man marries a woman in Texas. On vacation in Boston, he marries a man. It stands to reason that the commonwealth of Massachusetts would consider him a bigamist. But would the state of Texas? LANTZY ^TALK 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading a standard law textbook case from many years ago where a scoundrel, who was married, married an innocent young girl to have his way with her, then claimed the marriage was null and void because he was already married. The courts, although bigamy was illegal, ruled that he was married to both women, since otherwise he would benefit from his misconduct, so he had to support both women. Might a court in a conservative state do similar logical legerdemain? Edison (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Texas would be in a very tight spot. If it charged the man with bigamy, would it not essentially be recognizing same-sex marriage? LANTZY ^TALK 02:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reaction was that if any state had jurisdiction to prosecute the man for bigamy, it'd be Massachusetts. But on checking on online copy of the Texas penal code, section 25.01, I find it's illegal in Texas if a married person "purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor's prior marriage, constitute a marriage". So indeed it seems the only issue is whether they have to recognize the same-sex marriage as a marriage. (I note incidentally that the law only says it applies to US states and foreign countries -- apparently if his bigamous marriage took place in Washington, DC, he would be safe from prosecution in Texas!) --Anonymous, 07:22 UTC, February 22, 2009.

That's interesting. LANTZY ^TALK 20:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that other laws state that DC is included when the word 'state' is used in most circumstances. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I've seen some people claim DC is not entitled to voting congressional representatives (without an amendment) because the consitution says only states are. If the law giving DC representatives goes through and someone challenges it for the 'not a state' reason and the Supreme Court rules that DC isn't a state what would that mean for every other law and aspect of the constition that refers to states only? Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those defense-of-marriage laws and amendments have been to fend off the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. It would really ultimately depend on how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets that provision of the constitution... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm surprised someone hasn't tried it, or something similar, just to force the court's hand. LANTZY ^TALK 02:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're probably afraid that the Bush court would decide against it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking laws just to see what will happen isn't generally a wise move... --Tango (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound like breaking the law to see what would happen, but breaking the law to force the next move. Both Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther King Jr would disagree with you, in any case. Llamabr (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But chances are Texas would just let Massachusetts deal with it, and you wouldn't achieve anything. Civil disobedience needs to be better planned if it is going to have the desired effect. --Tango (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are we even talking about here anyway? If you just want to challenge the DOMA and similar laws, there's no need to break any laws or do the bigamy idea. Just get married in a state where you can and then try to have your marriage recognised in a state where the law says it shouldn't be recognised and take it all the way to the US Supreme Court. According to comments at [8] (not a RS obviously) the reason why we haven't seen any challenges is indeed because people are afraid of setting a bad precedent because of the current composition of the court. It even suggests some ACLU chapters are advising against it for that reason. 13:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain- Music and Clothes

I am studying Bahrain in my social studies class and cant find a lot of information on what their native clothing and native music is. If you know of any books or websites that has any good information on these items please let me know!

For music, the article Music of Bahrain may be of use to you. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for the clothing including traditional dress, see Culture of Bahrain. You might also find images from Google or Flickr useful. Astronaut (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to drone attacks

The US has allegedly used drones to target militants in Pakistan. Are there any realistic alternatives to this option? ExitRight (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am likely missing the point: what is the problem with using drones qua drones? I am not partisan in this, but the word "alleged" suggests a problem. // BL \\ (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that most media say alleged. ExitRight (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they could use manned aircraft/vehicles or (unmanned) missiles as alternatives, but drones seems like a way of maintaining control without endangering US personnel. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason drones are preferred in this case is due to their long loiter times. --Sean 16:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the media say alleged is that the US is not officially admitting it, because they don't want to be too open about illegal violation of another country's sovereign territory. Algebraist 10:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this allows for plausible deniability in case Pakistan wants to claim they were the ones who launched an attack. StuRat (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the question... Yes. There are many alternatives. The problem is your use of realistic. That is a matter of opinion, based on how crazy the answerer may be. We could send guys walking through the mountains to get picked off by snipers and mines. We could pay someone else to go in and kill militants, but the money will likely just go straight to the militants anyway. We could carpet bomb the whole area, but that isn't effective. We could toss all past agreements out the window and napalm all the cave entrances. We could wire bombs to monkeys and send them in searching for food. We could start sending in thousands of Barney DVDs and just hope that everyone becomes friends. Of course, I've crossed my line of realistic already. -- kainaw ™ 03:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How hard would it be for a country to shoot down drones launched over its territory? Cuba could shoot down U2 spy planes in the early 1960's, so it would seem Pakistan could shoot down drones in 2009 if they wished to. [9] described a Pakistani exercise in shooting down drones. If U.S. drones are circling over Pakistan for prolonged times then launching missiles toward dwellings or vehicles, it would seem to be because Pakistan doesn't mind it. Yugoslavia seemed to have no trouble shooting down drones in the 1990s. Edison (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Doesn't mind" is a bit strong. They simply judge the bad things that would happen as a result (sanctions and perhaps a US ground invasion) to be worse than the bad things that happen currently. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Saletan of Slate talks about the drone vs. terrorist war on a regular basis. His most recent column was about the identification of a US drone base inside Pakistan.[10] --JGGardiner (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Buddhists

Which ethnic groups of India have Buddhist followers?

Many are Dalits (see Dalit Buddhist Movement), but that is a social rather than an ethnic distinction. For more, see History of Buddhism in India. LANTZY ^TALK 03:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you're thinking of India as the modern country called India. British India until 1937 included Burma, and in those days most Indian Buddhists were Burmans. Another ethnic group closely associated with Buddhism is the Sinhalese people of Sri Lanka, some of whom live in present-day India. Xn4 (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu, Christian and Buddhist President and Prime Minister of Bangladesh

When will be the time that Bangladesh will have its first Hindu president of Bangladesh, first Christian president, first Buddhist president, first Hindu Prime Minister, first Christian Prime Minister and first Buddhist Prime Minister? or Is it against the constitution? -- 03:36, 22 February 2009 74.14.117.39

First of all, the Reference desk cannot predict the future, so we can't tell you when such a thing will happen. The Constitution of Bangladesh prescribes equality before the law, but it is also expressly non-secular, placing "Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah". It could be argued that this excludes the possibility of a non-Muslim president or prime minister. In any case, practically speaking, it is very unlikely that a non-Muslim would achieve such a high political office in a country where 90% of the people practice Islam. LANTZY ^TALK 03:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there time for all that? Aren't the rising sea levels supposed to swallow up the country sooner or later? =) --JGGardiner (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDENTITY OF SANJOY, A CHARACTER OF THE MAHABHARATA

I want to know as detail as possible about Sanjoy, the remarkable character of the Mahabharata, who described the War of Kurukshetra to the blind king, Dhritarastra.

Well, we have Sanjaya, as a start. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the character, at Sanjaya and we also have an article on Mahābhārata and on the Bhagavad Gita, which describes the war, and on the Kurukshetra War itself.

I hope this helps! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference received, is no doubt helpful but still I cannot have a detail about Sanjaya, the epic Hero. If possible, I like to know (i)the name of father and mother of Sanjaya; (ii) How Sanjaya came to be the Charioteer and Companion of Dhritarastra; (iii) why Sanjaya had been chosen to have extra-ordinary vision?

I have not read the Mahabharata in detail, and its been maybe 15 years since I read the Bhagavad Gita. You best source would be in the Mahabharata itself. There may be versions with a decent index or concordance which may help you find that information. The best source is always the text itself. If its not in the Mahabharata, than any information about the character is probably outside of accepted Hindu canon so your guess is as good as anybodys. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today I found out that "Gobogon" was the father of Sanjaya, the epic character.

(i) The spelling I know best is Gavalgana (Sanjaya is usually called "son of Gavalgana" (the patronymic is Gavalgani), in the Mahabharata). Here is one source: Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Purāṇas By Parmeshwaranand. It says says Sanjaya's parents were Sūtā and Gavalgana (Sūtā may refer to his particular caste). It also includes other details of his life such as how he died.

(iii) The Bhishma Parva describes this incident: Sanjaya received the blessing of the vision from Vyasa because Dhritarashtra had refused it, not wanting to see his sons die. See this book.

I could not find any information on (ii). Best, WikiJedits (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a chart of Canadian stock (index) performance before and during the Great Depression

The TSX started in 1934 when the TSE merged with the "Standard Stock and Mining Exchange." I'm looking for a chart of any Canadian indexes during this time (1920s-1940s). I don't know if the S&P TSX goes back this far. NByz (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to find back-calculated data for periods preceding the institution of the index itself. Don't know about any specific data source though. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most commonly quoted Canadian indexes are the Standard & Poors TSX Composite and 60. S&P only began coverage of the composite index in 1977, and I can't find a start date for the 60. What common indexes were used on the TSX/TSE before that? NByz (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to look at newspapers of that period, at least to see if there were any stock market indexes in that period and, if so, what they were called. For the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, all issues from the founding of the two papers until a few years ago have been put online through ProQuest. They are not available freely on the Internet, but are available freely at public library computers in Toronto and presumably some other cities.

For the Star, they are also available online on a pay basis at pagesofthepast.ca (currently you can search the year 1945 as a free sample); I don't know if the Globe has a similar arrangement for direct Internet access. Note that searching on these online papers is somewhat unreliable, as the OCR is far from perfect -- if you search on "green" you might get hits that turn out to be on "greed" or "preen", which also means that some hits that you should get on "green" may be missed in the same way. And you don't get any context for the hit, just the page number; to see the context you have to load the entire page (in PDF) and view it (the actual hits are highlighted in color), which isn't always convenient. But this may be useful. If you are actually in Toronto, an alternative way to view these old papers (and the Toronto Telegram too) is to go to the central reference library, where they are available on reels of microfilm. --Anonymous, 00:57 UTC, February 23, 2009.

Before the Great Depression, Montreal was the financial center of Canada, and the Montreal Stock Exchange was more important than the exchanges in Toronto. The situation began to change in Toronto's favor during the 1930s. So you would also do well to check library microfilm copies of the Montreal Star, Canada's leading newspaper during the first half of the 20th century. It would also have information on the Toronto exchanges. Marco polo (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An easier path than scouring reels of microfilm might be to track down The Depression in Canada: Responses to Economic Crisis (1988), available, for example, through Amazon, or, less expensively, from academic and public libraries around the world, especially in Canada. I am not familiar with this source, but it is likely to have stock data, or at least reference to sources that have such data. Marco polo (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

United States and the Impending Canary Island Disaster

Has any United States politician addressed the problem presented by the impending disaster of a Canary Island Tsunami? 66.229.148.27 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into this, and for several years there have been reports that the severity of the problem is overstated. See this BBC news article from 2004. [11] Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to seem rash or any of that. I thank you for the information, it was definitely a reliever. I just want to know if this has been addressed on a political forum. Such as the floor of congress, etc etc. 66.229.148.27 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It has. (Google is your friend). -- kainaw ™ 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-state sexual issues

I have a question about cases of US law. Is it illegal to cross state lines to engage in sexual conduct with a minor? Such as, in my state, the age of consent is 16, but in the other state, it is 18. If I were to bring that person back to my state, where it is legal, would the act of transporting cross-state be a federal crime?

Also, what does the law say about transmission of sexually explicit content over the internet from a minor, if that said person is agreed to the transmission, and I am over age? RefDeskPrivateAcct (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk does not give legal advice. Consult an attorney for the application of the Mann Act to your situation. B00P (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a Roger B. Taney issue to me! 68.231.164.27 (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18 U.S.C. 2423 (2006) says:

(a) Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.— A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.— A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[12]

--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing Taneyish in sexual consent laws. Roger Taney was chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court during the Civil War years. Dred Scott, upholding slavery, was his opinion. He helped create the inevitably of the Civil War. If someone is not capable of giving consent, they cannot give meaningful consent. Children may be sexual but the law recognizes that they do not have an equal bargaining position with an adult. Statutory rape laws also exist. My personal story is that a child cannot stand up to an adult as an equal and is, therefore, easily exploited and abused.75Janice (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice[reply]

Doing what's best for the economy

Here in the States, people will soon start receiveing their income tax return checks and that has me wondering something. What would be best for the economy; A) people spending that money as soon as they can so that it can move throughout the financial system or B) putting it into the bank, by way of a savings account or certificate of deposit, so that the banks have more money to lend out? I'd like it if you could pick from those two options but I'm open to reading better things to do with the money. Apologies if I've simplified the whole banking system way too much for my little brain. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might find this post useful. Or perhaps not. Its not especially serious, but at least it's asking the question to economists. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spending it. The reason they're doling it out in small amounts rather than making one lump sum payment is because they think people are more likely to spend a little cash, while they are likely to save a lump sum. --Sean 12:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spending it is best for the economy, now, because banks, once they get hold of money from any source, tend to want to "hold onto it until the economy improves". This hording of money, of course, is precisely what keeps the economy from improving. However, once the economy does improve, both people and banks should increase their savings rates to prepare for the next economic downturn, as a lack of cash reserves was one cause of our current problems. StuRat (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spending would be better for the economy (but is it better for you?). Banks have become quite risk averse and so extend credit cautiously. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are, spending it is best, but if there is a chance you will soon be in financial difficulties it would be better save it. Going bankrupt is going to harm the economy more than deferring spending a little. --Tango (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox of thrift may be of interest.

I have a hankering for the attitude of Enoch Powell, who used to say that it's generally a mistake for people to act in what they conceive, often wrongly, as the national interest. According to this old-fashioned view, people should act responsibly in their own interest, and if they do that then the nation acts collectively in its own interest. No doubt this has some flaws, but then all economic ideas have flaws. Xn4 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although increasing short-run Aggregate Demand (consumption) is the point of a fiscal stimulus, if it hadn't been for the low marginal propensity to save (amount of money that goes into savings for each dollar of additional income) in the United States, it may not have had so many problems. A low Savings rate leads to a trade deficit, increased private and public financial leverage and, often, less domestic ownership of assets (land and capital). These things allow foreign countries to capture surpluses that otherwise would be going to the United States. And they make financial panics more extreme. Some economists believe that countries go through cycles during which they start off in the world as a "net borrower" with low income and slowly achieve a high savings rate, during which time they accumulate capital, which increases their per capita income, which combines with a high savings rate to make them become a "net lender" in the world. The higher income slowly increases consumption (at the expense of savings), which eventually makes them a net borrower again. During this time, they maintain a high propensity to consume and a low propensity to save which slowly the erodes rate of capital accumulation and income growth. They "live beyond their means" for a while. Examining the increasing and consistent trade deficits and stubborn addiction to leverage (credit) in the US suggests that this is the stage in which they currently find themselves.NByz (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children and Women of India

I would like to research women and children surviving on garbage dumps in the country of India. Thanks, Pam Moes

You might start by googling (without the quotation marks) "garbage dump living India". It brings up a lot of results. If you want a background as to the causes, you could look at Poverty in India and its references. // BL \\ (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other helpful searches could use the terms "rubbish dump", "rubbish tip", "dumping ground" and "rag pickers". For example. You might also look at this article in The Independent about a charity helping rag pickers in Delhi. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression due to gender/skin colour

[to settle a discussion please] On the whole, who were more oppressed? - women under the Taliban in Afghanistan (1996-2001) or pre-Civil Rights blacks in the southern USA (1900-1950s)? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least African slaves could show their faces in public. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the object of this discussion? Does someone win something? Because women under the Taliban and black Americans before the Civil Rights Movement didn't win anything. Getting acid thrown in your face or getting burned and lynched by the whole town: which would you choose? --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with being lynched. Recury (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about stoning, still a punishment for adultery, and indirectly a punishment for being raped? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression is a subjective thing, a direct comparison like that is impossible. --Tango (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be given some background on the question? Why would those two classes of people be compared? Is there a reason why those two categories of people need to be compared on the basis of "oppression?" I am just wondering about the origin from which springs such a question. The questioner indicates that it is to "settle a discussion." Can we be afforded a glimpse of the nature of that "discussion?" Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bus Stop. The discussion concerns denial of human rights in historically modern situations (20th Century+) to different groups + to try to understand how the oppression of these groups within the power structure could be maintained (eg: denial of education/career/freedom of movement etc.). The question would be which of the groups mentioned above was denied more basic legal and human rights. Hope that's clear, thank you for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- but why those two particular groups? That is what I am mainly wondering about. I'm sorry I didn't make my question more clear. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is badly phrased, then please remove it. I/we were informed that this is a good place on internet to receive information from people with good knowledge about historical contexts and the discussion, that we had, concerned denial of specific human and legal rights by one group over another (I thought this is called oppression politics, sorry if wrong). --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have trouble focussing on a question? Do you have difficulty conversing? You have been asked twice, by me, why these two particular groups are being compared on the basis of their relative "oppression." For the third time, I am asking you why those two particular groups are under comparison. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if there are any objective sources that compare relative oppression of these two groups. But I could be wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it too. But it is possible. Anything is possible. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are, among other groups, being discussed here by us in a private conversation, as is our right of freedom of expression here in our country. I find you to be extremely rude ("Do you have trouble focussing on a question? Do you have difficulty conversing?") and would ask you to please desist from further communication here, thank you in advance.--AlexSuricata (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is fine. You are well within your "rights" in not conversing with me. Sometimes I pose "difficult" questions. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although Bus Stop's demeanor was not as cordial as we like to see here on the reference desks, yours, AlexSuricata, was not without its problems. On the face of it, your question is the sort designed to incite rancorous debate, and debate, rancorous or not, is not what this desk is for. We volunteers are here to help you use the encyclopedia to find specific information; this is not a discussion forum. Your question presupposes an equivalence between the conduct of the United States and the conduct of the Taliban, making it quite a lot like the sort of non-question that trolls ask to make trouble, and it is unanswerable in any concrete way, as Tango pointed out, again troll-like. Of course, both oppressions happened, and therein lies a reason to assume good faith. We here at Wikipedia are supposed to assume good faith, and I think you'll admit that Bus Stop sort of did by asking you for clarification, which was not forthcoming from you. We still don't know why those two groups. What about the Russian serfs? What about Athenian non-citizens in the Golden Age? What about the Slavs, the Kurds, the Armenians, the Ainu, the Untouchables, the Irish? Why the two you name? I'm sure that many of the volunteers here saw the same problem with your "question", and either chose to ignore it, as is our "right", or answered levelly. So now it's me asking, why those two groups? --Milkbreath (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question also presupposes an equivalence between men and women. One of the classes of people being discussed consists of women only. The other class of people comprises both sexes. I apologize for what may have been incivility on my part. I found it particularly curious that a group comprising one gender was being compared to a group comprised of both genders. I ask questions that I think will lead to fruitful discussions. I only grew frustrated, when my inquiries were thwarted. But I apologize to AlexSuricata. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better comparison might be between women under the Taliban and women in Western European medieval culture (or even women in more progressive Islamic states such as Egypt, Lebanon, or Tunisia). Wrad (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming you know why those two particular groups were chosen for this comparison. It appears that we will not be told what the interest in those two groups may be. Without understanding why those groups were chosen, finding references that could possibly compare them is extremely difficult. I am left thinking that it is an argument between a white woman and a black man about who's had it worse, even though neither one has ever been oppressed by a slave master or the Taliban. -- kainaw ™ 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to quantify abstract qualities. There is no single "unit of oppression," and likewise, no direct way to compare them. How can one objectivly decide which acts of violence and oppression against either group are more severe? While the Reference Desk does very well with questions that have a definite answer ("Who is the current pope?" or "When was the War of 1812?"), we do not do so well with questions that have no definitive answer ("What is the meaning of life?") A discussion forum may be a better place to ask this question. Livewireo (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, on a general level, what is the difference between the way modern, 20th century governments oppress and create a framework supporting oppression and the way governments of the past have done so? I don't personally think that much changed at all. Wrad (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with and appreciate the comments above, here's a suggested approach to finding a common denominator for the comparison. If "oppression" is measured by the presence or absence of human rights (or civil rights), you would investigate the nature of those rights in each context: i.e. women vs. men in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and blacks vs. whites in '30s–'50s Southern USA. A fair comparison will require digging under the surface: do the Taliban oppress their male political opponents in any way? what aspects characterized rural vs. urban Southern settings? And then (or first) examine your own definitions of context-dependent human/civil rights to ensure that other factors aren't involved: to take an example external to the chosen cases, is it oppression or liberation to deny a devout schoolgirl her choice to wear the headcovering required for modesty in the religion she professes? (Caveat: this may be mediated by a school acting in loco parentis for minors...but applying the values of the school board, not the girl's own parents!) A thoughful consideration and study of these issues, supported by what you can read online and in the broadcast and print media, should give you plenty of material and lead to some meaningful insights if not actual conclusions. Go for it! -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from OP to user Milkbreath: Because they are two groups we saw about recently in some movies ("Mississippi Burning" and "Osama") and read in books ("The Color Purple" & "The Kite Runner") and read about on the internet and these 2 timeframes and the groups (and how the power structure could be maintained - eg: denial of access to education/career, 2nd class citizens in legal systems, own bank accounts and driving licences, citzenship. etcv.) interest us and we were talking and comparing. Is that so bad? We are in Europe and know little first-hand about these groups. If the question is offensive, please remove - We were curious as to information about, for exaample, specific legal discrimination and which group had it harder to achieve "pursuit of happiness" for different reasons, and hoped someone could here comparitively point out basic but specific legal/human rights areas. But, if you deem this "troll-like" or offensive, then of course please remove, thank you. --AlexSuricata (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Al (may I call you Al?). I didn't say it was bad, I said it looked bad. I didn't say you were trolling, I said that you should appreciate that a certain degree of suspicion on the part of a certain volunteer was understandable given the circumstances. We don't remove offensive questions unless their intent is solely to offend, and I am not offended by the question. Anyway, your question asks which was "more oppressed". Who can say? I guess we can measure oppression by numbers of victims killed per capita, but I doubt the Taliban recorded it every time a wife or daughter was beaten to death. I think we cannot know. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the question itself, I would say it was women under the Taliban. I see two key points.

Lynching was never official government policy in the United States; executions in Afghanistan were officially sanctioned. Throughout the period you are discussing, oppression of blacks in the South was widely publicized and condemned by other segments of the American population, and by many people in the South itself. When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he noted that his father had opposed the resurgent Klan in Texas right after World War I. In Afghanistan, where the government was the oppressor, protest against such oppression was itself a crime. When it comes to lesser forms of oppression than death, such as the inability to vote, this was, in the United States, a violation of the US Constitution obtained by dubious means, such as poll taxes, but in Taliban Afghanistan, as flowing directly from their law.
The was very little preventing blacks from leaving the South. Hundreds of thousands migrated north, to places like Chicago and Detroit, or west. On the other hand, it was all but impossible for a woman to leave Afghanistan.

While it hardly matters to the victims who is killing them, for the society as a whole, it does matter if the offense is being perpetrated by some small, repulsive segment of the population or is the explicit policy of the nation. And it certainly matters whether one can escape a bad situation, or is, in effect, a prisoner. Lack of human rights is always a tragedy, but looking at the issue in the United States and Afghanistan discloses two very different trajectories. In the US the movement whas been from slavery, through oppression, towards equality. (It hasn't been fully achieved yet, but you might want to take a good look at the current President.) The Taliban removed whatever legal equality women had before they came to power. B00P (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It is quite incorrect to claim that there were no barriers to blacks leaving the south. Freed slaves travelling north right after the civil war were sometimes murdered for their impudence in not becoming sharecroppers. There was a longstanding fear of the loss of cheap labor, and rail travel was difficult for many years after emancipation. In the 1927 Mississippi River flood, sharecroppers/laborers were prevented from leaving the flooded Mississippi delta in Tennessee, and were kept in abusive and inhumane conditions on the levees, while whites were transported to safety elsewhere. The NY Times said "“Blacks were rounded up into work camps and held by armed guards. They were prevented from leaving as the waters rose. A steamer, the Capitol, played "Bye Bye Blackbird” as it sailed away."Edison (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison attempts to counter a general condition that existed for a full century (1865-1964) over then entire South by pointing to a special case covering a few months along a stretch of the Mississippi. He also changes "very little" to "no barriers." Now, cleatly, I acknowledge that the transportation system in 1870 was hardly equivalent to that of 1920, but I reiterate that hundreds of thousands left for the north and west. There was no such mass female exodus from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. It might be remembered that the ne plus ultra court case allowing Jim Crow legislation, Plessy v. Ferguson, dealt with accommodations on railway cars. While it allowed discrimination, it also shows that blacks had no problem getting on trains. There were no border guards preventing them from leaving the state.

The question wasn't whether blacks were oppressed, but whether they had it worse than women under the Taliban. B00P (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly thousands of blacks left the South, but I have read of southern rail stations refusing them passage north in the late 19th and early 20th century. Some circumvented that by walking to other towns where the restrictions were not in place. There was also a class divide: poor whites were less sorry to see them leave than large landowners who needed cheap labor, and who wanted to have a cheap workforce to keep down the pay demanded by white workers. Plantation owners certainly were not eager to see freed slaves leave the land and migrate north in the decades after the civil war, and extending into the 20th century. Slaves became sharecroppers. "A Century of Negro Migration" (1918) By Carter Godwin Woodson says p122 that after emancipation, legislatures of the former slave states enacted vagrancy laws which allowed free Negroes to be arresated for "vagrancy" and forced to work with ball and chain. This and debt peonage were powerful barriers to migration north. Page 137 notes the inducing of steamship lines not to furnish transportation to Negros seeking to emigrate from the south. Circa 1910, peonage still was being used to keep some Negros on the land in the south until trumped up "debts" were payed off, which they system was set up to prevent ever happening. Those fleeing were likely to be killed if caught (page 154). But certainly there was large scale Negro migration to the north despite any barriers, especially by the more educated and urban population and skilled workers (pp 162-163). Woodson on p 175 notes the practice of arresting Negros who showed up at southern train stations to catch a train north, although it was obviously not universally done. An Atlanta University publication in 1917 discussed anti-Negro migration efforts, which included taxes on labor agents (who hired workers for jobs in the North or West). It noted that fair wages and good treatment were the only hopes for keeping them from leaving. Edison (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would point out our article on the Great migration (African American) but that article is in a confused state. Rmhermen (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

Recovery from Narcisstic Nurturing (or lack of)

I do not have a "sense of myself". When I'm alone, I am not able to decide to do/or not do- anything. After changing out of my work clothes, I may simply sit on a chair for hours, until someone comes home, or phones. "No sense of myself" is the best term I can think of to describe this. I'm 53, and recently come to realize my mother was an extreme narcississt. How do I outgrow or overcome this lack. Is it something I devlop - or create? Is there a universally recognized form of therapy or treatment for this condition?NotaFiffle (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should see a neurologist. You're not going to get sound medical advice here. This is just a bull session. Bus stop (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly see a therapist, but in any case see someone. As usual your doctor is a good person to start with. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with the above comment -- one's own doctor is probably the best place to start. I should have said that in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be suffering from depression - as others have said, you must see a doctor. Apart from that, get some interests - do evening classes or night school, join a social group of some kind such as dancing, get into the habit of reading a quality newspaper everyday, start painting, gardening, investing, cycling, running, dancing, sailing, playing cards, skating, bowling, acting, etc etc. 78.146.52.210 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Why is sex in the physiological portion of Maslow's hierarchy? It's not necessary for life. Well, not for an individual to remain living. It's not directly necessary to be able to fulfill the safety needs. And it's redundant given the love/belonging needs. Dismas|^(talk) 04:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex is a physiological event, and under Maslow's theory of human actualization, ALL physiological processes of the body are at the bottom of the pyramid. Sex, that is the physiological event of sexual release (i.e. orgasm), is distinct from the emotional processes such as love or belonging higher on the pyramid. Sexual release occurs even in the absense of love (masturbation, sexual dreams, nocturnal emissions, etc.) and in order to complete the lowest level of the pyramid, an individual must have an outlet of sexual release. It's important to note that the lowest level of the pyramid is not merely about "you will die if you don't get these things", its that you cannot fully reallize your potential as a human (i.e. be fully actualized) unless these needs are met.

Maslow draws a distinction between several human experiences which we conflate with sex.

Orgasm is on the lowest level.
Being in a sexual relationship with another would be on the second level (this makes sense, since you cannot have a full sexual relationship if you are incapable of orgasm).
Being in an intimate sexual relationship, where sex is intertwined with love (i.e. marriage or its equivalent) is on the third level (being in a working marriage requires a healthy sexual relationship, so this rests on the second level being complete first)
Feeling good about your marriage and being content in your family life would be on the fourth level.(Having esteem in your marriage requires a healthy sex life with your partner)
Feeling the need to place the needs of your marriage ahead of your personal needs; having a morally committed relationship to your partner, etc. etc. would be the fifth level.(Having a moral committment to monogamy in your relationship requires that you have esteem in it).

Hope this spells it out a bit better for you. Its not the entire of sex and all that comes with it that Maslow places on the lowest level, its the mere physiological process of orgasm that belongs there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which all sounds fine in theory, but reality is somewhat different. There are many people who, through disability, injury, infirmity and so forth, are incapable of sex (level 1) but have a very emotionally and intellectually rewarding marriage/relationship (levels 4 and 5). Gwinva (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maslow's hierarchy is somewhat arbitrary, since he revised it himself later. It is an interesting, but not 100% full proof layer scheme. At first glance physiological needs should be a the bottom, since without that layer, other layers are often disregarded. And sex is physiological, but not nearly as necessary as food. It would just tear up a neat structure to move sex to any other layer. And "... and thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner " DanielDemaret (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegory of the cave

In Plato's allegory of the cave, how do I determine whether I'm one of the prisoners in the cave or whether I'm one of the shadows being cast on the wall? Neon Merlin 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take the red pill or the blue pill? bibliomaniac 1 5 05:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To explain a bit more about Biblio's oblique reference, the 1999 film The Matrix is essentially a sci-fi version of the allegory of the cave. The whole point of the allegory is that, unless you are specifically shown the real world (i.e. offered the red pill) you can never know whether or not the world you experience is "real". You can only assume what you experience is the totality of experience until someone leads you out of the cave/offers you the red pill. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, shadows aren't sentient, so you must be a prisoner. On a separate note, William Poundstone's interesting book Labyrinths of Reason posits the ultimate allegory of the cave -- a single bit of information -- in which a single red LED taps out a depiction of reality in Morse Code. The subject would have just as rich an experience of the world as Plato's prisoners or we in our own cave. --Sean 13:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean's point being summed up as I think therefore I am. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the observers are the prisoners, you are a prisoner in that allegory. The shadows are only a reflection of a higher reality. DanielDemaret (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

homosexual

Who were some people in the 19th century who opposed homosexual activity? This is homework but I just need a starting point. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that might be helpful: Paragraph 175, Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, Cleveland Street scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I forgot to specify this mainly for England during the 19th century, although other world sources are welcome for background context. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of respected public figures who were willing to make any kind of public statement on the matter viewed it negatively. It would have been quite scandalous to do otherwise, except in rather subtly coded language when discussing ancient Greek society, anthropological comparisons of customs, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One starting point: read about Oscar Wilde's trial and follow the links to the person whose accusations precipitated the charges. WikiJedits (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Labouchère is one individual who would interest you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation wrongly attributed to Paul Valéry

The quotation

"Mettons en commun ce que nous avons de meilleur et enrichissons-nous de nos différences mutuelles [French] = Let us each put in common the best that we have and enrich ourselves with our mutual differences."

has been attributed to the French writer and poet Paul Valéry by a number of quotation guides, without a precise reference. According to specialists on Valéry, the phrase is nowhere to be found in his works. A search through electronic editions of his works did not uncover it either.

Who did originate this oft-quoted phrase? Vossius (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vossius (talk • contribs) 13:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I poked around the Internet and my bookshelves, and nada, not that my bookshelves are worth much. (Isn't that more like "Let us bring together the best..."?) I wouldn't be satisfied that it wasn't his unless I'd actually read every word he ever wrote, and even then it might have been oral. The absence of a work cited is suspicious, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just speculation: it could have been a saying that he invented and used in conversations so that it eventually became known with his family, friends or colleagues. On the other hand, he liked to ponder a lot about wise sentences and their formulations, so I wonder why it's not in one of his Cahiers. At any rate, it's not so unusal that quotations are attributed to writers but no refernce can be found. -- 95.112.166.243 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leviathan

Why did Hobbes call his book/commonwealth Leviathan? It seems that the huge monster of the bible was regarded as a demon and probably wasn't the nicest name for anything, let alone a sprawling totalitarian state. So why the demonic name? Thanks 86.8.176.85 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more question: were Hobbes' views about the subordination of church to state controversial? Thanks 86.8.176.85 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Hobbes's reason:

Hitherto I have set forth the nature of Man, (whose Pride and other Passions have compelled him to submit himselfe to Government;) together with the great power of his Governour, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth of Job; where God having set forth the great power of Leviathan, called him King of the Proud. "There is nothing," saith he, "on earth, to be compared with him. He is made so as not be afraid. Hee seeth every high thing below him; and is King of all the children of pride." But because he is mortall, and subject to decay, as all other Earthly creatures are; and because there is that in heaven, (though not on earth) that he should stand in fear of, and whose Lawes he ought to obey; I shall in the next following Chapters speak of his Diseases, and the causes of his Mortality; and of what Lawes of Nature he is bound to obey. -- Part 2, Ch. 28

All pretty opaque but I think Hobbes's point is that the state is a huge powerful creature akin to Leviathan, and Leviathan isn't really a daemon anyway rather just one of god's biggest creations. The question of the church's subordination to the state was one of the main impulses of the Reformation, particularly in England, so it wasn't hugely controversial for that reason in many protestant parts of Europe but all of Hobbes's works were placed upon the the catholic church's Index Librorum Prohibitorum meltBanana 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant answer, thank you! 86.8.176.85 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Leader's role in 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War

What was the role of the world leaders including United Kingdom, U.S.A. and Saudi Arabia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh's Foreign Policy

What is Bangladesh's foreign policy toward to Muslim nations and Commonwealth nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Banglai Gan Gai

Who originally sang the song "Ami Banglai Gan Gai"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was Mahmuduzzaman Babu. MarquisCostello (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali songs

Where can I find Bengali songs sang by Ghulam Ali, Mehdi Hassan, Mohammed Rafi, Jagjit Singh, Pankaj Udhas and Anup Jalota? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Ali, Mehdi Hassan, Mohammed Rafi, Jagjit Singh, Pankaj Udhas and Anup Jalota. These wikipedia artist pages may be of use to you. MarquisCostello (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi films

Is there website where I can find Bangladeshi films and their sypnosis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian and Pakistani Nationalism

Why do I have feeling that Indian Nationalism is like Hindu Nationalism with its policy that make every Hindu, regardless of its ethnic background, speak Hindi and same thing with Pakistani Nationalism: it is like Muslim Nationalism with its policy that make every Muslim, regardless of its ethnic background, speak Urdu? **If I am wrong, please correct me with some articles on Indian Nationalism and Pakistani Nationalism either from Wikipedia and/or from other websites. Bangladesh is having a cold civil war between two political parties(Awami League and BNP-Jamaat-e-Islami and its supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited your question, not something anyone on the Ref Desk does lightly. You made one statement that appeared to be racist and I have removed it. If you did not intend the remarks to be against a people, but rather against a policy, then I would suggest that you reword it to something like: "I am opposed to Indian nationalism and Pakistani nationalism for these reasons." Thank you. // BL \\ (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) **The deleted sentence was removed from the position marked by the double asterisk. // BL \\ (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have quite a lot of pages which help to answer this question, for instance, Hindu nationalism, Hindutva, Sangh Parivar, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Hindu Taliban, Bharatiya Janata Party and Saffronization. See also Religious violence in India - and, indeed, Two Nation Theory. Xn4 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

I notice that Islam is the religion that has an international organization in the name of Islam (Organization of the Islamic Conference). Why Christianity doesn't have an international organization, even though it is world's largest religion before Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did for a long time, until the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church claimed to represent all of Christendom (at least the Western parts) and it certainly did before the East-West Schism in the 11th century. Since the Protestant Reformation, western Christendom has become increasingly fragmented. There have, throughout history, been various Ecumenical councils which attempt to bring various elements of Christendom together for mutual understanding. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Ecumenism and World Council of Churches and several other organizations noted in the Ecumenism article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because of the priciple of secular government in the "Christian" world. Christianity concerns itself with saving souls, not making nations. It's Jesus vs. Caesar. And for the many religions, denominations, and sects within Christianity to unite, they would need something to unite against, and they would need their "member states" to be self-described "Christian nations", a hard sell in the developed world. Also, a Christian world organization on a par with the Islamic one would not be able to get away with making pronouncments like that the Jews "invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong". Even PC has a silver lining. The Pope caught a ton of crap for suggesting that the Moslems might be a bit too shirty for everybody's good; imagine if the Christian world spoke such things with one voice. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The punishment of nuns who broken their celibacy

This is a historical question. I wonder: If a nun in the, for example, 16th century had sexual intercourse with a man, then which punishment would she have? And which would a monk have, who had sex with a woman? --85.226.42.129 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly an answer, but Peter Abelard was castrated and separated from his lover for life. But he became a monk after his affair with Heloise, and she was his student, so there were complicating factors. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abelard's castration was an act of revenge rather than a standard punishment. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether Aldous Huxley's The Devils of Loudun is historically accurate or is in quite the right time frame, but it has some pretty lurid descriptions of punishment for these sorts of things; that's assuming Ken Russell's film version didn't stray too far from reality .... wait ... -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rule of St Benedict, IIRC, has a section on appropriate punishment for breaking the rule. Actual practice, however, would likely be different to the rule's recommendation. Steewi (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people will pardon an extended quotation from Barbara Tuchman's book on the 14th century:

[M]onks and itinerant friars...were notorious as the seducers of women. Peddling furs and girdles for wenches and wives, and small gentle dogs "to get love of them," the friar in a 14th century poem "came to our dame when the gode man is from home."

He spares nauther for synne ne shame,

For may he tyl a woman synne

In priveyte, he will not blynne

Er he a childe put hir withinne

And perchance two at ones

In the tales of Boccaccio, in the fabliaux of France, in all literature of the time, clerical celibacy is a joke. Priests lived with mistresses or else went to hunt of them. ... This sense of betrayal explains why the friars were so often the object of active hostility, sometimes even of physical assault, because, as a chronicle of 1327 stated simply, "they did not behave as friars ought."

I'm afraid I can't help with the 16th century and Tuchman says little about nuns. - Banyan Tree 11:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Urbain Grandier. He was severely punished, but the nuns who allegedly fornicated with him were not, although that is particular to this one case. --Xuxl (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His case is at the heart of The Devils of Loudun, mentioned above. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each order had its own rules. As a rule there were no physical punishments for any digression from any of the order rules, since that would go against normal Canon Law. Repentance together with reparation to any injured party was the standard way. DanielDemaret (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Nationalism

I know that Lebanese Nationalism is also called Maronite Nationalism. So, is this mean that Iraqi nationalism is also called Chaldean nationalism and Egyptian nationalism is also called Coptic nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. One situation does not necessarily extend to others. The relationship between Maronite Christians and Lebanese society is quite different than that between, say, the Coptics and Egyptian society. To some extent, each situation is a sui generis situation, and must only be understood on its own terms, and not in relation to other superficially similar situations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly! The Arabic language of the 20th and 21st centuries has two distinct and separate words for "nationalism": wataniyya وطنية and qawmiya قومية. The word qawmiyya refers to pan-Arab nationalism of all Arabs, while wataniyya refers to local patriotism for one's own home area (considered "nationalism" if you think that the Arab states should remain separate countries, but considered mere "regionalism" if you think that the Arab states should be unified into a single pan-Arab nation-state). During the 1950s-1970s, some Maronite circles were very eager for Lebanon not to be sucked into a majority-Muslim Greater Syrian or Pan-Arab state, so they emphasized a local particularistic wataniyya identity (sometimes called "Phoenician"), and preferred local vernacular dialect Arabic to international Modern Standard Arabic (which is based on the language of the Qur'an), etc. However, the Nasserites and Ba`thists in Lebanon claimed to be the greatest nationalists of all (in the qawmiyya sense), and that wataniyya wasn't true nationalism, and in fact was little short of treason to Arab nationalism.

In Egypt, there have been sporadic attempts at a quasi-separatist "Pharaonic" identity distinct from pan-Arabism (based on spontaneous feelings of many Egyptians that they're somewhat different from other Arabs), but these never really amounted to much in practical political terms, and I doubt whether they were always strongly associated with Copts. In Iraq, considering that the Iraqi government celebrated its formal "independence" in 1932 by conducting the Assyrian massacre in 1933, it would rather ludicrous to believe that Iraqi Christians have a strong attachment to Iraqi nationalism. In fact, traditionally there have been no real strong feelings of wataniyya associated with the post-1932 borders of Iraq as a whole -- which was part of the problems in Iraq after 2003... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland of Lebanon

Mount Lebanon Governorate is considered as "Heartland of Lebanese Christians" and Chouf District is the heartland of Lebanese Druze community. So, what about Sunni and Shi'a Muslims? Which governorate or district is the heartland of Lebanese Sunni Muslim community and which governorate or district is the heartland of Shi'a Muslim community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally the Shi`ites were concentrated in the south and the Baalbek valley, while the Sunnis were in the north. However, a lot of Shi`ites have moved into certain southern suburbs of Beirut... AnonMoos (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland of Syria

Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Maronite Christians? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Greek Catholic? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Greaak Orthodox? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Syriac Catholic? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Syriac Orthodox? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Armenian Catholics? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Armenian Orthodox? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Protestants? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Latin Catholics? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Sunni Muslim community? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Alawite community? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Druze community? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Shi'a Ithna Ash'ari Muslim community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered this question previously with respect to the Alawites and Druze. What is the point of these monotonously repetitive questions, the answers to which would be frequently rather meaningless? And what is "Greaak"? AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland of Iraq

Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Chaldean Catholic Church? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Assyrian Church of the East? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Ancient Church of the East? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Syriac Catholic Church? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Syriac Orthodox Church? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Sunni Muslim community? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Shi'a Muslim community? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Kurdish community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main Shi`ite shrine cities in Iraq are Najaf, Karbala, and Samarra (as you could see at Holiest_sites_in_Islam#Tombs_of_Shiite_Imams), while Shi`ite populations are concentrated in southern Iraq and certain neighborhoods of Baghdad (especially Sadr City), as you could have learned by paying perfunctory attention to newspapers a few years back (note that Samarra is not a majority-Shi`ite city). AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've worked out for yourself that the Kurdish population of Iraq is concentrated in Iraqi Kurdistan. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of restrictions imposed on Jews by Nazis

Is there any website where i can find a list of all of the restrictions imposed on the jews by Nazi Germany in period 1933-38. --Thanks, Hadseys 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start with our page, Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany. May not be as comprehensive as you want, but it'll give you some terms for further searching. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real search result for pre nazi germany. ~ R.T.G 13:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Weimar Republic. Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want that? The question is about Nazi Germany only. Algebraist 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to the pre-nazi germany non-result - the Weimar republic was the period in german history before the nazis came to power. Exxolon (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George, King of England, Scotland, Ireland, France, etc.

I observed that George III was the last king in London to claim the throne of France, and his article and List of French monarchs note this fact, but all that I can find related to this is that he dropped it at the same time that Ireland was united to England and Scotland. Any idea why he dropped the claim? Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, events in France (the Revolution) meant that after 1792 there was no longer any throne in France to pretend to (though Britain didn't fully recognize this until the Treaty of Amiens in 1802). After 1797 (when Austria reached an accord with France), Britain was left without major allies in its war in America. Britain entered negotiations with France for support; those in charge made such initial demands as return of the Channel Islands. This demand was untenable, but the demand for renunciation of the title of king of France remained, because the revolutionary ministers would "not allow of his retaining a title which would imply the existence in France of an order of things which is at an end." GIven the British need for allies, a decision was made to discretely drop the title "by choice" rather than at the demand of the French, and when George IV ascended the throne, the designation of "King of France" was missing from his accession proclamation. - Nunh-huh 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French Revolution was one reason I was wondering, since surely a George-is-king-of-France partisan could claim that the Revolution had eliminated every other viable de facto candidate, and that the overthrow of the monarchy was just the overthrow of a pretender to the long-improperly-occupied throne. I had not known that Amiens included a recognition of the end of the monarchy, among other things. One bit of confusion, though: in what war in America was Britain involved? I don't remember reading anything about a significant colonial war between the British and the Spanish, I know that there wasn't anything going on with the USA at this time, and I can't imagine any other power that the British would be fighting in the Americas except France; and how would Austria affect that, since they weren't a power in the Americas? Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the more practical point that the claim had been merely theoretical for a significant time- the chance of it actually being realised was minimal. English kings continued to claim the French throne for so long because it was a matter of honour. MarquisCostello (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but claimed titles sometimes hold on so long; otherwise there wouldn't be an alleged King of Jerusalem reigning in Madrid today. I just wondered: why drop it then, as opposed to some other time, which I now understand. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to dispute the claim that following Louis XVI's execution, theer was no viable candidate for the French throne. Both of the king's younger brothers, the future Louis XVIII and Charles X were alive and in exile at the time, and plotting the restoration. The British claim dating back to the Hundred Years War had become merely symbolic by the late 18th century; in fact the kings of Spain would have had a better claim, being descended in direct male line from Louis XIV. --Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that there was no person who could step up and become the king: I remembered the brothers, but I ignored them because they really had no chance without the end of the French state as it was at this time. As far as Spain: I need to get to bed, so I'm not going to look it up lest I get QWERTYitis; but didn't the line that took the Spanish throne after the War of the Spanish Succession publicly renounce their claim to the French throne? Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When and where did judaism begin?

I need to know the date and birthplace......pleaseTiki Tiki girl (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: we don't know. The Bible doesn't specify a single beginning point, and other ancient accounts don't provide such answers, so whether or not you hold a Bible-is-literally-true position, you won't be able to say "this is when and where". Even the definition of "Judaism" would need to be set down firmly. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It originated as the ethnic religion of the Israelite tribes, but there's not necessarily any abrupt transition point where we can say that Judaism as we know it suddenly began. According to the Bible itself, there was an early glorious patriarchal period when founding figures were often in direct contact with God, a period of fragmentation (see Book of Judges), another glorious period under the united monarchy of David and Solomon (though Solomon himself fell away from monotheism during his later years), a difficult period under the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah when many ordinary Israelites lapsed into idol-worship while the flame of true monotheism was kept alive by the prophets and their relatively few followers, and then the new glorious period of the reigns of the great reforming kings of Judah -- Hezekiah, and especially Josiah (ca. 640-609 B.C.). The doctrine of the "oral law", and the style of religious decision-making by consensus obtained through legal debates, didn't become firmly accepted until the rabbis obtained undisputed leadership of Judaism during the Mishnaic period, ca. the 2nd century A.D. (as alluded to below).

So Judaism is kind of like Hinduism in this respect -- there isn't any exact date and place of origin for Hinduism either, and even within ancient sacred writings, several phases are visible (e.g. there was a "first Hindusm", if I can call it that, of animal herders roaming the Punjab, which was by no means identical with a "second Hinduism" of settled agriculturalists along the Ganges valley, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you cannot talk of Judaism before Judah, for whom it is named. Who as a tribal founder is of course semi-mythical, but the Kingdom of Judah is perfectly historical, established in the 11th century BC. But there wasn't of course any Judaism as we know it at that time. For this you need to look to the 2nd century AD, and Judah haNasi (see also List of founders of religious traditions). Thus your short answer is really, since the 2nd century, but there is a considerable history of developments leading up to that. --dab (𒁳) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the name "Judaism" has no particular strong association with the eponymous tribal ancestor Judah, but refers to the fact that after the fall of the Biblical northern Kingdom of Israel ca. 721 B.C., the only independent Israelite state left standing was the southern Kingdom of Judah (established on the former tribal territories of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, and also containing many Levite inhabitants). Eventually, those of Israelite ethnicity or descent who did not accept the leadership of the Israelites of Judah either assimilated into the surrounding populations of Canaanites (later "Syrians"), or ceased to be considered "real" monotheists by those Israelites who were led by Judeans (this is how the Jewish-Samaritan split occurred). So the word Ioudaioi (Greek) or Judaei (Latin) came to be used to refer to those Israelites led by Judeans. AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may want to read Judaism#Origins. Deor (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Mount Sinai, 476 years before the reign of King Solomon (~1500 BC). (1 Kings 6:1)

Of course, that's the traditional, Biblical answer, and as good as any. As with most things, we are dealing with a continuum, and picking one, specific point to divide "before" from "after" is somewhat arbitrary. The real problem is that the question is flawed in making such a demand. Things develop from "less" to "more," but Tiki Tiki girl is looking for a non-existant dividing line between "none" and "all." Note that the Bible, itself, doesn't claim that everything happened all at once. Some traditions came before the Ten Commandments, and others afterwards. Still ... if you insist on one specific place and time ... I've given it to you.

Now, when and where was baseball invented? Do you want to repeat the Abner Doubleday fairy tale, or talk about rounders, the city game, and Chadwick? And, by the way, how about the game Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery played against the Nez Perce in 1805? —B00P (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as was said above: if you believe the Bible to be historically accurate, as I do, you still have the problem of defining Judaism specifically. The King James version of the Old Testament (and I'm sure any other translations of the Hebrew Bible likewise) only uses the term "Jew" in the books of Esther, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, all of which were composed hundreds of years after Solomon's day. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Hebrew language (like all the relevant ancient languages, such as Greek Ιουδαιος, Latin Judaeus etc.) actually had only one word -- יהודי yehudi -- for the following three meanings:

1) "Judahite", i.e. a member of the tribe of Judah by genealogical descent or tribal affiliation.

2) "Judean", i.e. an inhabitant of the geographical region of Judea.

3) "Jew", an adherent of the monotheistic religion largely based in Judea (before the Second Jewish Revolt).

A form of the Hebrew word yehudi actually appears as early in the Bible as Genesis 26:34 (see also 2 Kings 18:26 etc.), but the third meaning was not fully developed until rather late in the Biblical period, as the English translation indicates... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, Abraham is considered the first Jew. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

Did Zionist political violence stop in 1948?

Did Zionist political violence stop with the establishment of the state of Israel? I am unclear how to answer this question, as neutrality is so hard on this sensitive subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After May 1948, there was a widely-recognized state with an organized military in uniform which fought at least four conflicts with the organized militaries in uniform of other states, so the proper term for such violence would generally be "war". AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~You are~~ The OP is perhaps thinking of the 1948-to-present coöpted usage of the term "Zionism" by some antagonistic factors as a label (e.g. "Zionist entity") for that state and its supporters, on charges of the imperialistic usurping of native rights, or when objecting to the policies and practices of the State of Israel. This is employed to distinguish "anti-Zionism" from outright antisemitism directed at the Jewish people whether in Israel or the Diaspora. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a sort of RfC. The editor is in the middle of dispute with user:Jayjg on Talk:Zionist_political_violence. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin? --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What book is this?

Does anyone know what this science fiction/fantasy novel is? IIRC it was relatively recent (probably later then 2002) and I believe the author was British. It has a short Prometheus insipire subplot where the brother? of someone who considers himself a God is required to keep pushing up a rock up a hill. I believe the brother eventually escaped. But he wasn't the primary character although the 'God' may have been the primary antagonist. I believe it involved multiple worlds, possibly including earth and someone who somehow travelled between worlds. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a character named anything like Sisyphus? That's the guy from Greek mythology who was required to keep pushing up a rock up a hill, watch it roll down again, and repeat the process, forever. He was no sissy. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possibly not what you're thinking of but Terry Pratchet's Eric does involve a section in the latter part of the book of someone damned to do as Sisyphus but first has to undertake the more horrifying task of reading volumes and volumes of Health & Safety manuals first. Nanonic (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Gene Wolfe's novel Soldier of Arete the hero rescues Sisyphus by, as I recall, splitting the rock. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

animal rights quote

I am looking for the quote of a biologist that said that you cannot compare the suffering of animals. I know it is used by animal rights advocates, but I can't find it anywhere on the internet. I hope this rings any bell to you. Thank you in advance. Maziotis (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be found on this site. [13] MarquisCostello (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I pay Sales tax

I have started a business making rock candles that I sell at art and craft festivals. Most of the shows are in Ga. sometimes the surounding states. I need to know if I have to pay the sales tax for each county that I do the festival in. I have heard that since I pay tax on the raw materials that I only pay tax on my profit quarterly or yearly.

Having trouble finding an answer. Thanks for the help. FWilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbewilson (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This google search has several links which may or may not answer your question. I have no idea if you have found these sites. If you cannot find information yourself, then your best option is either to contact a lawyer or accountant who specializes in tax issues, or to contact the Georgia Department of Revenue yourself, which has a website located here. There is a "contact us" bit in the menu bar. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural disasters/wrecked environment in literature

T. C. Boyle's A Friend of the Earth is set in a future, in which all kinds of pollution have destroyed the environment. Does anyone know any other novels, short stories or even poems dealing with dystopian visions of nature and environment? --95.112.166.243 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In several of Isaac Asimov's novels, earth is depicted as irradiated to the point where it is no longer habitable. Originally, there were some vague allusions that this was due to nuclear war, but his later novels retconned an explanation that it was a deliberate act designed to encourage earthlings to leave earth and colonize the galaxy. As another example, in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein depicts earth as on the brink of Malthusian catastrophy with some cities so over-populated that they are literally packed shoulder-to-shoulder with people. There are probably many others as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, a number of Philip K. Dick's books were set in dystopian futures or presents. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The '07 Pulitzer winner, The Road by Cormac McCarthy, takes place in a post-apocalyptic future in which life has been all but eradicated due to unexplained circumstanced. Nature is kaput, at any rate, though there are still some people staggering around being horrible to each other. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must surely be very many. On the Beach (novel), Riddley Walker both came to mind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the List of dystopian literature is categorized by date, not by type of dystopia. --Anonymous, 19:54 UTC, February 25, 2009.

The Purple Cloud by M. P. Shiel is considered on of the first instances of apocalyptic literature where the apocalypse is triggered by science in particular. --140.247.243.27 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Z for Zachariah by Robert C. O'Brien is often set by high school teachers (well, it was back in my day). Gwinva (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two I remember, though I think the cause, in each case, was nuclear war, are David Brin's The Postman and Walter Miller's A Canticle for Leibowitz. // BL \\ (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subgenre you're looking for is the Dying Earth subgenre. The article has a short list of examples, but google might turn up more. Steewi (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dying earth subgenre is something rather different from what (most of, I don't know all these books) this thread is about. For example, dying earth stories are much further in the future, and the dying is not normally a result of human activity. Algebraist 00:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength, N.I.C.E. (National Institute of Coordinated Experiments) want to sterilize the Earth and put up "art trees". Enter Mr. Bultitude. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In his The Magician's Nephew there is also a world where all life was destroyed by a powerful magic word. The sun is put out in The Last Battle. Also in Byron's poem Darkness (poem), the sun goes out and the entire world freezes over. Wrad (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we must remember Pierre Boulle's Planet of the Apes, originally published in French as La Planète des singes. // BL \\ (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We read The Chrysalids in high school (although the intended reading age is probably younger than that). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, The City Underground by Suzanne Martel (I should have asked about that on the RD, someone else probably could have found "underground Montreal year 3000 nuclear war" faster than me!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, thanks for all the answers! -- 93.132.161.2 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the first of this genre I ever read was Robert Silverberg's Time of the Great Freeze where folks live in an underground city protected from the new ice age. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish MPs (UK)

Hiya :-) Does anyone happen to know how many Jewish people there are in the British House of Commons, who they are, what positions they hold (ministers, shadow cabinet?) etc.? Thanks so much! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of British Jewish politicians. I know for a fact that Jack Straw, Michael Howard, Oliver Letwin, Margaret Hodge,David Miliband,Ed Miliband and Lynne Featherstone still sit in the House today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarquisCostello (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I saw the list, thanks, but it's a question of who's still in the House, which that list doesn't state. Someone might know ;-) ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been a definitional problem with Jewish Parliamentarians in that some identify as Jewish by religion, while some who have Jewish parents are not religious. You may however be interested in the recently published book "Jewish Parliamentarians" which profiles all who probably meet the description. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looking for a book I read 10 years ago

I can not remember the title. It was about climbing a mountain in Switzerland that was supposedly unclimbable. The main character's father had died trying to climb it earlier. It was a fictional work. I don't recall anything high tech in the book like cars or helicopters, so it was probably set in the 19th century or perhaps early 20th but I could be wrong on that. It was in English. Any ideas? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banner in the Sky by James Ramsey Ullman? It was made into a Disney movie, Third Man on the Mountain. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

Universal Healthcare in the United States

If the government of the United States decided to institute a Universal Healthcare system, run by the Federal Government, what clause in our constitution would support it? Would it be the Commerce Clause? 66.229.148.27 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the thin legal argumentation that makes the Social Security Administration constitutional too: [14]. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Taxing and spending clause. Basically, the government can spend money on almost anything. Its regulatory powers are narrower. Assuming the healthcare system imposed included regulatory elements, that would probably fall under the interstate commerce clause. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk should provide answers, not opinions. I don't have time to research this topic. The broadest embrace of federal power is the Interstate Commerce Clause, which the problems of the Great Depression, widened considerably. Although the present Court and the Rehnquist court trimmed the expanse of the clause, it is still formidable. Congressional findings are important for justifying use of a federal power. The SSA is valid, it is not thinly valid. We can post debates between the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society all day. They remain citizen opinions. Hopefully, someone will arrive with citations for cases that clearly express Congress' authority in this area.75Janice (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice[reply]

You're committing a crime

Ehud Barak is on List of assassins.. how dare you call him an assassin. You have no evidence. --201.254.84.133 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's on the list because our article on him says he was an assassin during his service in Sayeret Matkal. Comments about the content of an article are best made on the talk page of the article in question. 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)DuncanHill (talk)

But an assassin is a criminal! and he is not a criminal! --201.254.84.133 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sayeret Matkal engaged in assassinations. This is a fact. (See, for example, 1973 Israeli raid on Lebanon.) They no doubt committed crimes in the process. These are not really up for debate. Whether you think their assassinations were, in the end, moral, justified, etc., is an entirely different question from whether they were legal (under whose jurisdictions?). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Assassinations" is your choice of word; what about extra-judicial killings? See the latter page for the distinction; I suggest it better fits the case of Sayeret Matkal (with no different moral equivocation implied, nor language-laundering or sheer semantics). -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But understand what I mean, if he committed crimes he would have been charged or accused by some International Court and it never happened. --201.254.84.133 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder per se is not an international crime. (Assassination as a method of terrorism may or may not be, and in any case is not yet within the jurisdiction of the ICC). And in any case state terrorism may or may not be within the definition of terrorism at international law.

Assassination per se is probably not a crime in many jurisdictions, especially if it is sanctioned by the government and/or in the interest of national defence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, libel is not a crime in a number of jurisdictions although a person may still sue you for defamation. Evidentally Florida has criminal libel laws [15] although this 1991 source [16] suggests they unconstitional but they're being used in this modern internet age [17] and haven't yet been ruled completely unconstitional but some have [18] and it doesn't seem they reached the Supreme Court yet. Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See our page on Extrajudicial killings, the nature and instances of which are treated separately from assassination. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Israel routinely carries out ~~assassinations~~ "targeted killings". Their military obviously considers it a legitimate tactic. --Sean 13:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed by original editor Milkbreath (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps. The place for a discussion of the purpose of List of assassins is Talk:List of assassins. Algebraist 14:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. I've removed my argument for the disinclusion of Mr. Barak, making Algebraist's remark immediately above refer to nothing. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Dante's Commedia

Greetings,

I'm wondering if the background behind the Divine Comedy's original title is known? It predates Commedia dell'arte, and I can't find the original Italian meaning (the full meaning, not just a literal translation to "comedy") of the word.

Thanks a lot, Aseld ^talk 05:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an explanation of sorts in the article on The Divine Comedy, in the thematic concerns section:

"Dante called the poem "Comedy" (the adjective "Divine" added later in the 14th century) because poems in the ancient world were classified as High ("Tragedy") or Low ("Comedy"). Low poems had happy endings and were of everyday or vulgar subjects, while High poems were for more serious matters. Dante was one of the first in the Middle Ages to write of a serious subject, the Redemption of man, in the low and vulgar Italian language and not the Latin language as one might expect for such a serious topic."

- Eron^Talk 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. Apologies; should have read the article more carefully. --Aseld ^talk 05:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Dante himself had to say (if, that is, one accepts the attribution of the letter to Can Grande to him):

Comedy, then, is a certain genre of poetic narrative differing from all others. For it differs from tragedy in its matter, in that tragedy is tranquil and conducive to wonder at the beginning, but foul and conducive to horror at the end, or catastrophe. … Comedy, on the other hand, introduces a situation of adversity, but ends its matter in prosperity. … And, as well, they differ in their manner of speaking. Tragedy uses an elevated and sublime style, while comedy uses an unstudied and low style. … So from this it should be clear why the present work is called the Comedy. For, if we consider the matter, it is, at the beginning, that is, in Hell, foul and conducive to horror, but at the end, in Paradise, prosperous, conducive to pleasure, and welcome. And if we consider the manner of speaking, it is unstudied and low, since its speech is the vernacular, in which even women communicate. (Trans. Robert S. Haller)

Deor (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speech made by the Australian Prime Minister

I've been sent one of these circular emails which claims to report the exact text by the current Australian Prime Minister. Reading his biog on here and his quotes on Wikipedia, it seems most unlikely that he ever made this speech. How can I find out? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you get an email that seems suspicious, you can often just enter a distinctive phrase from it (in quotes) into Google and find various pages (e.g., Snopes) pointing out that it's a hoax. --Sean 13:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it this email? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! That's the one. As I thought! Many thanks. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's this philosophical belief?

What's the name of the philosophical belief which states that moral judgments are meaningless from an objective standpoint and are just opinions(for instance, if you say "killing is wrong" you're really saying "I dislike killing" or more crudely "Killing stinks!")? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It think you want ethical subjectivism, though 'Killing stinks!' is perhaps closer to emotivism. Algebraist 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, relativism? Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, moral relativism? Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in more formal philosophy, Nihilism meets this definition the best. From our article: "Nihilists generally assert that objective morality does not exist, and subsequently there are no objective moral values with which to uphold a rule or to logically prefer one action over another." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In more formal philosophy, Algebraist's answer is best, although see also expressivism. Nihilism is a vague word with various meanings and it doesn't capture the full sense of what the questioner is asking. (The article on moral nihilism says "Moral nihilism must be distinguished from ethical subjectivism, and moral relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but do not assign any static truth-values to moral statements.")

The difference between emotivism and ethical subjectivism is that the latter states that moral propositions are meaningful and it makes sense to discuss moral ideas, whereas emotivism holds that there are no moral propositions, just gut reactions (making it non-cognitivist; hence it is sometimes called the "hurrah/boo theory"). Expressivism is a related non-cognitivist topic, holding that moral judgements don't express moral facts but instead the attitude (likes/dislikes) of the speaker; it differs from emotivism in holding that moral judgements are not primarily emotional reactions (they may be beliefs, expressions of opinion, or commandments). The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy has some good articles that explore the topic in a more formal way than Wikipedia[19][20][21][22]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some associate that stance with post-modernism. DanielDemaret (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo talks, February 2009

[23] says that 13 Palestinian groups are meeting for unity talks in Cairo. The article names Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, DFLP, PPP and Islamic Jihad. But which are the other seven groups present? Any news links? --Soman (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[24] indicates that PNI, PPSF, PFLP-GC, Fida and ALF are also present. So who are the remaining 2? --Soman (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine there will be some Mossad agents there. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is the United States an Empire? I have heard the term before somewhere but it doesn't appear to be a common term in my area. What qualifies it as an empire if it is one? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See American Empire. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget Norton I, Emperor of the United States, Protector of Mexico. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I've heard it referred to as the Empire of Liberty. Exxolon (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an Empire that would be ruled by an emperor but it can be looked at as imperialistic. Livewireo (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Empire of Liberty", by the way, was Thomas Jefferson's phrase; he also used "Empire for Liberty". In Jefferson's day, "empire" simply meant a large, diverse country (or confederation of states), and so the Founding Fathers of the US frequently spoke of their creation as an empire, even though they had no desire for emperors or monarchs. A century ago, an "empire" was a state that imposed dominion over other territories. Now it just means a large state whose foreign policy you don't like. ;-) —Kevin Myers 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Niall Ferguson argues that it is, but that being so isn't necessarily a bad thing, in his book Colossus: The Rise and Fall of The American Empire. Some of the beginning part of that covers some hand-wringing wherein Americans recognise the US has many of the characteristics of an empire, but are deeply unhappy at it being called that. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what have the Romans ever done for us? Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In South America, where the US has a long history of interfering in internal affairs, many refer to the US as "The Empire". Perhaps you heard this from a South American source? DanielDemaret (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. actually has a much longer history of interfering in the affairs of Central America and the Caribbean than in South America

-- AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syria as non-member of Francophonie

Why Syria is not a member of Francophonie, even though it was under the French control during the Interwar Period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.34 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't want to be? Many former French colonies actually have had mixed feelings about having been recipients of the mission civilisatrice, and some Syrians have bitter historical memories about the whole Sykes-Picot and Battle of Maysalun thing, as well as the unilateral French cession of Alexandretta to Turkey. I'm not sure that French was ever as widely used in Syria as it was in Lebanon, anyway. AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francophonie is sort of the French analog to the Commonwealth of Nations. Just as there are former British colonies which have opted out of the Commonwealth, there are likely many former French colonies which have opted out of Francophonie. It's not exactly the same, since Francophonie is more about French language than French colonialism, so some nations, like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Egypt, which were never French colonies, ARE members because of their sizable French-speaking population. Likewise, there are some areas with sizable French-speaking populations, such as parts of the United States (specifically Louisiana and New England) which are not members. It is a voluntary organization, so places like Syria and Algeria, both former French colonies, may have political reasons to not join. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana is actually an observer, which is all that it is eligible for. Two Canadian provinces are member governments but under the Canadian membership. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana is not an observer in La Francophonie, although it takes part in the Association parlementaire de la Francophonie, the Francophone parliamentary association. Observer status in La Francophonie is reserved for states; sub-national governments can become part of la Francophonie as a "Participating government". At this time, only Quebec, New Brunswick and the Communauté française de Belgique have this status. As for Syria, it has chosen not to seek membership for domestic political reasons (i.e. it considers itself to be a part of the Arab world only). --Xuxl (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are an observer in the ordinary sense of the word, perhaps without the fancy title. They took part in the recent summit in Quebec for example and Bucharest before that. Incidentally Syria is a member of the the parliamentary association as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Along the Supply/Demand Curve

In introductory economics classes, you hear a lot about movements along the curve versus shifts of the curve. However, while real-life examples are often given of the latter, none ever seem to be given for the movements along the curve; i.e. it always seems as if ANY change in ANYTHING in the market shifts the entire curve. Is the idea of a movement just a fantasy? Can anyone provide an example of the price changing that results in a movement along one of the curves? Thank you 136.152.140.202 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A shift in one curve corresponds to a movement along the other. For example, if demand for gas increases, the price of gas increases and so too does the quantity sold -- that's a movement along the supply curve. Wikiant (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but is there ever a time when only a movement takes place? in the free market, there must be some shift in a curve to change the price and quantity. i don't understand the importance of learning about movements, that's my point.136.152.144.128 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only when there is a disequilibrium. By definition, if the market remains in equilibrium, a shift in one curve is accompanied by a movement along another. An example of disequilibrium is the case of the minimum wage. If the government imposes a minimum wage that is above the free market wage, then we move up the demand curve and up the supply curve. The result is a higher wage, a lower quantity demanded of labor, and a greater quantity supplied of labor. Wikiant (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I don't understand how the original poster is using the word "movement". The curves move, and the intersection of the two curves determines the price in a free market. What do you think is moving along the curve? One can record how prices and supply change over time and graph the datapoint dots to see the intersection points of the theoretical curves. The curves themselves are pretty much imaginary, e.g. it's taken on faith that more people will buy something if it's cheaper (as long as it's not luxury goods), even if there is no practical way for an actual person to buy an item for 1/1000th of a cent less than the previous price. - Banyan Tree 02:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Movement along the curve" is a standard phrase used in economics textbooks to describe a change in price due to something other than a shift in the curve in question. The curves are not imaginary, but rather are graphical representations of idealized relationships. Wikiant (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangabhumi

I know that Khulna and Barisal Divisions of Bangladesh will be part of the idea of Bangabhumi. Do you know which two districts of West Bengal will be part of this idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.34 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism

After reading the article "Baloch Nationalism", I notice at the bottom of the page that you put Sindh nationalism, Khalistan and Marathi. What about Gujarati, Oriya, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Assamese, and Bengali in West Bengal and Pashto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.34 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is edited by millions of people around the world, there is no "you," it is "we." If you wish to see it changed, be bold and change it yourself. Livewireo (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag draped coffin photos

Per [25] the flag draped coffins ("transfer cases" in government-speak) of America's returning war dead can now be photographed, as long as the family agrees. What possible mechanism or process could be set up to notify the families that the coffin is due to land at Dover Air Base, then get back permission from the families of all on board, then notify the Associated Press and other news agencies to send a photographer? Or would they Photoshop out the coffins of those whose families did not give permission? How can one flag draped coffin be distinguished from another, since they are not talking about photos showing the face of the deceased? Has any newspaper or press service announced plans to publish photos of all such planeloads of flag draped caskets, or to carry videos of each on the evening news? Edison (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on other considerations, they could do an opt-in or opt-out pre-approval form. Perhaps attached to the notice (phone? in person?) of when the coffin will arrive in the country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're on to something, Edison. That is, Obama doesn't want such pics in the paper any more than Bush did, knowing the press will print those pics daily with few pics of the far more people who die each day of other causes, giving the public the impression that our soldiers are being massacred daily when the casualties are actually quite light. This could undermine public support for any military actions, present or future (such as to stop the genocide in Darfur). However, just banning such pics is bad PR, too. So better to pretend to allow them, but set up a difficult, nebulous process for getting permission, so that it doesn't actually happen. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better approach would be to allow photos of flag-draped coffins so long as this coverage is proportional to coverage of US deaths from other causes. So, if one soldier a day dies in combat, and 10,000 US civilians die a day from other causes, then every photo of a flag-draped coffin would require 10,000 photos of other coffins, at the same size, in the same paper. This would stop press bias towards over-reporting military deaths, without creating any sense of a cover-up. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Death

Calling all Oscar Wilde experts! And all Sergey Nikiforovich Vasilenko (who?) experts! I doubt there are any Vasilenko experts here, but I've been amazed before, and am prepared to be amazed again.

In 1907-08 Vasilenko wrote an orchestral work called The Garden of Death, symphonic poem after Oscar Wilde, Op. 13. I’ve been trying to track down some information about its source, for Music based on the works of Oscar Wilde, but no luck. There's no poem or story of that name by Wilde - that I can find. It does sound like a title that Wilde might have come up with, and he did indeed use that expression, but not as the title of anything. Virginia, a character in the short story The Canterville Ghost, mentions "The Garden of Death" in her conversation with the eponymous ghost (Chapter 5), but it's never repeated and there's no explanation of it. That's the only connection with The Canterville Ghost that I can see. This site provides the text of a poem called "I'm Glad she was There", which includes the phrase "the garden of death", and claims it's from The Canterville Ghost. But that seems wrong on 2 counts: that poem doesn't appear in the text of the story; and imho it doesn't look remotely like anything that Oscar Wilde would have written.

And yet, here's another person who wrote a musical work called "The Garden of Death", which also claims to be a setting of words from The Canterville Ghost.

Apart from those two, the best I've come up with are various sites that assert Vasilenko's work is based on "a poem by Oscar Wilde", without saying what the poem is. Wilde's writings are replete with allusions to death, gardens and flowers, so Vasilenko's title may just be a generic nod in his direction. He didn't specify that it was named after any particular work of Wilde's, just "after Oscar Wilde".

But lo and behold! I discover Lord Alfred Douglas wrote a poem called "The Garden of Death". It's an unlikely phrase for two people so closely associated to have independently dreamed up, so I'm assuming one of them copied it from the other. I haven't tracked down when Douglas wrote his poem, so I don't know which person to name as the borrower.

Could Vasilenko have taken the title from Douglas's poem, but still have written his symphonic poem as a sort of tribute to Oscar Wilde? Given Wilde's and Douglas's association, it's not unreasonable. It's just that I've never heard of anything quite like this before – writing something in tribute to Person A but using a title that comes from Person B. It has echoes of "the love that dare not speak its name", an expression that has come to be very strongly associated with Oscar Wilde, but was in fact created, again, by Bosie Douglas.

Can anyone help me pin this down? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I know nothing about Horace Keats, almost nothing about music and just slightly more about Oscar Wilde, this seemed like the perfect Ref Desk question for me. Here [26] I found the first line of Keats's song. The words are "Far away beyond the pine woods, there is a little garden". Interestingly, these are also exactly the opening words of the Ghost's description of the Garden of Death in chapter 5 of The Canterville Ghost. The description immediately precedes Virginia's use of the phrase "The Garden of Death". It is not set like a poem, neither in the link above, nor in my copy of Collected Works of Oscar Wilde (Wordsworth Editions, 1997), but that is no barrier to a composer. I think you could safely add Keats's piece to your list, even though I can only find the one line, and it is otherwise unpublished. // BL \\ (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Vasilenko's connection will be more difficult to demonstrate unless there are words in this "symphonic poem" to tie to the theme. I suppose there are academics who could make their professional reputation on "proving" such a link through the music alone, but we may be limited to what the composer has said he has done: written a piece of music drawn from Wilde's description of "The Garden of Death". And now, we turn this over to the experts. // BL \\ (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bielle seems to be on the right track. Looking at Keats' sheet music etc, it seems he has set the words of the Canterville Ghost to music: turning prose into lyrics. "Far beyond the pine woods there is a little garden. There the grass grows long and deep, there are the great white stars of the hemlock flower, there the nightingale sings all night long. All night long he sings, and the cold, crystal moon looks down, and the yew-tree spreads out its giant arms over the sleepers." - a description Virginia identifies as "The Garden of Death". Lord Alfred and Wilde undoubtedly inspired each other; perhaps one decided to expound on an idea created by another. It's also a term you can find in other contexts: [27]. If Vasilenko credits Oscar Wilde with the idea ("after Oscar Wilde") then it seems the description also inspired him to music. Gwinva (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies, your thoughts make a lot of sense. Essentially, Douglas's poem is a red herring. It may have given Wilde the idea of a "garden of death", but he was the one who chose to use that expression in The Canterville Ghost, and that's what the composers were focussing on. Still, I'd love to find out when Douglas wrote his poem, to see if it preceded Wilde's story or came later. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy places to emigrate to

Asking out of curiosity, are there any countries that let anyone emmigrate to themselves or become a pernament resident without formality? As a european I've come to realise how difficult it is for an American to do that here. 78.146.52.210 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that there are some countries in the Caribbean which effectively sell their citizenship by requiring a very large fee for processing applications. Try checking out Dominica, Guyana, Nicaragua and Suriname. In Europe, Switzerland used to have a reputation for giving citizenship to the very rich, but I believe that there you need to apply in a particular municipality and the local people then vote on your case. This is said to favour middle and upper-class Europeans (whether from Europe or elsewhere) over others. Xn4 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svalbard. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one has money, I think the US is probably easy too. I read somewhere that setting up enough money to start a company there, perhaps one million dollars, and hiring people, would get you automatic US citizenship. I have read about similar deals in many countries, formal rules or not. My experience is that changing country of residence without resorting to this sort of deal has become harder and harder. I do not think passports were needed to move between countries before WWI. As far as I can tell, borders between countries are continually solidifying, so whatever country may have been easy to move to a few years ago, may not be as easy today. DanielDemaret (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect that you could get into pretty much any country with enough money. Well, that and knowing the proper people to bribe. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literature: slim classics

I've just started reading Voltaire's Candide, only about 100 pages long. It is more amusing and has much more variety than I expected. (Edit - but as I read on, racist and very violent). So unlike the thick doorstopper stodge of over-long Thomas Hardy or Dickens novels (personal view - no offence meant). What other slim classics would people recommend? I can think of Laurence Sterne's A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy, which must have a similar location in time and space. But I am interested in the whole range of literature from any place or time. 78.146.52.210 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie the Pooh? // BL \\ (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Livingston Seagull -- SGBailey (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich? 160 pages including the intro though and opposite in form to the massive Gulag Archipelago. Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha at 119 pages. Another skinny classic: The Epic of Gilgamesh text itself (Penguin classics) is 58 pages. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Gatsby and Goodbye Mr Chips are 144 and 128 pages respectively (in the basic editions available on Amazon). Gwinva (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorrows of Young Werther is only about 145 pages long. LANTZY ^TALK 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kafka's The Metamorphosis 87.112.17.229 (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmingway's The Old Man and the Sea, Mishima's The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea, and the brilliant Charles Bukowski's Post Office. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad's Heart of Darkness - 112pp. See also Novella and Novelette FYI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Onegin, Pushkin. A "novel" novel for being written in verse (which makes it more engaging--you mention wanting variety]--this is no gimmick). –Outriggr § 01:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byrne: A Novel, by Anthony Burgess, is slim, a novel, in verse, and better than at least half of the "classics" above. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a look at List of novellas. After a glance over my bookshelves, three slim volumes I can recommend are Nicholson Baker's The Mezzanine, Steven Millhauser's Enchanted Night, and Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities. But there are loads of small gems—even if you don't want to tackle Dickens's Bleak House, why not give The Haunted Man and the Ghost's Bargain a try? Deor (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Machine by H.G. Wells comes immediately to mind. --Anonymous, 03:20 UTC, February 27, 2009.

Oh, and of course Lewis Carroll's two books, thin enough that they are now typically published as one, about Alice in Wonderland. --Anon, 03:21 UTC, Feb. 27.

The Stranger by Albert Camus is about 120 pages. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another one I remember is Matsuo Basho The Narrow Road To The Deep North. 78.149.170.123 (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rum Diary... cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Turn of the Screw (Henry James) and Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (Robert Louis Stevenson). Gwinva (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book by old-time, non-notable British author

Someone stashed a bunch of old books in their since sold holiday house – among them was a memoir of childhood that was well-written and interesting for the sociology of the family at the time (Britain, maybe London, early 1900s?). It was a poor, "working-class" anglo family: a clever brother, intellectual mother and more basic postman father. Both boys were very bright: his brother was an inventor and the writer taught himself to play piano as a child without the usual supports of money, opportunity or real pianos. I think he went on to academia or the public service (maybe both?). Don't have enough to find anything on him unless my googlefu is wilted, but I'm curious – anyone? Julia Rossi (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopal shield (Image) vs Anglican shield

Is there a difference between the Episcopal Shield symbol and the Anglican Shield symbol and what is the history please.Gordon Oscar (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about their history, but they are almost the same. Both are based on the St George's cross (most familiar in the flag of England, also seen in the flag of Georgia), and both have a field azure (blue) in the cross's first quarter, but whereas the Anglican shield has on that a Chi Rho argent (silver), the Episcopal shield has on it a saltire of small Greek crosses argent. I guess the second has more resonances with the flag of the United States, but this is only a guess. I have also seen a version of the Anglican shield with a mitre over the crossed keys of St Peter on that field azure, which I guess applies to the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Anglican communion. If anyone knows whether any of these have been granted by the College of Arms, I'd be interested to hear. Xn4 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page (referenced in our article Episcopal Church (United States)), explains the significance of the number and arrangement of the crosses in the Episcopal Shield's first quarter. I can't vouch for its accuracy, though. Deor (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Bear DJ comic

Ok, I once saw a comic/cartoon of a Teddy Bear as a DJ holding a broken record. Really loved that image, but am completely unable to find it. I think it was created by an artist from San Francisco, but that's about all the more I know. Any help locating it would be greatly appreciated (been Googling all day but to no avail.) Thanks! Xous (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can do is a monkey (this is my sly way of saying that I tried googling too, and this was the best I came up with) Belisarius (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://dom-productions.ovh.org/files2/Winnie-the-DJ-(cartoon)-Dominique-Bray.jpg -- SGBailey (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This? meltBanana 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you!Xous (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

Presidential inaugural address which is said by heart

Is It usually said this way? Did some of the previous presidents read it from a paper? When it is said by heart, like this time, is there someone close by with the written text, to help in a case of a problem? This may be asked of course regarding other big addresses, like state of the union etc. Thanks! נרו יאיר (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When they do it without notes, I'd be very surprised if there's anyone on hand with a "cheat sheet". It's not like singers at the opera, where there's a prompter in a box to help them along if necessary (but there's a complicating factor there - they're singing in a language they may not normally speak at home). Some politicians are naturally gifted in the area of public speaking (not that they probably don't practise behind the scenes), and Obama seems to be one of them. Some public speakers have their main points written on a small card, which would be very easy to disguise. Some do it completely without notes. I'll leave the rest of the question to those who know what they're talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you are thinking of Obama's inaugural address, which it sounds like you are, I don't think it was said by heart. Today's speeches by politicians are almost always said while looking into transparent screens, on which the text is projected (much like news reporters use). I expect every recent inaugural address has been given this way. I'll see if I can find a picture. — Sam 216.133.14.34 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This system is mostly known as a teleprompter (originally a brand name) or autocue device. --Anonymous, 20:08 UTC, February 27, 2009.

You can see a picture of the screen in the image of the audio linked in the article: Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration#Inaugural address. Note that they put two screens up, one on either side, so that the speaker can turn his head and look natural as he speaks to the audience. — Sam 216.133.14.34 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life in the Papal States

Does anyone know where to find information on people's daily life in the Papal States and how it compared to life in other European nations at the same time? Were there significant differences for the average inhabitant? I don't see much about that in the Papal States article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.250.56 (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What time period? The Papal States existed for about 1200 years. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They kinda still do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a late source but you should read Pictures from Italy a travelogue by Charles Dickens. It is public domain and available online. He travels through various areas so it would give you something of a comparison. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Authorized to brief reporters on condition of anonymity"

Today in the Post I read

Two senior officials authorized yesterday to brief reporters, on conditions of anonymity and a news embargo on their remarks until this morning, said that no politics were involved in Obama's decision and emphasized a series of high-level meetings he has held with his national security team and military commanders since the inauguration.

How can you be authorized to say something anonymously? Why would it need to be anonymous if it were authorized? — Sam 216.133.14.34 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That you are anonymous to the public does not mean you are anonymous to the company/government body you are speaking on behalf of. The individuals in question were likely authorised to give comments on behalf of an organisation on the basis that these comments would be reported on an anonymous basis. ny156uk (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And because organisations (or estates, if you prefer) adopt conventions which enable them to communicate to mutual benefit (administration gets story out on terms acceptable to it, newshounds get fragment for story). Not everyone connected with (or unconnected with) the transaction may be happy with the convention. In the UK until very recently (and details are hazy) the administration would give anonymous briefings to so-called lobby correspondents. Eventually one paper (either the Guardian or the Independent) rebelled, got sulky, kicked up a stink and refused to attend on anonymous terms ... later IIRC the briefings were de-anonymised. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the benefit of it being anonymous if it's an official comment? Anonymity is usually used when the speaker isn't authorised to speak and they don't want their superiors to know it was them. --Tango (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of Nazi Germany as a state/government

Do we have any articles or can anyone refer me to any reliable sources regarding whether or not the government of Nazi Germany was legitimate and legal? I'm referring to its very existence, not the actions taken by it. On one of our article's talk pages [28], there's an editor who's claiming "historians do not accept that the Nazi State was legal". This is news to me but granted I'm not a professional historian. He references a 1974 book by someone named "Harold Kutrz" but I don't have this book nor am I familiar with historians enough to know them by name. I'm aware that the Nazis used intimidation and many questionable if not illegal tactics to gain control, but I've never heard it said that the state on the whole was illegal. I've heard arguments that Vichy France wasn't legal, but not Nazi Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether the transition from the previous Weimar Republic was done in accordance with German law or the Treaty of Versailles ? Or are you asking about whether the actions of the Nazi government, once in power, were in accordance with German law (which they then wrote) or international law at the time ? StuRat (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The former. I'm trying to understand another editor's comments that according to historians "Hitler was not 'legally elected'" and "the state was not legal therefore its laws were not either". (Yes, I know I can just ask him/her but the discussion on the talk page has evolved into a slight war, so I figured I would get a better answer here.)

As an example, there are arguments that Vichy France wasn't the legitimate government of France. I'm wondering if there's anything similar in regards to Nazi Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal is defined by the local authority in charge of the plot of land where the event occured. If the Nazi government was in charge of the plot of land where they came to power, then their rise was legal under any normal definition of the term. Now, whether their rise to power was moral or just or ethical or right or good is open for debate, and well within reasonable bounds of the meanings of those words, one way or the other. However, charges of "illegality" need to be narrowly defined. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi party was of course not in control of Germany before the election that (more or less) put them in power. Said election did indeed involve a bit of intimidation and vote-rigging, but in my experience it's not usual to call a state (or even a government) illegal just because of questionable elections; there would be a lot of illegal governments around if this were so. Algebraist 17:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are usually called "illegitimate" rather than "illegal", but only when there was actually some reason to expect a real democracy. There are plenty of dictatorships posing (very poorly) as democracies, and those aren't usually considered illegitimate or illegal. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can interpret "legal" as "constitutional" and often get a pretty well defined answer - selection of leaders is usually determined by a constitution rather than regular laws (there are exceptions, of course). --Tango (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified my original question to be a little more clear. I'm referring to its very existence, not the actions taken by it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct difference between saying that there was vote-rigging and intimdation in the elections that broght the Nazi party to power and saying that its existance itself was entirely illegal. It is rarely helpful to reduce a complex historical situation to a single sentance, especially one as oversimplified as that. One can note that there were problems with the elections that brought the Nazi's to power, but pragmatically they were really in charge of Germany after those elections, so it becomes pointless to debate whether, from the moment they took power, the entire government was somehow illegal. Its something of an ex post facto situation, but once they were in power, it becomes silly to refer to the government itself as illegal. They may have committed illegal acts, under the laws of the nation at that time, during the elections that broght them to power. That, however, does not make the entire government of Nazi Germany "illegal" from 1933-1945. Again, it may have been unjust, it may have been immoral, it may have been evil and bad and an abomination, but use of the term "illegal" is not really applicable in the way you seem to be using it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to clarify, I'm trying to understand another editor's comments. You can follow the link in the original question if you want to see the actual statements. (This in the section about whether "execute" or "murder" is NPOV). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were certainly elected, although I'm not sure those elections were free and fair. The kind of intimidation used during the elections was probably illegal, but I don't know if that would actually invalidate the result under the Weimar laws. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of intimidation was more like street brawls between Nazis and Communists (not like, say, what happens in Zimbabwe). People tend to forget (and definitely do not like to hear) that the Nazis were a perfectly reasonably choice made by perfectly reasonable people; in hindsight it was obviously a bad choice, but in 1932 was there really a better option? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a little more than that. Would the Enabling Act been passed if the SA hadn't surrounded the Reichstag? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

There are two issues I'm aware of. One is the passage of the Enabling Act that you just referred to. The other is Hitler's assumption of the presidency when Hindenburg died. Hitler assumed the office and combined it with his own to create the new one, Führer. This act was said to be both unconstitutional and a violation of Article 2 of the Enabling Act as well. This could be said to have turned Germany from a semi-Presidential state with a Nazi government into a Nazi state.

But one should remember that all states are, in a sense, illegal. My Constitutional Law prof. used to like to say that the Glorious Revolution was illegal and thus, in a certain sense, all British governance since then has been as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Elizabeth II's coronation footage in the public domain

The footage is classed as public domain at archive.org here. Thanks, --217.84.188.88 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:And thank you for sharing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry. I misread your question. I thought that you were making a general statement. I will let someone else answer this question. My sincere apologies. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that it comes under Crown Copyright, which would probably make it free to use for news or noncommercial purposes, but I am not a lawyer and do not know the specifics of UK copyright law. Your best bet is to go to the official website for Buckingham Palace and send them an email. //roux 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many people have ever lived?

Apparently there are 6bn people in the world today, but i would like to know roughly how many people have ever lived. Even if their lived lasted a mere fraction of a second outside the womb. There must be some estimates out there somewhere?79.75.207.25 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere around 100 billion. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using this link I found a source saying somewhere between 45 and 125 billion people have ever lived. Obviously, these estimates are going to be extremely rough -- what record do you think people kept of babies that survived for a "mere fraction of a second"? — Sam 146.115.120.108 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit more information at Number of humans who have ever lived. Algebraist 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you define people. Do neanderthals count? Homo erectus? transitional forms between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? Its a tough call, and any answer is bound to have huge degrees of uncertainty. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"People" is usually used to mean Homo Sapiens, the difficulty comes in defining what is and what isn't a Homo Sapien. --Tango (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a "Homo sapien"; the "s" in our species name isn't a plural marker. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought that as I typed it and tried to remember how it worked... I guess I came to the wrong conclusion! Is there a short way of saying "a member of the species Homo sapiens"? ("Human" isn't quite precise enough.) --Tango (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a challenge. The opinion that I received when I asked some academics about it recently is that species names really shouldn't be used as countable nouns (i.e. "one Homo sapiens, two Homo sapiens"), so you could just say "a member of Homo sapiens"; or you could use "modern human", which I think is arguably the common species name for "Homo sapiens". --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, in terms of the Latin language (as opposed to English scientific terminology), "Homo Sapiens" is singular, and the corresponding plural would be Homines sapientes... AnonMoos (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we use the singular in English as well - we refer to the human race as a whole as "man" not "men", so it makes sense to use the Latin for "wise man" not "wise men". --Tango (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how do i go about doing a search for information on a legal data base for a particular issue?

I have to find legally binding authorities supporting the proposition that "an oral contract is binding on the parties to by whom it was made. This is for use in the court of Law in Trinidad W.I. do note i am not asking for your opinion on my particular issue, just the way it is or can be done, thank you, D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.208.42 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Trinidad have its laws in a database? That should be your first question. You should contact a library from one of these schools to find out. Followup questions should go to a librarian. --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens character

The secret POW radio at Batu Lintang camp was nicknamed Mrs Harris, after the character in a Dickens novel who was a gossip-monger. Anyone know which novel that would be? Thanks Jasper33 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life And Adventures Of Martin Chuzzlewit -- Fullstop (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jasper33 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a character, since she never actually "appears" in the novel; she's just continually referred to by Sairy Gamp. Deor (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

men vs. women

My mom says women are a lot smarter than men. (I believe women are strong in faith and pride.) But still, are men physically stronger than women?72.229.135.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Many people day many things. This does not make them true. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The average male is stronger than the average female. Men hold most world records involving strength or speed, though women are gaining is some places, such as in marathons. Both sexes seem equally stupid, though often in different ways. Matt Deres (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic records in weightlifting may help! Livewireo (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strength is relative. More than half the deceased members of the Donner Party were male. While women did not undertake tasks as risky and dangerous as men, there was also something more to their physiology that allowed them to survive. There is something to be said for emotional strength as well, although I am not comparing men to women. It's just a different type of strength. --Moni3 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It partially depends on what you measure and how you measure it. For example, if you measure absolute upper body strength (such as the ability to lift X number of pounds), then women are pretty much guaranteed to fail miserably. However, if you measure women's strength relative to their body weight, or set tests of dexterity and endurance, then women will come out relatively well.

Also, keep in mind that due to basic statistical properties, if the measured strengths of women and the measured strenths of men on some particular task each have a normal distribution, and the average strength of men is, say, one standard deviation greater than the average strength of women, then it will still be the case that over 15% of women are stronger (on the particular task measured) than the average man... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on intelligence -- IQ scores may or may not have any particularly deep connection to real intelligence, but IQ testing has consistently found that the average overall measured intelligence of men and the average overall measured intelligence of women are pretty much the same (i.e. not significantly distinguishable from each other with the methods of measurement being used). However, one real difference which does exist according to IQ scores is that the standard deviation of men's measured intelligences is greater than the standard deviation of women's measured intelligences -- i.e. there are more male geniuses, but also more male morons (for whatever that's worth). AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't IQ tests designed and normalised to try and remove gender biases? So of course they come out with equal intelligence for men and women. --Tango (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. IQ tests are designed starting from the assumption that men and women should come out with equal average IQs, and so the tests are tweaked until they do. As some point out, this makes the accepting of different ethnic groups getting different average results look rather bad. But that probably risks soapboxing. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine empress regnants

How many Byzantine empress regnants were there? That includes the one that co rule with their husband. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also were the children of Byzantine emperors and empresses titled in any way. I notice the phrase Byzantine prince or princess but the Byzantine never gave such titles. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was List of Byzantine emperors unhelpful? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unsure if any were left out. Also I have a question about Eudocia Angelina. Was she ever married to Alexios V Doukas during his brief reign as emperor?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 February 2009

The article on Alexios V Doukas states that she was. - Eron^Talk 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandrian and Augustan empires

I'm looking for an anachronistic map showing overlap of these two at furthest extent; Rome and Persia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.163.38 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a little unclear, since the maximum expansion of the Roman empire is more usually considered to have occurred in the second century A.D., rather than under Augustus -- and the empire of Alexander the Great, the empire of the Ptolemies with its capital city at Alexandria, and the various incarnations of the Persian empire are all different things... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

@@ Line 674: / Line 674: @@
 :By the way, on intelligence -- IQ scores may or may not have any particularly deep connection to real intelligence, but IQ testing has consistently found that the average overall measured intelligence of men and the average overall measured intelligence of women are pretty much the same (i.e. not significantly distinguishable from each other with the methods of measurement being used).  However, one real difference which does exist according to IQ scores is that the ''standard deviation'' of men's measured intelligences is greater than the standard deviation of women's measured intelligences -- i.e. there are more male geniuses, but also more male morons (for whatever that's worth). [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 ::Aren't IQ tests designed and normalised to try and remove gender biases? So of course they come out with equal intelligence for men and women. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
+:::Indeed. IQ tests are designed starting from the assumption that men and women should come out with equal average IQs, and so the tests are tweaked until they do. As some point out, this makes the accepting of different ethnic groups getting different average results look rather bad. But that probably risks soapboxing. [[Special:Contributions/79.66.56.21|79.66.56.21]] ([[User talk:79.66.56.21|talk]]) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 == Byzantine empress regnants ==