Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 20

The reference desk takes Manhattan

Whenever anybody does anything at all in Manhattan, the headline is always "so-and-so takes Manhattan". What's the origin of this phrase? --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The ovious reference is to First We Take Manhattan. I don't know if there's an earlier meme Cohen was referencing. Algebraist 13:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly goes back much farther than that (1987). There's a 1925 Rogers and Hart song commonly called "I'll Take Manhattan" [1]. Could that be the source ? StuRat (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

According to that link, that wasn't the original title (it doesn't say when it become the commonly used title) and the lyrics don't include the phrase "take Manhattan", so I'm not convinced. --Tango (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Muppets Take Manhattan? Duomillia (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

At 1984 that's the earliest conclusive usage yet, and I'd say it's more obvious that Algebraist's guess (which I'd never heard of!). --Tango (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'd never heard of the Muppets version. So it goes. It's the earliest we've got, but it seems very likely that it's referencing something earlier, such as StuRat's suggestion. Algebraist 15:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a song from 1925 that is often, but erroneously, called "I'll Take Manhattan" (link). Alternative lyrics (here) which actually include the line, "I'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island, too." Incidentally, this was one of the answers on Johnny Carson's old Carnac the Magnificent bit. The question was "What are Dave Winfield's current contract demands?" ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

StuRat already suggested that one and gave the exact same link! Can you date the alternative lyrics? The original doesn't mention taking Manhattan at all, so almost certainly isn't the origin of the meme, is the alternative from the same time? --Tango (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd think there's something in the phrase that suggests that making it in New York City is harder than other places. So, if you, as an artist, for example, succeed in New York City, it's a particular achievement. I'd compare it to phrases such as Big in Japan (though that, from the link, appears to have the opposite connotation). No idea when the phrase was first used, sorry. Jørgen (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You could be thinking of Theme from New York, New York. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) All glory to StuRat, then! I can't give you a date, but the alternative version is probably most associated with Frank Sinatra and was pretty popular back in the day. The link is to a website called Spirit of Sinatra. I'd bet the "... takes Manhattan" snowclone could be traced to the Sinatra version of the song. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sure the song must be the origin but with the original have, meaning choose, being replaced with take at some time, possibly very early on. Perhaps with the idea of taking by storm or a more hostile takeover, here is a 1967 reference the earliest I have found [2] meltBanana 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The earliest explicit link between the song and the snowclone that I could find is Jake Takes Manhattan, a 1976 album by jazz drummer Jake Hanna. The first track on the album is the Rogers and Hart song. —Kevin Myers 04:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I found a lot of references in Google News archive to "take Manhattan" as referring to "take Manhattan Bridge", if that was a common enough phrase, it could have influenced the change to the lyric. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDb has a 1967 TV pilot We'll Take Manhattan[3]. Plot: "An inexperienced lawyer attempts to help a 140 year-old Native American and his tribe regain their property in downtown Manhattan." --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

community development

I there organizations or individuals or links that offer free community development degree? I n other word how can i be helped if i want to study this faculty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrows45 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Degree courses are very rarely free, and those that are free are not worth having. In some countries you might be able to find some sort of sponsorship or scholarship, from a government or some other organization. Start with colleges in your local area. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(Some free courses are worth having. It depends on your geographical location. Probably not much help for the original poster though - other than as a lesson to specify one's geographical location in questions) Jørgen (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is likely to help the original poster, but a little correction on DJ Clayworth's answer: in numerous countries, you can absolutely get a degree worth having for essentially free. Here in Finland, for example, a degree from the University of Helsinki will cost you some administrative fees, which probably isn't even a three-digit figure per school year, and of course you may need to buy some books -- if you can't get them from the library. The same goes for most schools, pretty much, regardless of whether you want to become a doctor or a plumber. There are some private establishments, of course, which are more expensive, but they are definitely the exception. Of course, we pay for it in taxes, and you're still going to have to take care of your upkeep during your studies (though the guv'mint does provide student benefits, such as rent support). I believe at least Sweden has an essentially identical system. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; even in the UK bursaries are provided for socially-important qualifications that are currently undersubscribed like teacher training (PGCE), so you are effectively paid (a small sum) to study.[4] Per the original question, Arrows really needs to indicate where in the world he/she is. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Small claims need for summons

I have a small claims court case approaching, trying to get money out of a client who wouldn't pay for design work that was deliver, accepted, and used as mass marketing.

During the process, we called upon two ad industry people, asking for advice on a technical matter. Their procedural advice was simply "try this, but otherwise, that's a hard situation to fix". They've stated in a letter that we contacted them, they tried to help, but really couldn't, because the procedure was hard.

My lawyer is saying that we should have them in court, as witnesses, and if they don't want to come voluntarily, issue a summons. Is it of any benefit what-so-ever for them to appear in court, when they didn't really have any impact on the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.114.20 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a request for legal advice, which we do not provide here at the RefDesk. Please seek the advice of your lawyer. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, my lawyer is who I'm trying to disprove.

Is there anywhere else on the internet that I can take this question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.114.20 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anywhere else you should take this question. You are asking for legal advice, and the best source for that is a lawyer. If you disagree with your current lawyer, you should get an opinion from another lawyer. That won't be free, but the best advice rarely is. - Eron^Talk 16:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Google "Wank Solicitors".--88.109.127.55 (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If your lawyer says to do it, I suggest you do it - you hired a lawyer because he knows more about how to win court cases than you do. If you doubt your lawyer, you need to get another lawyer. Asking random people on the internet won't help. --Tango (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your current lawyer may be of poor quality, but I can just about guarantee that he has more training on the matter and is more likely to know what he is talking about then most of us. Even if we were allowed to give legal advice that is. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are unhappy about your current lawyer, you should either approach a different lawyer for a second opinion, or approach the local legal professional regulatory authority.

We say we don't give out legal advice, and litigation strategy is probably the last thing you want random know-it-alls from the internet giving you advice on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You say, we called upon two ad industry people, asking for advice on a technical matter. Was that the extent of their involvement -- being asked for advice? Did they have any knowledge that there was a contractual obligation between the design company and the buyer? Questions, not advice . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ship question

How many ships were there in the Royal Navy on the eve of WWI? --140.232.10.139 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather vague question. All ships, including auxiliaries and liners that could be taken over and converted to troopships? Just fighting ships? Just capital ships?

If it's any help, our Grand Fleet article gives a number of ~150 ships for just that detachment (although this was most of the strength of the Royal Navy). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

what parts of American life do antisemites claim Jews control?

I am phrasing my question very narrowly and so hope that no one considers that these are my opinions or in any way fuel antisemtisim. However, I have been unable to find answers in reading our articles on antisemitism. My question is, according to antisemitic claims, what parts of American life do Jews control? I'm thinking: financial systems (banks, stock and bonds markets), higher education (college and university), the system of laws (legislatures, courts), health and medicine (doctors, etc), research/engineering/sciences, literature and publishing, etc. I'm not sure if some or all of these are claimed to be in Jewish hands by antisemtics. Where can I read about what parts of American life/institutions/etc are claimed by antisemites to be in Jewish hands. Thanks!

OR, but, I would say the most prevalent accusations are that Jews control the media (both news and entertainment) and the financial sector. Tomdobb (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

what part of entertainment (according to the claims), hollywood, or music or radio or all of the above or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.85.244 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

google sets for finance, media has a long list, any else of these claimed to be (by antisemties) under jewish control?79.122.85.244 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Finance has always been the big one historically - and with good reason, lots of Jews were (perhaps still are?) very successful bankers. --Tango (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Growing up in an extremely racist area (see "Tiny Town" lyrics by the Dead Milkmen), a common claim was that the Jews controlled the black population. Therefore, hating blacks was not anything against blacks, it was an extension of anti-Semitism. -- kainaw™ 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

what what what?? antisemites claim Jews control the BLACKS?? That's what, 15% of the population outright, isn't it... do the claims say jews control any other groups outright (hispanics, italians, etc)? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.85.244 (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that over time some idiot has claimed that Jews control other races. If you want to see more about some sort of "secret relationship" between Jews and blacks (and, hopefully, you have enough education to survive the nonsense), see http://www.blacksandjews.com -- kainaw™ 20:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget ZOG. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money discusses how the rise of the Rothschilds in the 16th/17th century helped "reinforce" the already widespread belief that Jews controlled finance. This belief is allegedly based in the establishment of Jewish banking (merchant banking and/or exchange banking) in Italy during the 14th century. At the time, usury laws prevented Christians from charging interest. Charging interest was the only way to reimburse financiers for backing the long trading journeys from places like Venice. Jews were allowed into the cities (in the first "ghetto" at a former iron casting plant (the word "ghetto" actually means "casting")) to provide these banking services. NByz (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked up casting in the appropriate bilingual dictionary and, to my lack of amazement, found getto (soft 'g'; evidently related to such words as inject), not ghetto (hard 'g'). – I once dreamed that someone asked me where ghetto comes from and I said "It's short for borghetto, little walled city" (from borgo). On waking I looked it up and found "Of obscure origin." —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OP, since you ask for something that is so vague (can you define "Jews" or "control" ?) as to be unanswerable, the place to look is to those who are themselves unreasonable. Find yourself some KKK website and you'll probably find all sorts of unsubstantiated, irrational and just plain wrong perspectives on what idiotic anti-semites claim. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Typical infantryman's ammunition load in WWII

How many rounds/clips/magazines of ammunition would a typical WWII rifleman carry (for their personal weapon, some armies would have riflemen also carrying support weapon ammunition)? From looking around at various articles on modern loads and carrying equipment, it looks like a typical US soldier carries ~200 (the Combat medic article cites 180-210), but that is of a much smaller caliber and thus allows the soldier to carry more. 76.254.29.171 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My father, who was a WWII rifleman, says 9 clips of 8 rounds each, if you had a bandolier, which most of them did. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Would your father know how much someone would carry if they were using a submachine gun or automatic rifle (ie, a Thompson or BAR)? 76.254.29.171 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard US Army load for the M16 is a total 7 magazines (1 in the gun), which is 210 rounds. 24.6.46.177 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The M16 is not a WWII weapon. My father carried an M1. 76, he says he didn't carry a Thompson or a BAR, so he doesn't know. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I was referring to the modern combat medic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.46.177 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This very detailed website may give you the information you require.--KageTora (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Los Compañeros de Zapata

I am looking for the book "Los Compañeros de Zapata", by López González. I tried searching for it on multiple browsers, but apparently it's either the rarest book out of Mexico, or I'm bad at using search engines. An interesting side note is that, despite the fact it's near-impossible to find, it is a widely referenced source on the Mexican Revolution... 68.116.189.197 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this, though i'm not sure how much it helps you out. Grsz¹¹ 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that earlier. I found the page useful, but I need the book for it's reference values, and for a certain reason that would, if told to you, make this entire post seem (to the most logical minds) a complete waste of Wikipedian resources. the publication date of the book was 1980, and either the book was banned on publication, or never existed in the first place.68.116.189.197 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of it is available on Google books at [5], though I don't know how many pages. Who then was a gentleman? There is a copy for sale here for $355 (I'm thinking Mexican pesos?) (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

abebooks.com lists one copy in Mexico. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The book is available in 18 libraries listed at Worldcat. Perhaps you can get it via interlibrary loan? -Arch dude (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

March 21

Apartment houses

"Apartment houses"

What exactly is an apartment house? The term redirects to apartment building, but "apartment house" only appears in the gallery, where the picture to the side is so labelled. Meanwhile, over at Commons, Commons:Category:Apartment houses in the United States is a collection of pictures of little apartment buildings that might be houses split into apartments, plus at least one picture of rowhouses. If it means simply "a house that has been split into apartments", I'll not be surprised, but if that's it, why are these other buildings being so labelled? Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for certain but it's easily possible the label in the gallery originated from the image name and the image name was given by a native German speaker and the name is simply a result of an translation that is a bit unusual in English. See for example [6], [7] and especially [8]. In other words, is apartment house (in the instance in apartment building) is probably just a German English name for an apartment building Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Apartment house" is just a synonym for "apartment building"; I'll fix the article to mention it. See this dictionary entry and this encyclopedia page. --Anonymous, 23:08 UTC, March 21, 2009.

When I was in Japan, on CNN there was an advert for what they called 'apartment houses' either for rent or to buy, and I took this to mean mean very large apartments (perhaps multi-storey) within an apartment building. Maybe this is what it means?--KageTora (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Apartment houses" is the term used in Death of a Salesman. I always figured it was New York dialect. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Very large and luxurious apartments, in purpose-built buildings, were known as mansion flats and mansion blocks. They were a feature particularly of Victorian architecture. These flats have in many cases been subdivided. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

aspie chess grandmasters

many aspies are good at chess. how many aspie chess grandmasters are there? their names and proof they are aspie? heard navara is aspie but would like a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.60.89 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This would require a medical diagnosis of living people which may contradict WP policy. There are web sites which engage in such speculation and list a few famous names. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think unless someone has specifically said that they have been diagnosed with Aspergers, it is pointless to speculate. It's not an easy condition to diagnose - it requires a proper psychological examination. --Tango (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI of England

Is it right to mention henry as a king of france because he consiliitated the double-monarchy of england and france and was the supreme legal body king from 1422-1429 by the estates-general{parliament of paris} and the regency government and Henry VI was the legal or de jure king of france from 1422-1429.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

List of kings of France has a discussion of this issue. Rmhermen (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The French certainly did not think he was ever anything more than a claimant to the French throne by way of the Treaty of Troyes made with England by Charles VI of France after France's loss in the Hundred Years' War. Upon the death of Charles VI, his son, the Dauphin so famously named by God himself as the true King of France in a vision given to the Maid, became Charles VII. Charles VII had repudiated the Treaty of Troyes, and thus any claim of the England's king, on the grounds of the well-documented mental incapacity of his father. (See[9] and Charles VI of France.) According to [10] this page in the French Wikipedia, Charles VII immediately succeded Charles VI (Numbers 52 and 53). This is, however, a content dispute, and should be resolved on the appropriate article pages. // BL \\ (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The French do not count him themselves, nor do they count the dozens of later English kings that included the title "King of France" among their appelations. The issue is not whether he claimed the title, or whether he signed a treaty, or whatever, the question is how do most reliable historians treat the issue. No mainstream historian seriously considers him a "real" king of France, and the "official" chronology does not number him among the Henrys of France. His claim is a historical curiousity, and one could make the case that he had a valid claim to the title; however as the French ultimately prevailed in the Hundred Years War, they get to decide who their kings were. They don't count him as a King of France, but most importantly, no respected historian does either... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My wording above was sloppy. Jayron32 is correct that the French prevailed over the English ultimately. At the time of the Treaty of Troyes, however, the English-backed forces held the whip hand. I am curious as to what the "official chronology" might be, if not France's list of the kings of France (though not necessarily, it should be said, fr.wikipedia's list of the kings of France).// BL \\ (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my impertinence, dear Bielle, but if a country's own official list of their monarchs does not trump any other "official lists", I think there's something wrong. It's one thing to say that Henry VI or whoever might have had a valid claim to the throne, but if it never got past the claim stage, then he was never actually King of France in any meaningful way, despite including that in his list of titles. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Assur the first dentist?

Was Amalia Assur the first female dentist in Europe?--85.226.45.47 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Rosalie Fougelberg, it's unclear who was even the first female dentist in Sweden. Both articles are unclear, and give few dates. Flamarande (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now read the Swedish versions of these articles. It seems, that Amalia Assur was the first woman dentist in Sweden, but that she was given a personal, special permission to practice the proffession, despite of the fact that it was banned for women in general, so she is regarded as an "exception" case. One date is missing: when Assur was given her license. The date is not mentioned, but it is clear that it was before Fougelberg, as it was before the profession was opened to women, which was in 1861, and Rosalie was licensed after; in 1866. Rosalie Fougelberg was the first woman to be licensed after the proffession was legally opened to women in general, and therefore, she is regarded as the first official woman dentist, after the proffession was opened to women. I do not know how to make this clear enough in the English language. Anyhow; are there anyone before them, in any other country? --85.226.45.47 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have did my best to clearify the distinction between them from the refs: Assur was the first, but only as a speciall permission case, before the profession was opened to women; and Fougelberg as the first after the profession was opened to women. I hope that is clear now. But: was there any cases in other countries? --85.226.45.47 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'dentist'? If you mean someone accredited by a modern professional body, then these might perhaps be the first. If you just mean someone who provides specifically dental-related healthcare, then there must be female dentists far back into prehistory. Algebraist 00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am interested in someone accredited by a modern professional body. Assur may be the first, as Swedish articles give the impression that she was licensed in the 1820/30s, even if the do not mention the date. I have not find anything about the first woman dentist in England, France, Germany, the Netherlands etc, so perhaps they had earlier cases?--Aciram (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I ment someone accredited by a modern professional body. --85.226.45.47 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese Election 2005 candidates

By any chance did Daily Star newspaper of Lebanon have a section where they have a list of candidates of each political parties participating for each riding?, such as List of candidates of Amal Movement, List of candidates of Hezbollah and List of candidates of Future Movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.170 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Aide for editors - a Riding is word (usually Canadian) for a Constituency, or Electoral district --Saalstin (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Micro- and macro policies

What macroeconomic and microeconomic policy changes would you recommend to increase South Africa's export potential?Elize Hurter (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk doesn't make economic recommendations. We can probably help you find reports written by economists making such recommendations, though, if you like. What is this for? --Tango (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's for an essay on SA's export policy. Recommendations would be nice, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elize Hurter (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

---

What micro- and macro policies can be changed to increase SA's export potential? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elize Hurter (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You could try the article on SA, but a quick look through wasn't very enlightening. --KageTora (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

SA's main exports are gold, diamonds, and platinum. These are items which are far more valuable once changed into final products, such as jewelery. Thus, I would recommend funding a large jewelry production industry. The jewelry items could also be sold worldwide, via the Internet, to bypass retailer mark-ups. (They would need to insure the items in case they are damaged during delivery.) In the long term, SA could aim to establish brick-and-mortar retailers around the world. This is similar to the idea of Q8 gas stations used to sell Kuwaiti petroleum. SA also needs to improve their infrastructure, and doing so now (with borrowed money) will help to improve the economy as well. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest reviewing infant industry argument (not a very good article), subsidy and tarriff (remembering that there are plenty of ways to create an indirect subsidy or tariff). Also remember that many export industries tend to be capital intensive (even large scale farming), so policies that encourage capital accumulation would be effective.

The most important thing in determining net exports, however, is domestic savings. The higher the proportion of income that is saved (the lower the proportion that is consumed), the lower will be imports and the higher will be exports. The less a country consumes, all else (production) being equal, the more it exports. The higher savings rate would also support capital accumulation and production by lowering domestic interest rates. NByz (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I’m going to go ahead and try to answer this one, for two reasons. First, I am a macroeconomist; and second, we don’t have a policy (despite what is cited above) about not offering economic advice. Happens all the time. So, . . . One area South Africa has successfully increased its exports is adding value to raw materials. In Economy of South Africa, we state that processing iron and other minerals to produce ferroalloys and other higher value-added products has been an important source of growth. So, 1st answer: add more value. 2nd answer: improve the quality of the labor force. This includes everything from literacy to HIV/AIDS. 3rd: continue (perhaps more quickly) lifting controls on capital flows. If people (companies) aren’t sure they can take their money out, they will be more reluctant to bring it into the country. 4th: reconsider if reverse “affirmative action” is such a good idea. Reducing opportunities for the most educated, richest people in society on the basis of race is pretty dumb. 5th: crank up the infrastructure development. Electricity, clean water, sewage and education are all below par. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's either "reverse discrimination" or regular "affirmative action". (Since "affirmative action" is already "reverse discrimination", adding a redundant "reverse" would switch it back to normal discrimination.) StuRat (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the opposite of the common use of the term had been practiced for decades. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Freud

I need a quick guide to Freuds psychology 16:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Val Baldam (talk • contribs)

Do you mean Freud's own psychology (that is to say, his personality and so forth) or psychology as practiced by Freud? Our articles on Sigmund Freud, psychosexual development and id, ego, and super-ego are probably good places to begin, at least for the latter. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also a lengthy article on psychoanalysis, which has a multitude of links and references, if you do any further research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Freud taught various radically different and incompatible things about human psychology during his career, so don't make the mistake of thinking that any one thing can be called "Freud's psychology". He was initially content to explain things neurologically, deriving many of his crucial hypotheses from contemporary biological theories; he later developed a theory focus on mental energy (in one incarnation libido vs. thanatos in a dyadic system, later dropping the "thanatos", and retaining only the libido. Yet another of his systems was structural, postulating that behavior was determined on the basis of the inter-relationships of various levels of consciousness (id, ego, superego). After a patient suggested a "talking cure" he developed it. Initially he gave credence to his patients' stories of childhood abuse, deeming hysteria was caused by such abuse; later he denied his patients' stories of childhood abuse - the same stories he had an obsessive need to find in his patient's vocalizations. So one can study [1] Freud under the influence of Fleiss (the infantile sexuality stage); [2] Freud under the influence of Charcot (the hysteria theory of pre-sexual sexual shock); [3] theories about the unconscious mind (Oedipal stages, dreams as wish fulfillment); [4] Freud's messianic stage in which he promulgated his own personal myth of greatness (psychoanalysis), and various other stages of his thought's development, as he answered critics, annointed successors, and (throughout his life) applied his doctrines to various non-psychological subjects. (Moses & Monotheism; Da Vinci, etc.) - Nunh-huh 04:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What you want is 'squashed' Freud. http://www.sqapo.com/freud.htm You can get these sorts of things for many classical works/items and they're quite a good thing for those with little time. Squashed Philosophers is quite good. ny156uk (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Turn of the Century French Ultra Conservatism

Where can I find details of caused the rise of strong right wing conservatism in France under theird republic in the period between the Franco-Prussian War and WW1. Thank you.

Indian mythology/legend question

I have a vague memory that some sage or hero in Indian legend was said to be so great that Krishna bowed to him when he was received after death. Does anyone know who this was? Vultur (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Yudhisthira (see the last sentence of the article). Deor (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

exact location of Kennedy speech in Berlin

I'd like to find out the exact location (on a street) where President Kennedy gave his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in Berlin. Jawed (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. The address is John-F.-Kennedy-Platz. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

More particularly, as our article Ich bin ein Berliner states, he was speaking from the balcony of the Rathaus Schöneberg to an audience assembled in the square. Deor (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Coronations of Queen consorts of Jerusalem

I only found one Queen consort who was coronated as queen and that was Morphia of Melitene, who was coronated in 1120. I was wondering if I missed any? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Found where? In Wikipedia's own articles? In that case, Morphia is the only one where a coronation is mentioned...but some of the others must have been crowned as well. The Byzantine princesses were, I'm sure. I'll see what I can find tomorrow. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, William of Tyre doesn't say anything about Arda of Armenia or Adelaide del Vasto (in any case, Arda was not present at Baldwin I's coronation, and Baldwin married Adelaide bigamously). He doesn't say that Morphia was crowned, only that Baldwin II sent for her after he became king (she was still in his old county of Edessa). I assume she was crowned at some point. William says Theodora Comnena "was consecrated at Jerusalem as the custom of the realm decreed and crowned with the royal diadem" when she married Baldwin III in 1158 (ch. 18.22-23, pp. 274-75 in the Babcock/Krey translation). Maria Comnena was also crowned and consecrated when she married Amalric I (ch. 19.1, pp. 344-345). There may be other sources that mention coronations but William is the most obvious place to look (and the only one I have at hand!). I'll have to find some other source for the thirteenth century queens, but by then there was so much pomp and ceremony that I imagine they must have all been crowned. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's Fulcher of Chartres who says Morphia and Baldwin II were crowned together (book 3, ch. 7, pg. 232 in the translation by Frances Rita Ryan). A good place for info about the queens in general is Bernard Hamilton's article "Women in the Crusader states: The queens of Jerusalem (1100-1190)", but he only confirms that there is not enough information in the primary sources about Arda and Adelaide to know if they were crowned or not. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean only those who actually reigned in Jerusalem, not just claiming it? I would guess that Queen Sofía of Spain was crowned that, since the Spanish royal family claims the title. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

March 22

Arab nation number of seats

I know that Lebanon has 128 electoral seats. So, what about Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Comoros, Libya, Egypt, Morocco, Mauritania, Sudan, Djibouti, Yemen, Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Palestine, Somalia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and U.A.E.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.54 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Electoral seats in what?!? What body are we asking about? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps 74 wants to know if those countries have elected goverment assemblies of some sort (parliaments etc)? Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he wants to know if they have local electoral districts (as opposed to nation-wide proportional representation without electoral districts practiced in Israel). AnonMoos (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Majority Arab Shi'a

Like Iran, Iraq's Shi'a population are the majority while Sunni population are minority. So, does it mean that Iraq is the only Arab nation with a Shi'a majority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.54 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Shia Islam, the majority Shia countries are Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Azerbaijan. Of these, Iraq and Bahrain are mostly peopled by Arabs. Algebraist 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"English is the hardest language to learn"

Is that a true statement? That would implied that English speaker believe all languages are easier than their own language, and then how come Americans today barely know more than one languages. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. All children aquire their native language at the same rate, regardless of whether that native language is English, Mandarin or Klingon. It's a little "old wive's tale" about English being particularly "tricky". Noam Chomsky's work on language aquisition is seminal in answering this question, and Syntactic Structures is as good a place as any to start on his work. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(I suggest asking this question at the Language Desk.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Similar questions have been asked there before. One example from Dec '07 which prompted the creation of the article on hardest language. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And to answer your second question. Many Americans only know one language because that's all they need to know. Sure, a year of a second language is generally required to get a high school diploma but after that, the language skill that they've learned goes unused. It's not like in Europe where there are so many local dialects and so many languages grouped so closely together. Take any random American who has never left their continent, which is quite a few of us, and look at who they have to deal with on a day to day basis. Most of the time, they're just other random Americans. As for those who have left the continent, it's generally not a significant amount of the population that stays wherever they go long enough to need to learn any of the language for where they're travelling to.

Also, it doesn't help our language skills that one of our only two neighbors is Canada where, again, the predominant language is also English. Even the French Canadians in Quebec generally know English. It's just a lack of need really... Dismas|^(talk) 04:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The American economy, and thus commerce and intercourse, is mostly domestically driven. Even in the outward-looking aspect of the economy, the US has vastly stronger economic and cultural power, so that the interaction is invariably conducted in English. This is different to European countries, even the English-speaking one, where 1) they are not vastly economically and culturally more powerful than their neighbours and trading partners, and 2) their economies are more trade-orientated.

A limited analogy could be given with other countries with large populations, such as China, whose economy is (despite what you might hear) largely domestically driven, at least for the vast majority of the population, and which is in an economically and culturally more powerful position compared to some of its neighbours - there, just as in the US, foreign language ability is much less widespread than it is in many other countries around the world. The analogy is limited, of course, because the Chinese still need to trade (etc) with the Americans (and other countries), and they inevitably use English, not Chinese, as the medium in those cases. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The English-speaking one? 209.251.196.62 (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, they like to think they speak Gaelic. =D --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Do they, or do they just like the rest of us to think they speak Gaelic? (If any Irish people are reading this - we're not fooled! ;)) --Tango (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As you'd see if you bothered to read the Gaelic article, "in Ireland people rarely call the Irish language Gaelic". They call it Irish. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, they've managed to fool us twice over! =P --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The only unusually difficult thing about English is the spelling. Most other languages have a more phonemically consistent spelling system. Haukur (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

English also distinguishes more vowel phonemes than most languages (that I've encountered); that is, a list analogous to bait bat beet bet bit bite boat boot bought but would be shorter in most other languages. Mood and aspect can trip people up, but I guess any language has comparable quirks. —Tamfang (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking in terms of an adult wanting to gain basic skills in a language, English is one of the easier ones, it seems to me. Not too many grammatical cases, no genders on nouns, and your pronunciation and grammar can be really bad without stopping people from understanding you. As for those vowel phonemes, again, you can mispronounce them pretty badly without impairing comprehensibility too much. If you do the same thing in Hungarian, nobody will understand you. Finally, I don't think English has all that many vowel phonemes--a bunch of the ones on Tamfang's list are actually dipthongs and fairly easy to learn. Again that's different from, say, French, where you have to practice the front-rounded u in "tu"--or Hungarian, where there's that and and lots more. 75.62.6.87 (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Swedish Communities

Which is the most northerly Swedish Community? Excluding Samii Communities. Which latitude is it at?68.148.145.190 (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Kiruna municipality, specifically the township of Kiruna. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Kurravaara is more north.68.148.145.190 (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops: BTW, the en:WP says the population is 266 (end 2006), the Swedish and Dutch WP has 57 for 2005. I guess, it´s them dark and stormy knights (and damsels) up north. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Karesuando is the northern-most settlement in Sweden. It is a traditionally Finnish-speaking area, but sv.wiki notes that the village is bilingual today. --Soman (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

is it true that woodwind instruments can be learned to a master level at a comparatively very late age (late 20s, versus like 7 for a piano)

if someone is in their late twenties, they have way way missed being a concert pianist, or anywhere close -- they should have started when they were like 7, if not 3. (A few concert pianists started, really intensely, as late as 19 -- they're not too good though).

is it true the same is not true of woodwind instruments, and someone in their late twenties could still learn the instruments to the level I have in mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.132.205 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the 10,000 hours theory is what matters here? It's discussed a little in Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Outliers'. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23588962-details/The+secret+of+your+success+10,000+hours/article.do). I don't really buy into the idea that you'd have to start a 7 (or younger) to be a really good pianist I can see it being a factor but don't see how starting late would necessarily exclude you from becoming equally as talented/able. You might also be interested in his book Blink, which looks at biases in selection of orchestral performers. ny156uk (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the book, by Malcolm Gladwell: Blink (book). Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the brain is far more adaptive and quicker to learn things at an early age. Also that book is just total speculation, I found it a very aggrevating read as Gladwell leads you to the conclusion he wants to reach with inconsistent (and sometimes without any) evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.47.250 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've heard of someone famous who took up the flute at age 40, but have forgotten who. —Tamfang (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

on an 'eye for an eye' basis (if it doesn't matter whose eye), if Israel were wanting to make up for Jewish holocaust deaths, how long could it keep up MAXIMUM "rate" of palestinian losses reached?

The New York Times recently ran a bunch of articles about how Israeli soldiers were told or given the impression that they should be killing Palestinians indescriminately (one supposedly got a t-shirt reading "one shot, two kills" as a reward for killing a pregnant woman).

My question is, since Israel positions itself as the "Jewish" state (which I disagree with, being a Jew), if they were somehow going on the "eye for an eye" theory (and it doesn't matter whose eye) and starting with a net -6,000,000 lost Jewish lives (those lost in the Holocaust), how long would it take them to make up that figure in Palestinian losses, going at the maximum rate they have reached so far?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.132.205 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that obviously it is impossible to reach anywhere near that number - I am only interested in the rate which I am having trouble finding or calculating! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.132.205 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A somewhat approximate result seems to be 1.5 millennia. You may find the Mathematics reference desk more suitable for further enquiries on arithmetics. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks - will you tell me which rate you used and how you found it (or did you just use your impression) thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.132.205 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people seem to believe that the fact of being the descendants of the victims of the biggest and most horrible genocide of the human history is something that gives a kind of bonus to commit atrocities for free. And the horrible, unbearable doubt is that a people that suffered such a violence may have been infected by the evil virus itself of this violence. Primo Levi, one of the greatest writers of the last century, survivor and witness of Auschwitz, suggested this idea in The Drowned and the Saved, 1986 (few years after the massacre of Sabra and Shatila (1982); he committed suicide in 1987).--pma (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've followed the news from Israel quite closely for a long time, and I've never heard anyone suggest that it's OK for Israelis to "commit atrocities" because of the Holocaust. On the contrary, Israelis perhaps feel a stronger commitment to human rights because of their experience, which is why revelations such as the ones recently reported generate such attention and revulsion among the Israeli public. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It must be pointed out that this has become a matter of grave concern in Israel itself. The NY Times [11] you are mentioning in your original query (but also the British Guardian [12] and other respected media) speak of a "religious war" between factions of the army, where - simplified - secular liberals have lost ground to religious nationalists. As Mwalcoff above, I feel that some of the arguments are questionable and may be misplaced on the reference desk.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire premise is wrong. The people with whom Israel is in conflict had nothing to do with the Nazi Holocaust. Moreover, it is . . . deeply offensive to suggest that committing genocide would some how “make up for” an earlier atrocity. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, the OP did not ask for a moral judgment... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that there has been nothing comparable with the Holocaust in human history, but if we want to answer the OP, answer is not 1000 years, nor 100, nor 10. The numbers of victims in persecutions never follow a well behaved constant rule, as the OP assumes. There is something named escalation, in all stories of genocides. Kristallnacht, 9-10 november 1938, less than one hundred Jewish people killed in Germany. Europe watched that without moving, and there were who minimized, making computations and comparisons with the number of victims of WWI.--84.220.118.44 (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at... you're saying that the rate is not constant, that it always starts small... you're saying if I had asked the reference desk in 1938 when fewer than 100 Jewish people were killed how long, at that rate, it would take for that number to reach 6,000,000 the answer would have been 164 years...clearly not what happened. Okay, so my arithmetic assumptions are wrong. However I'm not sure how to phrase the correct question then. What do you suggest is a more correct figure than 1.5 millennia? (based on what you suggest is more appropriate than a "well behaved constant rule"). What is the curve "the numbers of victims in persecutions" really follow then, as a rule? Thank you! again, I am not asking whether Israel is really trying to make up for 6 million victims of the holocaust on the "eye for an eye" principle (if it doesn't matter whose eye) -- I am only asking, if this were what were happening, how long could they keep up the maximum rate (or, in light of the above, rate of change), before they reached 6million...even if that number could not actually be reached because of size constraints in the area, etc....I'm just asking about fitting a curve, and wondering how long extrapolation, even if after a while the curve is no longer appropriate for that area, would take to reach 6 million, given the appropriate curve in such historical cases. Thank you! 79.122.48.154 (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you see exactly what I mean. It's not a captious argument though. Excuse me, but I am reluctant to do such a computation as you are asking, with numbers that are not numbers, but represent killed lives. I can't help imagining Eichmann summing ciphres over ciphres with neat and ordered hand-writing. Still, we must count, and remember the numbers of all victims of the Shoa and of all genocides, but respect and memory has to be our only end; this is what I think. What's the scope of this extrapolation you are looking for? You may wish to recall that 6,000,000 is so enormous that escapes our faculty of imagination. It's true, and in this case I agree that your intention is right... I was never able to go beyond the idea of 100 individuals murdered. But then, what is the point of making a comparison. This I can't understand. If we use the past tragedy to minimize the present one we are betraying the memory of the dead people. How many pregnant women did the israeli soldiers kill, compared to the number of those killed by nazi. An unbelievably small ratio, and unbelievably enormous. --pma (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the original article in the English edition of Haaretz from which the New York Times and other media picked up the story. Read the article, and then see what of the above makes sense. The original query poses a speculative and unfounded (and highly offensive to all parties) "connection" between mass killings in the Holocaust of European Jewry and the army of the State of Israel conducting warfare against hostile forces, whether neighboring states (since the day the state declared its independence and five of them attacked; only two of the original five have made peace with Israel in the intervening 60 years) or organizations (notably Hamas and Hizbollah) dedicated to Israel's destruction. The article relates to a serious problem within Israeli society; read about the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict if you want to know what real issues are pertinent. The above question is grotesque. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

good article. unbelievable. whoever wear those t-shirts is sick. --pma (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What's grotesque about it, Deborahjay? When a government (or rather, to be fair, its foreign supporters), harp on about a past injustice and yet commits its own injustices, amost every day, how can you blame people for drawing a connection between them?

If I go around bashing my neighbours every night, and my "friends" defend me on the basis that I was, years ago, stabbed in the street once by a robber - it is not beyond rationality for casual observers to think I'm just taking it out on the world because I can't get over what happened a long time ago?

Recall that the Arab states have existed on this piece of land for centuries. If a descendant of one of the indigenous owners of your land* turned up at your house one day and just started squatting in your living room, would you welcome them with open arms? Clearly they have a moral "right" to the land. Does that make things any easier for you?

*: that was a culturally specific reference that probably works best in North America and Australia. If you are not at one of those locations, you'll have to use your imagination. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to make a debate forum of this so shall answer the above questions (most of which I already stated above and you apparently ignored) and no more: Simply, claiming that the Israelis kill Palestinians because of the Nazi Holocaust is specious and superficial, beside the point of a great deal of well-documented history. You seem either highly selective in your arguments or badly informed: do you not acknowledge the history of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel as told in the Bible? To the best of my knowledge, Israel does not justify its military actions based on the Holocaust; anyone who believes that has mixed up a lot of disparate facts to concoct a libel. Israel has to maintain an army of defense as it's been under constant attack since its founding (and before), and among the terrible costs is the moral damage to the generations of young people who must serve in combat (plus the civilians like myself who are occasional targets of rockets). Some, even many, on both sides of the conflict do agree that Israeli Jews (Zionists) and the Palestinian people each have aspirations for national identity and a national homeland. The situation is bad enough for all those affected - which means myself as much and quite likely more than all the above respondents put together, as I'm a Jew, an Israeli (naturalized), a professional Holocaust archivist, and mother of two IDF soldiers (noncombat, serving in the Education and Youth Corps). With all due respect to the comments above, the people directly affected in this conflict and aiming for objective presentation of facts—that may be contradictory but nevertheless true—have more credibility in discussion than do opinionated bystanders and those such as yourself who are openly hostile to Israel. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

whoawhoawhoawhoa Deborahjay, nobody, including me, the original poster, who asked the original question, is suggesting "the Israelis kill Palestinians because of the Nazi Holocaust". We are talking about what the situation would look like if the Israelis were killing Palestinians on an eye-for-an-eye principle (if it doesn't matter whose eye) and how long they could keep the rate up (my original question), others have raised, under this hypothetical situation why they WOULD do it, but if you read the above very carefully no one except you is saying anything like "the Israelis kill Palestinians because of the Nazi Holocaust". Besides you everyone else is talking about what would happen IF THEY WERE DOING THAT. Or what we could understand in their psyche IF THEY WERE DOING THAT. You're the only one raising the idea that they're doing that. 79.122.31.69 (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that your question is stupid, and since it refers to this particular situation, which is already controversial enough when it isn't hypothetical, it sounds a lot like a successful troll post. Congratulations, I guess? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe now is a good time to point out that at the top of this (and every other) Wikipedia Reference Desk page, it states:

"If you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere... The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead."

I think that hypothetical questions like this are really unsuitable for the reference desk as they almost invariably lead to debate. We can deal in hypotheticals, of course - "If the Earth were made of cotton candy, how much would I weigh?" - but questions that put a hypothetical spin on real-world controversies are inevitably, well, controversial.

I don't think this question or answers to it can be expected to make a positive contribution to this encyclopedia. There are forums all over the Internet where this sort of thing can be discussed. Why do we need to discuss it here? - Eron^Talk 00:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding the Field of the Cloth of Gold

Why were Henry and Francis on such good terms when Henry had fought against Francis at the Battle of the Spurs. Henry had peviously become part of a Holy League against France. I don't see why they were both so ready to show their "brotherly love" again, after all that had happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.123.171 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? It explains it pretty well. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

House of Hesse-Darmstadt

The Grand Ducal House of Hesse went extinct in 1968 and was passed to Hesse-Kassel, but was the junior Darmstadt line of Hesse-Homburg still living at that time? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Hesse-Homburg suggests that all parts of Hesse-Homburg were part of other states by 1880 odd- i.e. it no longer existed - so the title presumably didn't exist. But since you wiki-linked the page, I'm gussing I've misunderstood something here? Some off-shoot or other entity perhaps? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

March 23

prayer of George VI

I have tried searchng the internet and wikipedia to obtain the text of the Prayer of George VI. I think he parayed it just before D Day. Some of the words are I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year: Give me light that I may tread into the unknown. He replied put your hand in the hand of God. That will be to you something better than light and better than a known path.Can you help me find the rest of the text?203.110.156.190 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=400561, http://www.geocities.com/piers_clement/gate.html, and The Gate of the Year. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The poetess was Minnie Louise Haskins, and the poem is called The Gate of the Year, but you have to rely on an outside source for the text, because our article doesn't quote it. How odd. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

shooting an elephant

do you think his purpose in this essay is to explore something about himself or something about the nature of british colonialism or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.29.56 (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we don't answer homework questions here at the RefDesk. It may behoove you, however, to take a look at Shooting an Elephant. bibliomaniac15 04:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

don't use "it may behavoove you" (or anyone else)....seriously. 79.122.48.154 (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You are the only person here to have used that curious misspelling. Algebraist 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And did he shoot an elephant wearing his pajamas ? :-) StuRat (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I love multiple choice questions! The answer is C. both - 161.181.53.10 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I vote D, "he made it up to impress his English teacher", myself. But then I suppose we shouldn't put it to a vote, as we all know Polls are evil. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fate of US after a bankruptcy

If the United States is declared bankrupt, who are the creditors that will gain ownership of the country? NeonMerlin 06:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For the latest breakdown, see Treasury Bulletin for Dec 2008. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And for foreign ownership stats: Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First off all, the US is not going to go bankrupt. It just ain't gonna happen, there's no way. However, if we were to entertain the notion for a second, it doesn't work the same way when a country defaults on it's national debt as when companies do. The US is a sovereign country, and other countries don't just "take it over" when it can't pay it's debt. No one "gains ownership" (nobody "owns" the US today, so how could you transfer "ownership").

Two things happen when a country defaults on its national debt: the people that lent it money gets screwed (they have no way of collecting), and no one will ever loan them money again, which is why it almost never happens (though it is not unheard of, Argentina did it in 2002). Even poor third world countries do everything they can to pay every cent they own in interest, because a national debt-default is a catastropic event.

Also, in addition to those two things, if the US specifically were to default on its debt, a third thing would also happen: people would start watching Mad Max as an instructional video. 195.58.125.75 (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a country declaring bankruptcy, that's just rhetoric. Countries have no legal obligation to pay back their debt since there is no jurisdiction that has power over them. As 195.58 says, all that happens when countries default on debt is that creditors lose their money and the interest the government has to pay to borrow money (which almost all governments need to do) shoots up (if they can borrow money at all). There are no legal proceedings - the sovereign debt market is a purely free market (probably the only one), everything is governed by market forces. That said, if the US, or another major government, defaulted on its debt it would mean the complete collapse of the world economy. Pretty much the whole of economics is based on the assumption that these treasury bonds are risk-free (see risk-free interest rate) - if that assumption doesn't hold then everything goes wrong. --Tango (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me be the devil's advocate and argue for defaulting on the US national debt:

1) When a nation, just like a corporation or family, can't possibly ever pay off its debt, then it's time to consider bankruptcy, or, in the case of a nation, going into default. The US seems to be close to the point of no return here, where it can't possibly ever pay off the debt.

2) The result of not being able to borrow money might, just like in the case of a family, actually be a good thing, as it would force the US to live within its means. If nothing else can accomplish this goal, then, by default, default may be the only way. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Like any country that issues debt in its own currency, the U.S. can inflate its way out of debt (which has adverse consequences of its own of course). The deterioration in the U.S. government's finances is alarming, but the debt burden as a proportion of GDP is not yet anything remarkable compared with other developed countries. Mowsbury (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be a discussion forum, so I'll only comment to the extent it may be responsive to the OP. The U.S. is by no means close to a point of no return. As of 2007, the national debt was only 65.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), and that includes intragovernmental obligations such as Social Security Trust Fund holdings. Although the percentage has increased since 2007, it is still well short of the levels experienced in the late 1940s. While it is true that the government probably will never pay the national debt down to zero, that is not necessary or even desirable. It is sufficient that each individual governmental security will be timely repaid.

Of all of the ideas to make the U.S. live within its means, a debt default must be the worst. A default would result in the failure of the large majority of financial institutions worldwide and the collapse of the global economy. It would be much more serious than the Great Depression and would have political and social ramifications that at present can only be the subject of speculation. Because these facts are well-known to policy-makers, a U.S. governmental default is not under even passing consideration. John M Baker (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You are working under the flawed assumption that paying off the debt is desirable. There is no reason to pay it off. As long as the country can afford the interest payments and people are willing to keep lending it money when old debt comes due, then the debt doesn't need to be paid off. Ideally, you want to make sure that the economy grows at least as fast as the debt, so debt as a percentage of GDP doesn't rise. There will be time when it increases, but on average you want to keep it at reasonable levels - the US is managing that pretty well overall. --Tango (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's do some calculations here. Say the US goes from owing 65.5% of it's GDP to 100%, by the time the current financial mess is ironed out. And suppose that the interest on this is a mere 5% per year, after inflation. That would mean 5% of the GDP would need to be paid every year just to service the debt. I suppose that would be manageable if that was all taxes were used for, but obviously they need to also be used to do everything else government is expected to do. So, then, could we ever get an additional 5% of the GDP (which is probably more like 25% of the taxes collected) to be set aside to pay interest ? And this isn't even starting to pay down the debt, but just keeping up with interest. I can't see it happening. So, like the family in too much credit card debt, the options are to continue to rack up more and more debt, until we can no longer make the minimum interest rate payments, or to default. StuRat (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If we look at history, rather than made-up numbers, we see that the US has in the past had a debt of well over 100% of GDP without having to default. Algebraist 21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

But that was right before the record growth of the 1950's, which was only possible because the economies of Europe and Asia were destroyed by WW2, and the US was basically without competition in the export market. I don't think anyone sees that situation happening again. StuRat (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A country is only going to default on debt if it can't borrow enough to pay off debt that comes due, which will only happen if people think the country is going to default. As with most of economics, it's all self-fulfilling prophecies. There is only a problem if people lose confidence in the economy, and that isn't going to happen purely because of high debt. Inflation is more of a concern than debt - if inflation gets out of control, people aren't going to want to invest in anything denominated in that currency, which includes government bonds. High debt can, of course, lead to high inflation if the interest payments become so high printing money is the only option left (there is only so much money people can lend to the government, regardless of how confident they may be in it). --Tango (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think printing money to pay off debts ever works, as it leads to hyperinflation and creditors who will refuse to loan any more money unless it's paid back in a more stable currency. If a country must borrow money just to pay off earlier debts, that's going to lead to an ever increasing spiral of debt. Once it begins to spiral up at a rate faster than the growth of the GDP, it's just a matter of time before nobody will be willing (or able) to loan the amount of money required any more, leading to default. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Borrowing money to pay off debt that comes due is standard practice - if you have a consistent budget deficit (which most countries do), you have no choice. It's known as "rolling over" the debt. If you get to the point where you can either hyperinflate your way out of debt or default, you don't have a good option - whichever you choose, your country is in serious trouble. I think the main benefit to default is that it gets it out of the way quicker - you know where you stand and you just get on with it. Make the necessary reforms, behave yourself for a few years, and you're back on track - it hurts, but you know you'll get through it. If you go into hyperinflation it is anybody's guess what will happen. Eventually you will come out the other side, countries always do, but it could be years of chaos and suffering to get there. I think countries that hyperinflate to get out of debt either don't understand economics at all or are falling victim of wishful thinking ("We just need to print a little bit to tide us over, we can stop before it starts to spiral out of control"). In my (extremely non-expert) opinion, default is the better choice. --Tango (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to create new money without automatically triggering hyperinflation. The UK government is doing so at present. Of course, one has to be careful, but failure is by no means inevitable. Algebraist 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The UK government is doing it (at least partially) in order to create inflation. We're at very real risk of deflation without it. The money isn't being printed because the government wants to spend it, it's being created because it has been deemed in the best interest of the country to increase the money supply. --Tango (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you believe it, just after posting that I head over the BBC News (as I often do) and there is an article posted less than an hour ago about the UK being at risk of deflation: [13]. The BBC are (with the aid of foresight) creating references specially for me! --Tango (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, maybe, that a better example may be the Republic of Ireland; they are said to be closer to bankruptcy - and other countries could stop lending to it, there are few Irish banks with sufficient capital and/or onus to provide money. Basically, IMHO, the US have infinitely deep pockets, but time could be called on Ireland. Are none of the debts secured? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has infinitely deep pockets (although that might explain how I keep losing my comb). :-) StuRat (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget Iceland. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting: The US economy has a GDP of approximately $13.5 trillion (give or take a few hundred recessionary billions). IF the total national debt were to become equal to the GDP and IF the interest payments on the debt were 5%, that would still only be $675B annually. FY 2007 interest was $237 billion (via wiki page on 2007 United States Federal Budget). Despite the spending for stimulus and other recession-driven expenses, we are still a long way from a National Debt equaling GDP and a long way from interest expenses being unmanageable. (For one thing, interest expenses are nowhere near 5% and despite the massive increase in spending, the debt offerings by the Treasury sell quickly and at relative low cost). Lastly...most of the "bailouts" that have been completed to support the financial system have been done by effectively (but not quite literally) printing money, rather than by issuing debt.Brewfangrb (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The US national debt clock shows over $11 trillion in debt right now: [14], and the deficit this year is expected to be around $2 trillion, which would bring us almost up to the GDP this year (or, if this year has already been added to the clock, then next year). If the GDP declines slightly, or if we wait an additional year, we will be sure to top 100% of GDP. Even if we can get the deficit down to $1 trillion a year, that's still 7.4% of the GDP, and the economy is unlikely to grow at such a high rate, on average, over the long haul. Thus, the US will go deeper and deeper in debt as a percentage of GDP, until it must default. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Once we're through this recession, the US will probably have to raise taxes and cut spending in order to pay back some of the debt being built up at the moment. A long term deficit isn't a big problem as long as it isn't too great on average - that means when it gets too great at some point you need to have a very low deficit (even a surplus) for a time afterwards to pay back the extra and get it all to average out. If the US continues with a 7.4% GDP budget deficit once this recession is over, it will soon find itself in very big trouble. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Continues" isn't the right word, as that's a much lower level than the present $2 trillion deficit, which is closer to 15% of GDP. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

---

What's the largest percentage of GDP which any nation has owed and yet been able to recover from without defaulting (excluding "debt forgiveness", which is just another form of default, IMHO) ? StuRat (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well over 100%. I'll see if I can find some examples. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Japan's debt in 2006 was 176.2% of GDP. I don't think they have "recovered" from that yet, but I haven't heard anyone suggest they are at risk of default. --Tango (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just what percentage of GDP do you think a nation can recover from ? And, if Japan hasn't yet recovered, what's the maximum from which a recovery has occurred ? StuRat (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I tried to find historical debt figures for some major economies and couldn't - I know they are out there somewhere, but I would need to spend longer searching. You don't really need to recover from high debt, you need to recover from a high deficit. If you can get to a surplus (or a deficit lower than your economic growth) then the debt will gradually come down, but it could take a very long time. (I wouldn't expect Japan to get under 100% for decades, at best.) A better question might be: what is the highest (sustained) budget deficit (as a percentage of GDP) a country has recovered from without defaulting on debt or issuing a new currency? I don't know the answer to that, either, but I'd be very interested to find out... (Define "sustained" in whatever way makes the answer easier to find out! We may wish separate answer for deficits due to war and deficits during peacetime.) --Tango (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But the debt and deficit aren't independent. If the debt is high enough, the interest alone will ensure that there is always a deficit, and, when combined with the bare minimum the government needs to spend to prevent it's collapse, can easily exceed the meager growth rate which such a heavily indebted nation can sustain (since there will be very little capital left to invest, after most is borrowed to service the debt and pay for government essentials). StuRat (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - high debt may well lead to a high deficit, but it is the high deficit that is the problem. A high deficit can be caused by numerous things and is a problem regardless of the cause, and you can avoid a high deficit while having a high debt (if you can keep confidence high and thus interest rates low, for example, or simply raise taxes), in which case you won't be in danger of collapse. --Tango (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

However, when the debt gets high enough, you can't do any of those things. You can't keep confidence high, because creditors will inevitably start to worry about being repaid. You can't raise taxes, because that would lower the growth rate, which you desperately need to keep high if you want to keep the deficits below that figure. Also, it's politically difficult to raise taxes to pay for immediate spending, but raising taxes with no immediate tangible benefit is political suicide. StuRat (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as the deficit is low, people won't be too worried about not getting repaid. --Tango (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But, as I said previously, the deficit can't possibly be low when the debt is massive, as the interest alone will ensure that the deficit remains high. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it not foolish to compare long-term debt against short-term income? The debt is not a 1-year debt, it is a long-term debt so why would we compare it to a 1-year GDP amount? 194.221.133.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, I think the same thing sometimes when people insist on comparing everything to GDP. GDP is used as a measure of the "size of economy". It makes sense to compare debt to the size of the economy, the question is whether it makes sense to use GDP as a measure of that (although I don't really have a good alternative to propose, so it may be out best option). --Tango (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the total wealth of a nation is also highly subjective, since things like real estate fluctuate dramatically. And being near the point of default may cause many such assets to plummet in value. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wealth is really difficult to determine because there isn't a market for most of a country's assets (at least, not one that involves regular enough similar sales to determine an expected price for something about to go on sale). For example, how would you put a value on a country's road network? When was the last time somebody bought a road network? There just isn't a price for such things. A good road network clearly contributes a significant amount to the value of a country, though. --Tango (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

An important note on this side discussion is that a country without strong rule of law, effective property rights or a credible system of taxation will be able to support a much smaller national debt ("...as a percentage of GDP.") The most important factor in a country's ability to sustain debt is the country's ability to service it through it's tax base. If that is put into question, bond prices will drop and, implicitly, credit spreads on the yield will widen until the country no longer has the practical ability to roll over one year's debt with the next. That is when a default or "debt reorganization" becomes the rational choice.NByz (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I just watched Frontline: "Ten Trillion and Counting", which put the US national debt at 89.2% of GDP, after this year's deficit is factored in. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fuente Ovejuna

analysis of fuente ovejuna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.33.82 (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't recognize this as a question until just now, as it lacked a question mark, a "Please provide" in front, or even a heading (which I've now added). See our Fuente Ovejuna article and come back here with any unanswered questions, please. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WWII "zeroes"?

Resolved

I was just watching the latest episode of Dollhouse (which was quite excellent), and there was a reference in there which I didn't quite catch (this isn't a spoiler btw, just a stray line). Could someone please explain it. The piece of dialogue goes like this:

• Dotcom-billionaire: "My first check, it had more zeroes than the Luftwaffe"

• FBI agent: "The Japanese. They had the Zeroes, not the Germans"

Pray tell, what "zeroes" are these two fellas talking about? 195.58.125.75 (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mitsubishi. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, sweet, thanks! 195.58.125.75 (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And in case you missed it in the article, the name Zero comes from the year in the Japanese calendar when it was introduced. Same idea as [crosses self] Windows 2000. --Anonymous, 20:13 UTC, March 23, 2009.

UNRESOLVED! Way unresolved - because you guys have given me an earworm. What song is it from? "Mitsubishi zero, dum-dum dum-dum dah-dah" BrainyBabe (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, all the top Google hits on a search for "lyrics" and "Mitsubishi Zero" all on Sexuality (Billy Bragg song), in which Zero is rhymed with (Robert De) Niro. Would that be the one, Babe? --Anonymous, 21:33 UTC, March 23, 2009.

Thanks, Anonymous, doubleplusgood resolved! (And for explaining your trick -- obvious, but only in retrospect.)

Resolved

Resolved

It's Billy Bragg's most sex positive song, with happy bouncy lyrics, and then this weird triple entre:

"I'm sure that everybody knows how much my body hates me / It lets me down most every time and makes me rash and hasty"

Viagra, anyone? BrainyBabe (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bordell Makejewka

A one-line caption for these archival documents describes them as tickets for a bordello for WWII German army officers "in Makejewka in the Stalingrad region." I doubt it's Makiivka (in the Ukraine), but I haven't found a suitable locale. Is there such a place, or is the name likely to be merely a surname or a word in Polish? (I'm posting here rather than on the Language RD as this might indeed be a geography query after all :-) -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Makejewka" is how the Russian name of Makiivka, "Макеевка", is transliterated to German. Makiivka lies in the South-East part of the Ukraine, and Stalingrad doesn't look that far away, from a German geographical perspective of the Soviet Union. I think it is in fact likely that the caption refers to Makiivka. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

christodoulou tzigane

In Greek language χριστοδουλου Τσιγανε (χριστοστομο maybe)is our streetname and we cannot find any information about this person. Arounding streets are marathonanmachi street so we think he had something to do with it. Searches in google and other searchprograms give only the translation of gypsi. Who was this person and what did he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manolis gr (talk • contribs) 14:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean he had something to do with the Battle of Marathon? That is unlikely for someone named Christodoulou. Are you in Cyprus? We have Christodoulos and Christodoulou articles, do they help? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is no information available through your municipal offices, city library, or other local or regional government source? -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could χριστοστομο be a misreading of Χρυσόστομος? —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-Somali African Muslims in Arab Gulf nations

What is the history of Non-Somali-speaking African Muslims in United Arab Emirates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.250 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at articles connected to United Arab Emirates? Admittedly, Demographics of the United Arab Emirates and Islam in the United Arab Emirates are not terribly helpful, but they do have useful-looking links. If you have a country in mind, you could look for its emigrants, as opposed to the UAE's immigrants. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Depression and higher IQ

I know that there is no true measurement of IQ, however, was/is there a study done regarding incidences of high IQ and likelyhood of being depressed? --Emyn ned (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

IQ tests are, by definition, a true measure of IQ. Do you mean "intelligence" rather than "IQ"? --Tango (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"...and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." Not a scientific study, but probably the first to address the issue :) --Dr Dima (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This study claims a link between depression and gifted children, while this one links it to low childhood IQ. Acck! Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if those are contradictory results. It could be that if you plot the incidence of depression against IQ, you get a bathtub curve. --Anon, 05:21 UTC, March 24, 2009.

Didn't say it was. It makes sense that you'd be most likely to be happy by being average. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe higher IQ people spend more time indoors, get less sunshine, and thus get less Vitamin D, which is linked to depression. 89.243.177.130 (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

News website

I'm looking for a news website that I can read to keep up with the "important" stories all over the world. I find that the paper from home (NZ Herald) is not the greatest, and often the front page stories are not the most important stories, but the most recent. I don't usually spend much time looking at the news, so I'd like a nice site that just has the important stuff so I'm not completely out of touch. Any suggestions? Thanks 77.12.54.219 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the BBC's website, here - you'll need to select 'International version' by pressing edit near news (but I would be suprised if this weren't set by default for people physically outside the UK). Important stories - yes; worldwide coverage - yes; neutrality - mostly (there have been accusations of slight liberal bias). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia English home page does a good job of summarizing the news, with less of a recency bias than other sources: [15], and hopefully won't have any coverage of Paris Hilton until somebody gets around to killing her. There's also Wikinews, if you want more than just a summary of each story: [16]. And, like Wikipedia, Wikinews allows you to make a correction if you find an error. StuRat (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we avoid calling for people's assassinations? I know it's Paris Hilton, but still... --Tango (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not calling for her assassination, I'm just saying I never want to hear from or about her until and unless she's killed. Besides, to be assassinated, don't you have to be of some actual importance ? StuRat (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The "gets around to" part read like you were saying she should be killed. I think the importance point is just another point in favour of not calling for her assassination! --Tango (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We have the same problem here! The local paper of record is a broadsheet pretending to be a tabloid.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com) and the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk) are two I like to check regularly (despite the very different editorial standpoints). If you are interested in economic/financial/industrial news, either the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/) or the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/) are great - though some online contents require subscription.

Even though these papers have very different editorial agendas, all of them are intelligent and globally sensitive. What I mean is that, in their reporting of world events, they are not quick to succumb to stereotyping and sloganeering - problems which some papers in our more provincial end of the world suffer from.

In our own (regional) backyard, the South China Morning Post is a quality paper, but is very stingy with its website (http://www.scmp.com/). The Straits Times (http://www.straitstimes) is also nice. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with Google News? It's a compendium from news websites from all over the world, and is divided into different areas of interest. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another vote for Google News [17]. Dismas|^(talk) 01:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's one that has been around for quite some time that always posts some interesting headlines and updates frequently: [18] cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no, one should never go to the Drudge Report looking for neutral news reports. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also have to vote for Google News. I asked a similar question on the Misc desk about a month ago. I have been using Google News for several years. My only complaint is around local or area-specific coverage. You can set up your own news screens, but you'll often just get the most popular stories that contain the words you've screened for, not the most relevant stories to that screen. That's what you get from an editor-free source though. No bias, but also little perspective. NByz (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally I've been getting the Economist's weekly audio version. It's great if you have a long commute. NByz (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

March 24

Same-Sex marriage against nature

What do they mean that same-sex marriage is against nature, in what terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.205 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What do who mean? Algebraist 01:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

People who don't know much about nature, presumably. Nature is full of examples of same-sex relationships - notably among birds, but some species of dolphin and bonobos are also notorious. FWIW, the only "abberant sexual practice" that seems to be performed by humans and few if any other species is voluntary lifelong celibacy (as practiced in several religious orders...:) Grutness...wha? 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other species which do that, such as social insects. Algebraist 01:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all members of those species do - drones & queens mate. Exxolon (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And not all humans join those religious orders, so the comparison is a good one. --Tango (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The original statement is also inaccurate because the concept of marriage isn't a natural thing. Staying with one mate for life is somewhat common. I want to say that geese remain with one mate for life. But "marriage" is an invented concept. Dismas|^(talk) 01:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

They mean they've decided an ideal "nature" and they don't think the practice conforms with it. That's it. It has little to nothing to do with "nature" in the scientific sense (which even in the scientific sense is a problematic concept—see naturalistic fallacy, for example). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

None of these is what they mean, it is what people who disagree with them think they mean. What they mean is that same-sex marriage cannot, by nature, lead to children. If enough people were gay, then we would all go extinct because neither woman + woman nor man + man = babies. That's what they mean. It's that simple. Wrad (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on. That's the rationale, sure, but when they call someone unnatural, they're not merely making a biological assessment, they're expressing profound disgust over them. They don't call infertile people unnatural, or people who've been in accidents that have left them unable to procreate, or people who have themselves sterilized... but if you're gay, suddenly you're unnatural, even though that doesn't actually prevent you from procreating. It's hateful bullshit. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like you're doing a lot of reading between the lines. You're re-saying what they actually say in order to make it something you can despise more easily. That isn't to say that your arguments about sterilization aren't good points, its just to say that it might be more useful to you not to add things to their argument which they didn't say. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss the precise meaning of what 'they' say, it would be helpful to know who 'they' are and what exactly it is that 'they' say. Algebraist 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument comes from religous, conservative people in favor of traditional marriage, mostly. They say exactly what the questioner says they do: "same-sex marriage is against nature". Wrad (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well. Uh. If you honestly believe that you need to read between the lines in order to come to the conclusion that conservative Christians who strongly object to homosexual marriages by calling them unnatural do so in order to denigrate homosexuals and homosexuality in general, I'm not sure how to respond to that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you make assumptions like that about the people who disagree with you, then you will never be effective at changing their minds. They aren't all trying to denigrate homosexuals. That's just one argument that some pro-gay folks use to distract from the real argument being made. Wrad (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You just need to make sure you're not defeating a strawman. None of the examples you give are similar at all to homosexuals because of the supposed "choice" homosexual people make in being homosexual. Someone who's maimed or infertile or whatever are sufferers of accidents and are hardly in control of their reproductive choices in the same way. A better analogue might be people who decide to not marry, let alone have children. And, while I don't have a specific cite at hand, I'd bet those folks, especially females, were predominantly the ones to be accused of witchcraft in centuries past. Again, there's a perception of that group behaving in an unnatural way. Using a very narrow definition, the label is, well, not correct, but it does have a point. Whether it's some god telling you to "go forth and multiply" or evolutionary pressure to increase the incidence of your genes, it would seem that having kids (and a good number of them) is the "natural" thing to do. The trouble comes in when someone decides that what's natural must be what's right and anything unnatural (according to their version, of course) needs to eliminated. To me, the fact that homosexual unions typically can't lead to children means that there must be some very interesting evolutionary pressure or side-effect or something at work to overcome the simple truth that people who have many kids leave more of their genes behind and homosexuals obviously can't do that in a direct way. As a personal aside, I tend to accept what I find in nature as being natural - homosexuality included; it's just as simple as that. I don't have a supernatural concept of moral descent decline, which is what many folks choose to apply when they see things that differ from the way they "ought" to be. Matt Deres (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in practical terms, whether homosexuals can reproduce among themselves is largely irrelevant. There are plenty of gay people with children, some of whom are the product of actual intercourse, whereas others involved a coffee mug and a turkey baster, so to speak. The reproductive urge is still there, and gay people parent children all the time. (The evolutionary pressure aspect is another thing, sure.)

As for straw men, that was specifically in response to the idea that a marriage that cannot lead to children is unnatural. Clearly, not all marriages that cannot lead to children are considered to be unnatural; whether that's an actual conservative religious position can be argued, but strikes me as kind of pointless: a couple of minutes of Googling will turn up all sorts of lovely sources for what "unnatural" tends to mean in the context of religious views and homosexuality. Obviously, that doesn't necessarily represent the majority of conservative religious people, and it's even possible that some religious people are dim-witted and uneducated enough to use the word purely in a completely neutral biological context, but nonetheless, I think it's pretty telling. In the vast majority of cases, that terminology is intentionally derogatory towards homosexuals and homosexuality. It's a beard -- it lets people put down gay people while pretending that they're just being neutral, even objective about the whole thing, when they're actually nothing of the sort. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For someone who gets up in arms about people putting down gay people you sure are good at putting down religious people. And you do it just as bad or worse. Here in this very post you called them "dimwits" and "uneducated" and you are absolutely determined to have them found guilty of denigrating a group without the slightest inkling of a desire to actually understand where they're coming from. That, my friend, is called hypocrisy. Wrad (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I called religious people who believe that homosexuality is unnatural dimwitted and uneducated. That's a very specific group of religious people. (I'm also quite willing to call non-religious people with similar views dimwitted and educated, because it's a dimwitted and uneducated viewpoint.) Anyway, in general, putting down religious people for what they choose to do is not the same thing as putting down gay people in general (or black people, or the disabled, or foreigners, or blondes, or...), because religion is a choice, but being gay isn't. I think it's perfectly fine to judge people based on their actions. And I freely admit that I put down religious people who call gay people unnatural, because they're at best acting inappropriately and, in many cases, downright malicious, and given the choice between expressing my disapproval and giving my silent consent, I'm gonna go with the first option. And I understand where they are coming from, I just disapprove of it, disagree with it and think it's, at best, inappropriate and at worst downright evil. Again, my biggest objection here is to the idea that when religious people call homosexuality unnatural, it's not intended as derogatory. I think it is, and I think there's plenty of evidence backing me up there -- I mean, when you have the Pope calling homosexuality evil, how is that not derogatory? Yes, yes, you can say that the Pope didn't say that homosexuals themselves are evil, but isn't that just another form of "separate but equal" bigotry? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a chat room. If the original questioner doesn't stay around to provide additional input, this is just a discussion about related issues, by whoever decides to express an opinion on tangentially related topics. In point of fact the original questioner didn't even mention some of the things that some of you are talking about. How do you know that you are answering the question asked? The original questioner has exactly one post to Wikipedia, and it is the one starting this discussion. What the original questioner has merely done is set up a topic for discussion. I just thought I'd point that out, although it has been pointed out already, by me and by others. But, have fun; continue batting the issues about. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There are entire species of lizards composed of only females. Yes, the famale lizards have sex with each other and produce exact genetic copies of the mother. [19] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If two human females could produce a child alone, that would be relevant to the argument, but since they can't, the argument remains that, naturally, two human males or two human females can't make another human alone. What other species can do is irrelevant. Pro-gay folks always bring up homosexual tendencies of other species, and they're usually right, but that argument doesn't connect with traditional marriage folks because they see humans as fundamentally different from other species. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You can have children without a marriage and a marriage without children. Please disregard my last comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pro-gay folks always bring up homosexual tendencies of other species, and they're usually right, but that argument doesn't connect with traditional marriage folks because they see humans as fundamentally different from other species. " This is really the nub of the problem. The question is always framed by "traditional marriage folks" in an unwinnable "have you stopped beating your wife" way:

• 1:It's not natural
• 2:But animals also do it, so it is "natural"
• 1:Humans are different from animals - it's not natural for "us"

You can't have it both ways. Either what's natural for humans must be judged against the rest of nature, or humans are "different from other animals" - in which case what's natural for them can't be judged by anything other than individual subjectivity, and it's impossible to say what is "natural". Grutness...wha? 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I always felt that it had two meanings, that a same-sex relationship couldn't produce children and was against the principle of population increase but also like Mel Gibson said, "this (pointing to his buttocks) is only for taking a shit." --JGGardiner (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If the argument is simply a pragmatic one about avoiding extinction then claiming that same sex marriage is "against nature" or "unnatural" (Which is what the questioner was asking about.) is a weird way of saying that. It requires a lot of creative interpretation. If that is truly what is meant by "unnatural" in this context, then it's very poor communication, if you ask me. APL (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought "natural" is being misused for (the speaker's understanding of) "normal" in a pronouncement like this. Clearly homosexuality is "natural" in the sense that it is not artificial (unless you use special tools for the task...) What the speaker means is that same-sex marriage (or sex) is different to what they understand as "normal". Thus they project their subjective understandings onto a seemingly objective "nature", and pronounce it unnatural.

I wonder what the same folks would say (as to "naturalness") about other "non-standard" (to varying degrees) sexual behaviour? Shoe fetish? Masturbation? Paedophilia? Oral sex? Inter-racial marriages? Polygamy (or, depending on your perspective, monogamy)? What about sexless marriages, like (apparently) a significant portion of the Japanese population? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, religious people don't apply the same meaning to the word "natural" as you do. When pro-gay folks hear it, they think it must be biological...Darwin-related. This is not the case. "Natural" to a religious person is something that follows the parameters of life which God set for it. For religious people, since in their view God said that homosexuality is wrong, it is by extension unnatural. Therefore, anytime anyone does anything with their bodies which is against God's design, that act is, under this definition, unnatural. This isn't necessarily meant to be degrading (though some who say it mean it that way), and it isn't at all connected to evolution (why would an evangelical use a Darwin analogy?), it is just is another way of saying "Homosexuality is an act against God's design for nature." In this case, pedophilia, lying, stealing, whatever...they're all unnatural. Wrad (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrad, why do you assume the speaker is religious? And if they were religious, why do you assume they are Christian? There are many gods out there who are perfectly fine with deviant sexual behaviour (Leda and the swan, anyone?), and conversely there are many secular people who are just as homophobic (or at least find it "unnatural") as the next religious fanatic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Most people who use that phrase are evangelical Christians, and I am presenting the argument as they would. It only seems fair. I assume that the person asking the question was not religious, and was curious as to why someone might say homosexuality was unnatural. Mine is a very valid answer, and answering questions is our business here at the refdesk, isn't it? Wrad (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Marriage" per se is not natural, no matter how many sexes are involved. It's not found in nature; other animals may pair-bond, but only humans marry. It's the distinction between a legitimate child and a bastard that is memorialized in the term "natural child": a child born to unmarried parents is "natural", in the sense that they are born outside the man-made institution of marriage, and therefore in a "natural" state. - Nunh-huh 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, though, with Christians, "natural" has nothing to do with what animals do or don't do. A "natural" act is, to these Christians, an act sanctioned by God. Since in their view marriage is sanctioned by God, it is a natural act. Wrad (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So the problem is that the people making this claim (or at least some of them) are using the word 'natural' to mean something entirely different from what it in fact means. Algebraist 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a biased view. Everybody uses words in the way it means for them. 'Natural' does not mean anything "in fact" in anything outside a subjective sense. It has no solid meaning except as people see it, and people see words differently in different cultures. The problem is a difference in culture causing misinterpretation and cases of bigotry on both sides which results in people being completely unable to communicate because they are too busy talking about how stupid/evil/whatever the other side is. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't buy the idea that Christians who talk about homosexuality and gay marriage as unnatural don't do it to denigrate gay people -- and that's not because I'm biased, that's because the facts don't back that up. I mean, the frickin' Pope called gay marriage not only unnatural, but also evil. See for yourself. (That was the previous pope, of course, but happily enough, it was signed by the current pope, then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- who's been busily keeping up the campaign after the passing of the torch.) The Catholic Church certainly isn't all of Christianity, of course, but it's probably a fairly decent point of comparison for motivations among those Christians who make it a point to refer to homosexuality and homosexual relationships as unnatural. When the head of the Catholic Church makes proclamations like this, I think it's kind of deluded at best to claim that the Christians who talk about gay marriage and homosexuality in general as unnatural are merely making some kind of a non-judgmental biological assessment. This really isn't about people just misinterpreting the meaning of the word "unnatural" in this context. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that the Pope did not say that gay people were evil. He said that gay marriage was evil. Gay marriage is an act, not a person. That is a huge difference which I don't think you're seeing. Wrad (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That kind of disingenuous semantic trickery makes very little difference to a gay person is what I'm kinda shocked to realize that you just don't see. Or really don't want to see, I don't know. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that some people want the word "natural" to mean "approved of by me", which is, of course, not what the word means. If they doubt this, suggest they consult a dictionary. - Nunh-huh 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not where words get their meaning. Words get their meaning from their use in societies, the dictionary-writers observe how society uses them, and attempt to write it down, but of course it is different from culture to culture. To say that someone is wrong because they aren't part of your culture and aren't conforming to your culture is just the kind of bigotry pro-gay people ironically claim is on the religious side. The bigotry is thick and it flies both ways on this issue. Wrad (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are most certainly where you look to find out what words mean to other people. If you're going to use a word in an idiosyncratic manner, you are obliged to state the meaning you've assigned to it, or risk being misunderstood. If the purpose of using the word is clear communication, you will state the sense in which you are using it; if the purpose of using the term is to obscure what you actually mean, you won't. - Nunh-huh 09:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And again, what does religion have to do with anything? When a person projects their own subjective view of what is "natural" onto external nature, it matters not at all whether that subjective view of nature comes from their faith or their prejudices. It's still subjective. Being inspired by a holy book does not make one's views any more universal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion has everything to do with understanding what religious people mean when they say what they say. Your view of natural is just as subjective as theirs, and they have to learn what you mean when you say it just as much as you have to learn what they mean. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Except, of course, for the fact that - objectively - their definition of "nature" doesn't appear in the dictionary. The two cases are just not "equally subjective". - Nunh-huh 09:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you read all the links I'm giving below, 76.64, you still won't be satisfied as to what they mean exactly, but at least it will be easier to identify who "they" are, and to read where and in which context "they" use the phrase "against nature", "discard the laws of nature", etc, so here are the links to articles on Wikipedia:

Religion and homosexuality with an entire box of links to various "Relgion X and homosexuality" articles. The Bible and homosexuality might be of particular interest. For a secular "they", see also crime against nature. Typing "Against Nature" into the search box took me to Against Nature?, and to homosexual behavior in animals, summing up some of the counter-evidence mentioned above. Biology and sexual orientation is another article you might wish to read. Then, I suggest you ask "them" directly; one thing this discussion has shown is that is not always easy to explain views one does not share. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally, another person actually interested in understanding the other side and answering the question rather than making snide remarks about it. I don't myself even agree with the statement, but that's irrelevant. Wrad (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am pointing out the narrow geographical and social focus of your answer. You simply assume that the person stating homosexuals are unnatural are "religious", and that "religious" equals Christian fanatics. This is not true at all. Plenty of people hold the view referred to by the OP without being religious at all, and most religious people are neither "evangelical" nor fanatical in any way. Plus, most religious people in the world are not Christians. It is both imprecise and misleading to analyse this from the perspective of a very narrow segment of the world population, or even the English-speaking population around the world. I also object to the appeal to religion as if a religious understanding of what is "natural" is fundamentally different to, even privileged above, any other perspective on what is "natural". Every person has their own view, and some are informed by religion, others by their non-religious, ethical codes, still others by only science. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This was the reason for my first response, which alas has yet to be answered. Algebraist 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, so far, I'm the only one who's actually answered the question rather than just ridiculed and belittled the statement, so why don't you turn your criticism elsewhere. Or, even better, you could explain what it means when people who aren't Christian say it. I personally don't know of any such people, so I can't help you there. I don't see what the point of your statement that most religious people are not Christians I never said that they were. You can either sit on your buttocks and ask the IP what he meant again and again like a parrot, never getting an answer, or you can attempt the best answer you can. That's what I did, so don't attack me for actually trying to answer the question, which is what this whole refdesk is for, anyway. It's supposedly not a forum for debate. Most of the people on this thread seem very, very confused on that point. Wrad (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No. You assumed that "they" are christians and then answered that christians define "natural" based on an ability to procreate. Firstly, whether "they" are christians is not entirely clear - if the OP wants a clear answer, he/she should ask a clear question. Secondly, even if "they" are christians, we would be doing the OP a disservice by not pointing out that the christian definition of "natural" is stupid. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First, have you ever heard any non-Christian say that? Second, if you have, then please enlighten us, will you? Third, if all you have to say is that Christian ideas are stupid, then please don't bother posting. Most people here have already said that again and again and it really gets tiresome, especially when no further comment is given. Since that opinion is all over this page, I'm not sure how you can think we're dong the IP a disservice by not mentioning it. Wrad (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Anti-LGBT slogans has a small section which says the "idea dates back to Plato, who argued in the Laws I 636c and VIII 841d that homosexual sex was 'out of nature' (para phusin)." --JGGardiner (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The original post is from an IP who posted this question with no signature and who has precisely one edit to his credit. I'd surmise that he accomplished exactly what he set out to do and sees no need to expand on his original question. Maybe we should stop feeding him now. - Eron^Talk 00:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As if we needed help. We do well enough on this page on our own even without trolls. Wrad (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reflecting that if something has been labelled as "wrong/sinful" in a religious way, that doesn't necessarily make it "unnatural". I've never heard anyone describe murder, theft, bigamy, or taking the Lord's name in vain as "unnatural", but they're all contrary to the Christian commandments. (Oh, wait, the murder of Hamlet's father was described as "most foul and unnatural".) Conversely, homosexuality is supposedly outlawed in the Bible, and stoning prostitutes to death is also supported there, but they're not mentioned in the commandments. So, if someone says same-sex matters are both sinful and unnatural, they're using two separate arguments against it. Not that it makes a whit of difference to most gay people, of course. It's no more a choice to be this way than it is to be born with black hair or left-handed. The sooner people stop talking about homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice", the happier I'll be. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment: I think these reference boards should publicize a preference that anyone posting a question should also make a reasonable effort to keep themselves around to participate in the answering of that inquiry as that process wears on. Clarifications might be needed by those trying to help with providing an answer. It is not fair to everyone's time to simply ask a question and then to cease to participate. Without the possibility of further input from the original questioner, this just becomes a conversation, and not a particularly focussed conversation. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think the two articles we need linking to are state of nature and, to a lesser extent, original position. This is the "nature" that people are using when they talk about something being un-natural; a hypothetical construct of what people were like before... whatever you want to examine. Hobbes and Locke used it (first, I think) to discuss what life was like before societies were formed. While we now know from studying chimps and other apes that the state of nature they were considering never existed, they were ignorant of that information and used it very much like religious folks often use it today: to describe what life was like before the fall from grace and the ongoing degeneration of society. I think that's an important distinction to make; it is not that the religious right is using the incorrect word, it's just that they're using it according to a different meaning, which (somewhat ironically) was created by social scientists. The entire thing is wrong-footed because, as I said, we know that the so-called state of nature never existed, but it certainly did according to Christian fundamentalists. But debating the morality at play in Eden is not much use: when something is made up out of whole cloth like that, you can imagine it being however you want it to be. At that point it becomes circular: there were no gays in Eden because gays are wrong and gays are wrong because they didn't exist in Eden - oh, and just take my word for it that they didn't have any then. Matt Deres (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... Wrad (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The concept of a state of nature has been around for quite a while and, as I mentioned, it started as a phrase used by political philosophers. People educated in science who consider the idea realize that it's nonsensical, which leaves two main groups to use the term "un-natural" in this way: 1)people who reject the material fact of human evolution from apes and 2)people who haven't really considered exactly what they arguing for. The first group is largely fundamentalist Christian; there are other groups who reject evolution for some reason, but Christianity is the foremost religion in the West and that's where the idea of "state of nature" also exists, so it's partially a happenstance that they are connected in that way. You can call that philosophy wrong or evil or whatever, but the factuality of it is inarguable because you can't reason your way around mythology. The second group, who may or may not be religious, but who really haven't considered things, are simply stuck with cultural baggage that's been ingrained for hundreds of years: the concept of state of nature was taken as read by generations of anthropologists, philosophers, and political scientists, and so has taken on a vitality of its own. Those people (who use the term "un-natural" without considering what it means) can certainly still use it to prop up homophobic opinions as well, though there is at least a chance to reason them out of the position. Matt Deres (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I think this question may have just been resolved. Wrad (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these good Chinese names for me?

Are "Zhao Chengyong" or "Zhao Chengli" good Chinese names for me? I want a Chinese name that is strength and success. "Zhao Chengli" means success and strength and "Zhao Chenyong" means success and brave. I don't care about the Chinese surname. I just care about the Chinese given name right now. Which Chinese names are the best for me? I prefer "Zhao Chengli" because it means success and strength. Jet123 (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want a tattoo. Jet123 (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't help you with the actual question (the Language desk might be better suited for this, anyway), but on the off chance that you are planning to have this tattooed on yourself or apply it in some other permanent manner, you may wish to have a long and hard think about it, and perhaps check out some cautionary tales. It may not think what you think it means, and just because someone convincing tells you it's okay, that might not be the case. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL that's not what the OP asked for, but it could well be what he or she needs!

OP: each of your chosen pronunciations can mean a myriad of things, depending on the characters chosen. I presume that when you say "chengli" meaning "success and strength" you are talking about cheng as one part of chenggong (success). Together, they could be taken to mean "accomplishing strenght" or perhaps "becoming power". (The cheng character in question by itself can mean accomplish or become, among other things). Two things to be aware of: 1. both characters are fairly simple, could be viewed as a tad lacking in literary sophistication (but of course you may be going for the "Wolf" or "Bruce" effect); 2. "chengli" is also the pronunciation of "valid" (with the exact same tones), as in "this argument is valid" or "this equation is valid"; the same word can also mean "established", as in "this shop was established in 1882". Are you comfortable with those connotations? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Map of Greece and Anatolia, circa 600 BC

For the last few years I've been producing a comic set in Anatolia/Turkey, around 600 BC. Something I've always wanted to do, but never quite succeeded at, is create a political map of Anatolia, Greece and their environs as they existed in this time period. Wikipedia has been quite helpful in determining some of the borders, especially in Anatolia, but almost all of the political maps I've been able to dig up for Greece are based on the Classical Greek period, around 200 years after the time I'm interested in.

I realise what I'm doing may be very difficult due to a scarcity of sources, but I was hoping the reference desk might be able to point me to some useful resources - or even, in the best case scenario, some actual maps for this period. Thanks, chaps. Dooky (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a map [20], entitled, "The Beginnings of Historial Greece", 700 to 600 BC, from The Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1923. It shows the coast of Asia Minor, but not much more. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC) PS: There may be a copy in the library of Coventry, maybe it contains other maps of use to you. PS2: This one [21] shows Lydia, Phrygia and Cappadocia. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd come across those maps before, but it's useful to be reminded of them. The second is pretty useful, although I remember being (and still am) baffled by some of the borders on the first map. I'm especially interested in what was going on in that north eastern corner of Anatolia at the time, as it happens to be close to the setting of my story. Hmm... Thanks again for pointing me to those. Dooky (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

History repeating itself

I used the phrase in a reply and found I don't know/can't recall who said it first "History is repeating itself." Does anyone know who deserves credit for it? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea itself has, I think, been around since Biblical times; certainly Karl Marx said specifically that History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. which may be useful as a starting point at least. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Plutarch's Parallel Lives are another ancient version of the same idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In Ecclesiastes, King Solomon says "There is nothing new under the sun", which is a similar concept, even if it is worded differently. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't so snappy but Thucydides said his History of the Peloponnesian War was useful for "those who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will at some time or other and in much the same ways, be repeated in the future." That's from the Rex Warner translation. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My favorite take on this was "History doesn't repeat itself, historians merely repeat each other's words." StuRat (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

and my favorite is Mark Twain: ""History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." (though the Marx quote too is a good one). "History rhymes" led me to the article on historic recurrence, which led me to cliodynamics ... ---Sluzzelin talk 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The recurrence of history is of course a recurrent idea among historians... let's quote also Giambattista Vico, with his theory of "corsi e ricorsi". --pma (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." BrainyBabe (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

...in summer school. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Macho ranking of countries

If countries were ranked by how macho they are, what sort of position would the UK (for example) have compared with other western or european countries? I speculate that high-macho countries are less pleasant places to live. 78.146.178.204 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This question is unanswerable. "Macho" is an incredibly subjective term not subject to stastistical analysis. The only plausible answer I can come up with is Qatar - with an average of 1.87 men to every 1 woman in their population you could at least argue that it is. Exxolon (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean how macho the country itself is (as in threatening it's neighbors), or how macho the men in the country are (as in dominating the women) ? In the later category, I'd go with the Arab nations, where women are legally prevented from doing many of the things men can do. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst. I don't believe that this is due to Islam, but rather due to the Arab culture, which predated Islam (although some of the Arab values are enshrined in Islam, since the religion originated there). StuRat (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought of that when OP mentioned that it probably wouldn't be a nice place to live But, also, it could mean how macho the country forces one to be as far as rugged independence, which implies a lesser developed mation, or maybe Russia, given Siberia, the harsh winters, etc.Somebody or his brother (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And Canadia? Lumberjacks and all that... Or the Congo? Swiss Alps? Texas? (... while we are playing stereotypes...) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But, as we all know, lumberjacks in Canada like to "dress in women's underclothes", just like their dear papas. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Pakistan, a predominantly Muslim nation, and Sri Lanka and India, which have large but not majority Muslim populations, have had women heads of government/state, when many of the countries who criticise the Muslim nations for their blinkered attitudes have not done so, and seem as far from that achievement as they have ever been. Australia and the US are in that category, although Julia Gillard is only a heartbeat away from the prime ministership and she's first woman to have acted as Australian PM. For once, New Zealand has beaten Australia hands down in this regard. Canada experimented with a woman PM but I don't get that they're particularly excited about repeating it. Margaret Thatcher probably spoiled it for any future female UK PM, as they'll inevitably be compared with her. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that none of those are Arab nations. This is why I made the distinction between Arab and Islamic. They overlap, but are not identical. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan had a female head of government because of feudalism and nepotism, not because of any particularly enlightened form of Islam. Also, do you ever get the feeling that even the OPs know that these questions are stupid, and that we are being trolled? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was the macho of peoples relationships to others: self-seeking rather than altruism, emphasis on personal rights rather than responsibilities to others. I imagine that high-macho societies would have higher violent crime rates than low macho countries, and less concern with "feminine" aspects in society such as caring for the poor. Remember I am interested in Western countries. 89.243.177.130 (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a different use of the word "macho" than what I'm used to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That description seems to match the US rather well. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Geert Hofstede has a theory which categorises societies according to where they fit on 5 scales, one of which is the Masculine/Feminine scale. This map classifies cultures according to this scale: [22] --TammyMoet (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TammyMoet, the link is very interesting. I wonder how they obtained the numbers. 78.151.141.193 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

March 25

Fiction Type

Hello all! I have a question on what the heck kind of a...thing...I'm writing. It's set up almost like a screenplay or scriptment, where everything is presented in detail, save for the dialogue, which is largely paraphrased, and the inclusion of italicized, stream-of-consciousness thoughts. Some of the descriptions also tend to use very odd metaphors. So, what IS this thing? It's like a weird blend of scriptment, poetry, and novel, but whenever I try to pull it one way or the other, it just seems to lose its honesty and the message I'm trying to convey. Is this a funky new fiction type, or am I pretty much in a sinking boat? Because I really do enjoy writing it... Thanks!

Update: Thank you to everyone! I consulted with another person too and they suggested Dracula-style as well, so I'll give that a try (with my own author's voice). Thanks so much once again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.148.173 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

74.46.148.173 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a novel of a non-standard form, especially if the 'finished product' is the text itself, rather than a dramatisation, reading, or other interpretation. There are plenty of examples of novels that are not in strict narrative form: Dangerous Liaisons is a classic epistolary novel (consisting entirely of letters); Dracula is a sort of dossier of source material, including letters, diary entries, and even a transcript of an early audio recording; House of Leaves is a good example of ergodic literature (that article isn't great, but it provides additional examples of non-linear works). Good luck! AlexTiefling (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You might give the works of James Joyce a read and see how your writing compares. Edison (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Makrous (?), Saratov Oblast, 1943/45

From the testimony, written in 1946, of a Jewish girl from Poland whose family had fled eastward early in WWII: in around 1943 the family was permitted to relocate to "Makrous in the region of Saratov" where her widowed mother worked in a kolkhoz (and her two brothers were drafted and subsequently killed at the front in '44 and '45, the fate of their father in '41). I haven't succeeed in identifying a locale of this name; perhaps it's misspelled? (I don't have access to the original Russian-language document.) Suggestions welcome. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The TImes Atlas of the World spells it Mokrous. This report on the great bustard (pdf! here is the html file) has a map showing the same place spelled "Makrous". It lies on the road heading east from Engels, the road to Kazakhstan. It is just to the north-west of Krasny Kut. The atlas gives 51.15N 47.30E. The article Administrative divisions of Saratov Oblast spells it "Mokrous (Мокроус)" too. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

genocide curves

Where can I find genocide curves (graphs)? I mean by number of deaths (ie time would be x, deaths y), starting with the first deaths on the way to snowballing to the larger genocide? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.57.251 (talk • contribs)

We have an article on mass extinction. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Would that really be relevant when the question is mass deaths of humans? Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I am misinterpreting, but based on his comments to my similar question above (which prompted me to ask this one) Cookatoo may be referring specifically to Palestinians (by analogy with other extinct or soon-to-be-extinct _____)

I was not specifically referring to some arbitrarily selected group of humans, I was referring to humans (ie homo (genus)) in general. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

then I apologize (and have striken the text). In this case however your statement is doubly odd odd because genocide never refers to homo sapiens. That would be human extinction... 79.122.57.251 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The page here on genocide defines it, per the original coinage by Raphael Lemkin who introduced the term in 1943, by its intention: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. It is not merely a mass-murder body count that "snowballs" (i.e. increasing in size and weight as it gathers momentum by sheer force of gravity?); your metaphor is inappropriate as it disregards the definitive element of intent. Rather, seek and read the documents and reportage stating such intent. Then if you still found the task relevant, you yourself might construct such a chart based on dates and figures you can find through study of the genocide(s) that concern you, should such a ready-made chart not be found easily or at all. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen war casualty curves (and modelling work around it). There is (was) a website detailing the statistics of the conflict in Iraq. Have you tried searching for "statistics of genocides"? Perhaps in a social science/statistical journal? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Deborahjay - I've found stellar references for clear dehumanizing and ethnic intent against ethnic Palestinians at the highest levels of Israeli leadership, ie the way Nazi germany talked and thought of Jews there, as it started to kill them off (see my question toward the top of the page). I would like to compare the Palestinian death count over time with other historical genocides. PalaceGuard has good suggestions, but unfortunately it's somewhat outside my reach. This seems like a really simple question, I mean genocide is a problem that has seen a lot of documentation and research, anyone able to think of an appropriate reference for me?? Thank you! 79.122.57.251 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Making such a statement with without (fixing own original typo) providing the actual "stellar references" is at best hatemongering and at worst racist and/or antisemitic. Please provide the exact references which you claim prove such a genocidal intent, or your posts are likely to be removed. Making unsupported negative claims against individuals or groups of individuals is not an acceptable way to format questions or to qualify them, IMO // BL \\ (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, people, remember that Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks, ie you can't say I am "hatemongering" or "racist and/or antisemitic" when I say that I am talking about the clear dehumanizing intent at the highest levels of Israeli leadership. The reference desk is NOT a soapbox, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. If you want my stellar references you can search Google yourself using the terms I used to allude to the references, you will find them very easily. The only reason I mentioned it is to give you an idea of what I am interested in knowing about, genocide curves. However, my question has not been answered; I've only just been directed to "search journals" which is outside my capacity. Thank you..79.122.75.197 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

BL, I think we would do well to simply ignore trolling like the above by the anon. At the same time, the statistical distribution of deaths over time in calamities, of which I would say certain genocidal episodes are examples, is a topic that has been much investigated and published. Hence I recommended the OP to search some professional journals.

Thank you for your recommendation, however this is outside my easy capacities. Is there no simpler reference you could direct me to? Thank you. 79.122.75.197 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Deborahjay, a genocide does not have to start as a genocide, but the earlier murders may well, post facto, be seen as part of the genocidal episode. Was the genocidal intent present in the little random incidences of violence prior toKristallnacht? Probably not. But today we still see them as part of the whole genocidal episode. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DO you have statistics for any "little random incidences of violence"...I mean ex post facto body counts, etc, as historical genocides have been pieced together after the fact in their etyology? Thank you. 79.122.75.197 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

to the people calling me racist troll etc

First of all, Israeli leadership is not a race or ethnicity, whereas Palestinians are. So it is impossible to be racist when talking about what Israeli leadership thinks or does, and using this term about me is a personal attack and should be removed. Israeli leadership means just that: the leadership of a country. There is no inkling of racism in any of my statements.

Secondly people accused me of being a troll for "qualifying" my question with allusions that I didn't actually soapbox on about. The reference desk is NOT a place to try to convince people of anything, for me to start listing the ways in which my stellar references show the highest levels of Israeli leadership has clear dehumanizing ethnic intent of the Palestinians would be just that: soapboxing. I'm not here to start a debate. If you are interested you could simply Google it, using the very terms I used.

Israel is a country, like America, France, China, etc. Please, please, please, people, don't identify a country's leadership with its people, as the poster above did when he said claims about Israel's leadership are claims about "groups". The thinking that country's leadership=its ethnic people is the exact reason Germans would not have critized Hitler: doing so would be "anti-German".

Just my two cents. Pleaes don't make more personal attacks against me, since I am not soapboxing and not trying to convince anyone of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.57.251 (talk • contribs)

My remarks were not a personal attack at all, but purely comments on the unsupported content of what you wrote, and the possible effects of such unverified content. This would seem to me to be the definition of what a "personal attack" is not. As the Ref Desk at large seems prepared to accept both the questions and your subsequent amplifications, removals and clasifications of others' text, here and on the talk page, I am finshed with this. // BL \\ (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't much care for the question, and I am certainly not prepared to accept the wanton deletion of other's contributions based on spurious accusations of personal attacks. I've tried to restore the deleted content so there is at least a complete record here. - Eron^Talk 17:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted but only moved and you know it. The word "wanton" in "wanton deletion" (which did not happen, but only a move) is another personal attack.

What can be better-faith than moving things that BELONG on the talk page, TO the talk page, with a note?

The fact is, this is the reference desk, not a soapbox for you and others. When you cover up my question with a bunch of spurious accusations about me being a troll, hatemongering ("at best") and antisemitic ("at worst") -- when I clearly have done none of this -- in order for me not to receive an answer to my questions about history, you are pushing some absurd POV agenda to keep me from learning facts about genocides. WHY??? 79.122.75.197 (talk)

You deleted content from this page. I restored it. Material is deleted and restored all the time around here where there is question as to its suitability for the Reference Desk. The appropriate forum to discuss such things is on the Talk page. - Eron^Talk 18:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved it, leaving a note linking to the where I moved it on the talk page -- where it is much more appropriate. You moved it back then said I "wantonly deleted" content, as opposed to the truth, which is that I moved it with a note and link. Big difference. 79.122.75.197 (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

proposal to move everything but the question and answers to the talk page

I feel that so much of the above material including my responses are wildly inappropriate for this page, since my question remains unanswered and is now buried from those who would know the answer by a bunch of inappropriate needless junk. Here, I propose that the above discussions exist only on the talk page and not here as an eyesore to everyone. I propose a version like this one. Please let me know below if I have your support in moving spurious debate to the talk page, where it belongs, and leaving the (unanswered) question here. 79.122.75.197 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mozart abbreviations

As I'm going through my Mozart collection, I just discovered an unfamiliar abbreviation: a piano piece labelled "allegro and allegretto in F major, KV Anh. 135". I'm assuming that this is the same as the "Sonata in F for Keyboard" listed in Köchel catalogue with that abbreviation; but what does "Anh." mean? Talk page discussion suggests that it may mean "appendix" or "addendum", but the person posting that comment sounded somewhat uncertain, and no source is provided. Google didn't reveal anything when I looked; can someone get a good source for this? Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's almost certainly KV Anhang 135. See e.g. this. --Dr Dima (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks perfect. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely Anhang, meaning the appendix to Köchel's original list of Mozart's works. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhlans in Literature

Dear all,

I am researching a reference to the Uhlans in Pushkin's <<Метель>>. I know about Father Milon, War and Peace, etc. - but in the back of my mind lies a memory of a short story which mentions the Uhlan whose name I cannot remember.

The story involves two men who meet. One goes to the other's appartment, and there sees pictures and a uniform from when his friend was in the Uhlan, over which the friend becomes very emotional. The story is definitely in English, but I can remember very little more.

Sorry for what poor information I can provide, but I would be deeply grateful if this rang a bell for anyone!

Thanks,

86.161.65.228 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I should know whether the following suggestion is true or not, but I don't (I bought the novella but haven't got around to finishing it). The book I'm referring to is Tolstoy's Hadji Murat. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dev Patel

Hi. I reverted vandalism on Dev Patel's article and I read (after reverting vandalism) that he is referred to be British Indian. My question is: Is he considered a British Indian because of his ethnicity or because he has dual citizenship?. Thanks and forgive any spelling mistake, as you can see, I am not native. Kisses all. --201.254.73.58 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The term British Indian applies to someone who is British with Indian Ancestry, not necessarily with dual citizenship. While I have no specific knowledge of Dev Patel, since he was born in the UK it is probable that he does not have dual citizenship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Title of a late 60s/early 70s British sci-fi novel

Does anyone know the title of a 1960s/70s sci fi book in which a couple of men carry out an experiment and visit the afterlife, which appeared to be like living in rural Norfolk in the 1950s?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trellism (talk • contribs) 20:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Very flat, Norfolk. Or so I've heard. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

March 26

Type of truck?

Post office at Chisana, Alaska

Can someone identify the make/model of the pickup truck in this picture?

I don't know, but I just uploaded a much higher res version so folks can get a better look at it. If you don't get any help here, maybe try a car/truck/4-wheeler-buff forum. --Sean 12:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the better upload; I would always upload larger images, but my computer doesn't want to download the TIFFs. My only reason for asking here, by the way, was so that I could label the picture better and put it in better categories at Commons; if nobody here can identify it, I won't care at all. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought it to be a Jeep, but the headlights don't match. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

famous composer who did not know how to play any instruments well

I remember reading something about a famous composer whose only wrote music and never learned how to play an instrument beyond a novice level. Who is he? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mozart was only really good on the piano and violin, the latter of which he learned well of his own enthusiasm, surprising his father... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.197 (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So it's clearly not going to be Mozart, then, is it? 209.251.196.62 (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "composer", but it might be Irving Berlin? --81.170.13.77 (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think I remember back in high school reading something about Wagner 'playing like a composer'.
• As 81.170 points out, it depends on what you mean by composer. If you count popular music, I'm sure that there are lots. If I'm not mistaken, Sid Vicious had song writing credits for the Sex Pistols, but couldn't play well. You might want to count artists such as Michael Jackson and Madonna. Both write some of their own material but hire studio musicians to actually play the music. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between not being able to play at a professional level (i.e. not good enough to perform or record your own material) and playing at a novice level. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is, and I sense that's what the OP is asking about. One name that comes to my mind is Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Afaik, he could only play the piano. He could play it well enough to compose his symphonic works while sitting at the keyboard, and well enough to write probably the most popular piano concerto ever written as well as 3 other major works for piano and orchestra, the Piano Trio in A minor, and a whole pile of often very tricky solo pieces - but not so well that he would ever have contemplated being the soloist in the performance of any of the aforementioned works. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Puplic Relation

Define the puplice relation,Discribe Puplic relation as an inertactive process between an organization and its puplic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidkhan89 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You will probably find it easier to find information on this if you spell it public relations. Your best bet is probably to start with what you have written in your book or notes, since that will give you the definition your teacher is expecting. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mass Communication

Junaidkhan89 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Communiction is an integral part of human civilization and Culture Elaborate

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate means you can use your brain. You can actually do this very easily. Just think about the different types of communication and how people do them. The article on Communication may help you see what different kinds there are. Then, just think about what it would be like if we didn't have each. There is no reason you can't think of a few good ideas yourself.209.244.187.155 (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

facts about mexico

could you please tell me whether children in Mexican schools wear uniforms and whether or not girls get the same education as boys in Mexico. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.99.69.244 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Education in Mexico? The answer is probably in there somewhere (although, I haven't read it). --Tango (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't answer either question directly in that article. However, a few quick Google searches (such as 'school uniforms in Mexico' suggest that uniforms are widely but not universally used. As for gender equality in education, I find it unfathomable that it would not be equal (at least in the eyes of the law), and I've not searched to this end. I'm certain Google would quickly verify this, however. — Lomn 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Jewish religious beliefs about Jewish leaders

Are there special beliefs in Jewish religious belief regarding Jewish leaders? If so are these only valid "historically" (for historical Jewish leaders) or in the present day as well? I understand there can be variation in jewish religious thinking but I would like to know the basics. (This is not homework). Thank you. 79.122.75.197 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your question is too broad. What kind of beliefs do you refer to as "these" that are only valid historically? Anyway, if you are interested in the historical leaders, you can start with the articles on Moses, Joshua, Biblical judges, King Saul, King David, King Solomon; and then ask more specific questions. If you mean modern political leaders, you can start with the Prime Minister of Israel#List of Prime Ministers and folllow the links. I actually suggest you read about every one of them, as IMO no two Prime Ministers of Israel were treated the same way by the public and the press. If you mean modern (last 100 years or so) spiritual and religious leaders, you can start your reading with Abraham Isaac Kook, Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel, and Shlomo Goren to name just a few. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Death of a Salesman - Whistling in an Elevator

In Arthur Miller's play, Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman tells his son (who is about to go for a job interview) not to whistle in an elevator. Why does Arthur Miller include this as part of the play? Whistling in an elevator (even if impolite or rude) seems to be a fairly trivial matter. Is Miller using this as a device to illustrate that Willy Loman and his sons are so detached from reality that they are focusing on a trivial matter instead of more valuable interview advice such show up on time, give a firm handshake, sit up straight, etc.? Or am I reading meaning into something that isn't there? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you (or someone else using the same IP address) asked this in December of last year, and were answered at great length here. You might check your contributions' log for that date. // BL \\ (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. But the questions are different. The first question was basically what's wrong with whistling in the elevate. This question is about whether it has any symbolic meaning in regards to the Lowmans' disconnection with reality. It does tangentially come up towards the end of that thread, but by that time, it had scrolled so far up the page, I don't think many people noticed it. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There's quite an interesting analysis of this question, as part of a wider discussion of the music/whistling motif in the play, here (particularly paras 4 - 8). Karenjc 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that people sometimes overanalyze things. I'm not saying for sure that this is the case, in this instance. But I think that should be considered. Perhaps Arthur Miller is simply mentioning whistling in an elevator because it is something that captures people's interest. Maybe the mention of whistling in an elevator is irrelevant to any other factors in the story. Whistling in an elevator, the act of doing so, is an act that piques everybody's interest, at least everybody that hears of the act. I think it should be considered that perhaps Arthur Miller's inclusion of the evoked image of whistling in an elevator might not have any meaning apart from being a device that serves to capture and hold the viewer's interest. I have no expertise in this area, though I have read the play, once, a long time ago. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)