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

June 24

How long do average national leaders hold in power?

Usually how long do national leaders hold power on average? By how many inaugurations and elections. Some national leaders is short lasting John Kufuor, Ali Hassan Mwinyi, Benjamin Mkapa only ran for two elections. Some national leaders stay for a L-O-N-G time. Paul Biya is still planning to run for 2011 election, Abdoulaye Wade still plans to run for 2012 election. Do countrys run elections every 4, 5, 6, 7 years or the shifts changes sometimes? Is this possible for a guy to still hold power past 90 years old. Alot of people wants Robert Mugabe to leave, but he is so stubborn about not to hand power to somebody else, this is why he is still here. --69.229.243.248 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That would depend largely on the constitution of the nations. Many constitutions limit presidential terms to two max, and on the other hand of the political specter you have constitutions like the constitution of former Yugoslavia that have articles making certain people (Tito, in case of Yugoslavia) lifelong presidents. A lifelong president could, of course, well be president even after he/she turns 90. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to some of your other questions, some national leaders are elected on a fixed-term election and/or with a maximum number of times (US is two four-year terms, for example). If the length between elections is fixed, it is only rarely changed due to consitutional reasons - France did change from 7 to 5 year terms. If the time between elections is not fixed, there is usually a maximum - eg., the UK where elections must happen within 5 years and one month of the last. Generally, the elected person/party can chose when the election is. Of course, some leaders benefited from the suspension of elections during wars, etc. For balance here, some leaders stay on a long time, but are popular and successful - Stalin to a fair extent, and most obviously FDR in the US. Technically Mugabe is where he is because he did well enough in the election his opponent formed a coalition, therefore largely legalising his position. If the leader resigns, both he and the incoming leader with have obviously odd term lengths, since it won't be a multiple of electoral terms. In general, the population, good or bad, gets bored of any leader in a democracy. You can run for power at 90 in most places, I believe. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 07:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether the Papacy is the only elective office that has a maximum age for the voters. —Tamfang (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Parliment taxes

Having read the articles at Scottish Parliament, Scottish devolution referendum, 1997, Scotland Act 1998 and Tartan tax, i still havn't discovered what happens if Scottish income tax is varied from the UK. I understand it hasn't ever been done, but surely the procedure is known. I want to know:

If Scottish income tax was raised or lowered from UK levels, does this affect the amount of tax revenue allocated for spending in Scotland in particular (eg. Would lower taxes give worse services in Scotland beyond the change the whole UK would feel)? Or do all the income taxes for the UK get pooled and then split as normal, regardless of what each region paid?YobMod 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Page 29 of this research paper says "If the basic rate of income tax has been increased for Scottish taxpayers, the Revenue is required to pay into the Scottish Consolidated Fund an amount equal to the estimated yield of this increase from Scottish taxpayers" (and likewise for a decrease). Sections 73,74, and 75 of the Scotland Act 1998 are the relevant ones, although (like all acts) it's difficult to read practical effects out of the legal language. On the face of it, if the Scottish Government were to raise taxes, that tax increment would be raised from people "ordinarily resident" in Scotland, and would be spent entirely in Scotland; likewise a reduction would result in lower funding for Scottish services. But that ignores two important matters: firstly the Scottish Consolidated Fund receives a block grant from central government (conceived, in part, as compensation for oil revenues); and secondly there are a number of powers (and thus expenditures) that are reserved for Westminster - chief (for this purpose) is defence. I don't believe there's any legislation which determines whether that block grant would be reduced, and right now if the Scottish tax rate were varied that would be passed on entirely to Scottish expenditures (there wouldn't be a pro-rata deduction or addition to the UK defence budget). Should the time arise, these issues will have to be settled by politicians, rather than courts. Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that answers everything, thanks! I finally understand why the Scottish parliament hasn't simply gone for a lower tax rate.YobMod 11:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

International Standards

Why is everything smaller in Europe or conversely why is everything larger in the US? As the world globalizes are countries moving towards american standards? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by everything? Mountains in Europe are bigger then most of the mountains in America, if you don't count the ones in Alaska. If you are referring to things like cars, I suspect that the main contributing factor is fuel economy, since the price of gasoline has historically been 2x higher then the price of fuel in the US, or even more. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your insight, but I think it's pretty clear I'm not refering to mountains...Yes you can pick apart people's words but it doesn't really benefit anyone TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So, er, what did you mean? I feel it would be helpful if you explain what you mean by 'standards' here. (And why you think bigger is better.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of things are bigger in the US. Cars, meal servings, high school sports stadia... --Tango (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No. The United States uses pounds, ounces, feet, yards, gallons, etc... as standards. The rest of the world is not reverting back to such ridiculous standards. -- kainaw™ 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the British pint and the European metric pound are both larger than their US equivalents. So is the standard international size of writing paper. Algebraist 15:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A4 paper is longer but narrower than US letter-size. —Tamfang (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm asking in regards to size of homes, cars, seats, anything people physically occupy. It seems like americans allow more physical space for their person than other cultures. I'm wondering why in europe there isn't the same trend considering the standard of living is on par with the US in Western Europe. (And don't tell me Europeans are shorter (the Dutch are taller) or thinner (just a bit but they're catching up quickly). TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Europe's much more densely populated than the US. You couldn't physically accommodate the population of England at the density of even some suburban areas of the US, or Australia for that matter. And because land is scarce, it costs more, so most people don't have the economic freedom to try living at such densities. Most measures of standards of living don't regard having very large houses, cars, armchairs, etc, to be significant. Most Europeans don't miss those things, I guess. Many of us don't own cars at all, because our public transport is better - which is effective because of the higher population density - and many of us live in apartments or in terraced houses, because those dwellings lie conveniently close to the places we work and play. New Yorkers take a similar approach, so it's hardly a uniquely European way of life, either. Your question implies that larger is better, and that's an opinion - one not shared by lots of people. Also, you're confusing 'international standards' - a phrase with known meanings - with standards of living internationally - a wholly unrelated concept. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, mate I said standards of living and never said bigger was better. You seem to be reading a lot of deeper meaning into a relatively straightforward question. I'm just curious as to why historically this is the case and if there is any noticible trend in increased living space. Anyway, the rest of your answer is interesting. Anyone else have any insight to offer? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want more insight, ask a specific question. Excess is common in the United States. That is a given. But, it is not universal. American adults have a hell of a lot less comic books (er... graphic novels) than Japanese adults. American cities have a hell of a lot less disco bars than Brazil... well, just Rio. If you want to nitpick one specific point, then name the point. Don't use generalities and try to spur a discussion. This is not a discussion forum and attempts to start a discussion are often considered trollish. -- kainaw™ 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, not trying to be a troll ;) Specifically what I'm wondering is if there is evidence that as countries gain more material wealth the objects citizens physically occupy (cars, houses, chairs, etc.) increase in size? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

After living for a while in Europe, I returned to the U.S. for a visit and went to a steakhouse with family. Having gotten used to European portion sizes, I got full after just the salad! Then I decided to walk home like I always did in Europe. It took me 45 minutes to walk what took five minutes to drive, during which I only passed maybe 50 houses and five businesses. In Europe, you can cross an entire city of 500,000 in 45 minutes on foot. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I live in a US city of half a million and trust me, if I wanted to walk across it, you are talking at least a 5-6 hour trek. And our public transport options are terrible too. That is why so many Americans own cars. Without them, you can not really get around in a medium sized city. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Answering the second question: There is obviously a correlation between a person's material wealth and the size of the person's house, car, swimming pool, etc... This is not American. It goes back long before any white people stepped foot in the New World. No need to trudge through all the history of castles and palaces. In the United States, there was a "you've got credit" craze through the 80's and 90's. It made it very easy and very normal for a person to live well beyond his or her means. So, the possessions of a person did not accurately reflect the person's personal wealth. The economy is paying for over 25 years of mindless consumption now. I expect the days of having a Hummer and a three-car garage on a $25k/year salary are over for a while. In other countries, it is possible for the debt craze to start up and do the same thing. They aren't copying American standards. They are just being self-indulgent, which is a human standard. -- kainaw™ 00:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just about the money. A European house of the same value will be smaller than an American one (by quite a lot) and same size houses will be on a smaller lot in Europe. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears you are comparing suburban U.S. houses to urban European houses. That is not a fair comparison. -- kainaw™ 13:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that we Americans tend to be fatter than the rest of the world. We need bigger stuff to accommodate our larger posteriors. --Nricardo (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

army

what is the largest army recorded in the Bible?

Both Cyrus the Great and Darius I are mentioned in the Bible / Tanakh, but I do not recall the size of their armies being mentioned. Does that count? --Dr Dima (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How about some of the Armageddon stuff at the end? That sounds promising. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, once the numbers go above a thousand or so, then the vast majority of reports of the sizes of military forces found in ancient and medieval sources are quite unreliable. Ancient rulers almost always propagandistically inflated or deflated the numbers of their forces in their inscriptions, in order to make themselves look better, while almost everybody else was pretty much just guessing... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't remember the Bible giving any figures for very large armies, so AnonMoos' warning may not be needed, but it does for two very small ones that I recall: Abraham's army that he used to rescue Lot (318 men, Genesis 14:14) and Gideon's exemplary use of "shock and awe" tactics with just 300 men. (Judges 7:7) --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Exodus 7:4 "But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies..." you'd be into billions - frogs, biting flies, a multitude of infectious agents, locusts, hailstones, etc. Fouracross (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a bad translation (is it KJ? too lazy to check). The text is clearly referring to the children of Israel (being brought forth out of Egypt). Better translations would be "hosts" or "multitudes". The verse continues and explains the word "...my people, the children of Israel...". But nice try! --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is KJ, but the point stands: when God is on "your side" the size of the army is unfathomable, since he is unrestrained by the earthly requirements to enlist, train, feed and deploy troops. A bit of shouting and trumpeting was all that was required at Jericho ( and look what happened to Ronald Lacey, Paul Freeman, Wolf Kahler and all those Nazis when they opened the Ark). For "human" armies the numbers are vague too. Depending on the translation, 1 Chronicles 21:5 talks of approximately 1.1 - 1.6 million in Israel and Judah that "draw the sword" (whether that makes them an army or not you must decide) and 2 Kings 25 makes several mentions of the "whole Babylonian army" which is presumably huge - according to Jeremiah 46:23 the army of Nebuchadnezzar that defeated the Egyptians at the Battle of Carchemish was "more numerous than locusts", though I don't believe there are any extant records of the actual size of the army under Nebuchadnezzar. Fouracross (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the OP's question in any meaningful way, though. Just saying "God is on my side" doesn't give you an infinite army. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I wrote. The Old Testament presents an omnipotent partisan God, so in any encounter where God intervenes the size of the army potentially available to "God's side" is beyond measure. If the question is which of the historical armies mentioned in the Bible was the largest, then hopefully the second part of my answer goes some way to helping the questioner. Fouracross (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Life in Frederick II's Sicily

How was life in sicily during Frederic II reign?

 - food (arabian? byzantine? other?)
 - music (minstrels? chamber music?)
 - games, customs

EmanueleSan (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Start with Frederick III of Sicily (yes, I know you said Fred II, but they're one and the same, strangely). Also check out Kingdom of Sicily, Medieval cuisine, Medieval music, Medieval household. Middle Ages will also give you an overview of the period and provide links to articles which you might find interesting. If you have any questions following this initial research we would be happy to answer them. Gwinva (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We also have Arab-Norman culture in medieval Sicily; the original creator of the article is a bit suspect if you ask me, but it's a valid concept. There are lots of good books about medieval Sicily and Frederick II; the work of James Powell springs to mind, but I will have to check further when I get home. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In case the OP actually meant Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor he may want to read there and decide whether or not he meant the Sicilian Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily, and first Frederick II or Frederick III of Sicily, who was really the second King of Sicily named Frederick. Confused yet? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The intented subject was what the middleman of sicily did in these ages. the articles Medieval cuisine, Medieval music, Medieval household talk about France, Spain and Britain and in a very wide era. but anyway i would propose a simpler question: did the commoner in middle ages do anything different than working, eating and praying? the answer doesn't seem trivial.

EmanueleSan (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We do also have a History of Sicily which has some information, again in broad strokes, and not really focusing on the peasant history of the island. There ARE, however, several print sources listed at the end of the text, with ISBN numbers. Perhaps you can track these books down via your local library? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Frances and Joseph Gies wrote an excellent book Daily Life in Medieval Times, which provides fascinating insights into the lives of the average man on the street, which might be of some interest. It covers the whole of Europe, but should provide a good overview, and might offer some specifics. Gwinva (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Indian Population in Victorian London

Were there any Indians in London during the Victorian Era? I had always assumed that there would be some kind of population, but I can't find any information on the subject. Was there a community (small or otherwise) or are there any famous London Indians during that Era that I should be aware of? Any help would be greatly appreciated 68.55.104.114 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Historical immigration to Great Britain#Asians, there were tens of thousands of Indians living in Britain, many of whom seem to have lived in London. Algebraist 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dadabhai Naoroji was MP for Finsbury Central from 1892 to 1895. I'm sure there are plenty of other famous Indian Londoners from the Victorian era, but he sprang to mind. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Moonstone, written in 1868, mentions Indians in England. And there are some mentions in Sherlock Holmes stories. But they're usually written in (what we would now consider) racist pejorative terms. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sherlock Holmes story The Adventure of the Three Students has an Indian student studying at Oxbridge, and is not conspicuously racist (though the character is minor). AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

At least one Holmes story carries a significant anti-racist message. I think Doyle's depictions of Indians and South Asians generally reflect a little colonialism and a desire to thrill readers with exoticism (which is also apparent in his depiction of, for example, Mormons) but not racism. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It attempts to give a kind of anti-racist message -- an attempt which is somewhat undermined by Doyle's credulity in the old myth that if a white person marries a person with some black "blood", then it's possible for a child born to the marriage to "revert" to full blackness. Robert Graves recounts in Good-Bye to All That how someone tried to discourage him from marrying his first wife by telling him that she supposedly had some remote black ancestry, and therefore any child of hers might well turn out be "coal-black"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to AlexTiefling, an Indian who went on to become extremely famous took up his place at Harrow School in 1891, some 10 years before Queen Vic died. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

An even more famous Indian was a law student at UCL from 1888 to 1891, and founded the Bayswater chapter of the Vegetarian Society. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghanaian presidential election

Do Ghana allow national leaders to stand as long as they want or they only allow people to run two elections only. Jerry Rawlings and John Kufuor only ran for two terms. I was surprise to hear John Kufuor left office. Did somebody make him quit, or he himself want to quit, or by law he have to quit. Since he's only 70, if I was in Ghana, I would want John Kufuor to stay for 2009 election. I personally think JA Kufuor is a wonderful leader. Just only John Kufuor himself can only run for 2 terms or nobody is allow to run over two terms in Ghana. Similar thing is happening in Tanzania. 3 national leader changes between 1985 and now. We switch from Ali Hassan Mwinyi to Benjamin Mkapa to Jakaya Kikwete. The first leader stay for 20 years, then anyone else only stay for 10 years. Did Tanzania by law only allow poeple to run for 2 terms? Not many country in Africa limits two term elections.--72.219.133.45 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

President of Ghana says the term is "Four years, renewable once" Carmangled (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

English Bible translation for Catholic Lectionary

What English translation of the Bible is used in the Roman Catholic Lectionary? NeonMerlin 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The New Revised Standard Version, usually. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

New American Bible --Nricardo (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Two more things to add. The New Revised Standard is only used in Canadian lectionaries. There are also three editions of the New American Bible used in lectionaries due to the Vatican's concerns over gender-inclusive language. See more here: [1], [2]. - Thanks, Hoshie 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Jerusalem Bible has seen official Catholic use here in the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

June 25

Army inflation/deflation

I have noticed that many historical works seem to offer gross exaggerations when discussing army sizes in battles of the middle ages and such. Is this caused because most people of that time sucked at counting, or were poorly trained in arithmetic, or were they lying, or didn't care about accuracy or what? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's because times may change, but human nature doesn't. It's about spin. Josephus is one of the most notoriously unreliable reporters of figures. "History is written by the winners" and the winners wanna look good. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And its not even clear which direction a leader may inflate his numbers. In one case, a leader may inflate his army size to intimidate his opponents or impress later historians "Look at how good a leader I am, I command an army of millions". In other cases, one may inflate the numbers of ones opponents OR deflate the size of ones own army to give an even greater sense of ones personal contribution to the battle, see Battle of Thermopylae or Battle of Agincourt. Certainly, these were lopsided engagements, but they were probably not as lopsided as the original stories go. The concept of "history as journalism", that is the purpose of history as being to record the facts of a situation, is a fairly modern concept. Most of the time, it was "history as propaganda". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We just had a similar question recently, on April 22. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said in response to the army-size-in-the-Bible question directly above, "once the numbers go above a thousand or so, then the vast majority of reports of the sizes of military forces found in ancient and medieval sources are quite unreliable. Ancient rulers almost always propagandistically inflated or deflated the numbers of their forces in their inscriptions, in order to make themselves look better, while almost everybody else was pretty much just guessing".

In ancient times, some specialized scribes had a highly-quantitative accounting mentality with regards to such matters as land-surveying and tax-collecting, and there were a few scientists (mainly astronomers) who routinely handled fairly complex mathematics involving fairly large numbers. However, the vast majority of the population generally simply didn't care about distinctions between large numbers -- they lacked the skills that would be necessary to determine whether 10,000 or 100,000 would be the more accurate estimate of the size of an army, and they weren't too interested in that type of numerical accuracy.

For the propagandistic aspect of official royal inscriptions, see Battle of Kadesh, where (unusually) we have accounts from both sides of a battle. However, the Egyptian and Hittite accounts are difficult to reconcile, and some scholars were reduced to arguing that there must have been two battles of Kadesh. Some of the accounts of Biblical events where we have testimony from both sides are similar; Sennacherib's account of his campaigns and the Biblical account in 2 Kings chapter 18 agree on the one single fact that Sennacherib did not capture Jerusalem, but otherwise the details are different, and Sennacherib's inscription presents his campaigns as an unqualified glorious victory. Similarly, the account in the Mesha stele has a somewhat boasting tone, and it's difficult to fully reconcile all its details with the Biblical account of Mesha... AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fidel as Roadkill?

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7zf3cUPAa8

638 Ways to Kill Castro

From 01:29 to 01:46:

• Ike: 38 failures.
• JFK: 42 failures.
• LBJ: 72 failures.
• Dick: 172 failures.
• Carter: 74 failures.
• Reagan: 197 failures.
• Bush (dumb): 16 failures.
• Clinton: 21 failures.
• Bush (and dumber): 6 failures (as of 2006).
• The Mighty O: Who knows?

Did Gerald Ford ever made even ONE decent attempt to kill Fidel Castro? The attempts known to this movie are counted only according to the date of the attempt. In addition to CIA sponsored tries, an assassin sent by an unrelated party (e.g., Britney Spears) is counted as one under then current U.S. administration. Didn't anyone try to kill the cigar smoker during the 1974-1977 period? -- Toytoy (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be keen to see the evidence that Britney Spears attempted to assassinate Fidel. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1) You're assuming that a 30 second YouTube video is a reliable source 2) You're assuming that the attempts listed are exhaustive. If you listen to the related Fox News discussion (yes, Fox News is considered reliable compared to this documentary) then they are clearly including attempts that were "thought of". DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are very few situations in which I would consider it 'decent' to attempt to murder someone and I certainly do not consider this as one. Hopefully Obama will also be a wimp by your standards. Dmcq (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

With Fidel now, why bother trying to kill him? He is pretty irrelevant. Now Chavez... 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm put in mind of Tito's letter to Stalin '"Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle... If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second.", which seemingly stopped that tyrant's attempts. Dmcq (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Uncle Joe still got Trotsky in the end...or was it really Stalin behind that? Rhinoracer (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well from the above I'd guess the only reason Uncle Sam didn't try killing him was because Uncle Joe wanted to. Dmcq (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

United States policy seems to prohibit assassination except under certain circumstances. See here: [3]. 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo composite

Hi I'd like to know what this process is called. Imagine a page filled with lots of small head shots " pictures of human faces" when you squint your eyes your see another image. This is image is made up by using the highlights and shadows of the smaller head shots. The image could be a company logo or another face or icon of some sort.

Best!

Photomosaic. Algebraist 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First Queen of Jordan in public

Who was the first queen of Jordan to have played a public role in society? In the mid 20th-century, queens in muslim countrys started to lay a public role: there was Soraya Tarzi in Afghanistan (1920s), Tadj ol-Molouk in Iran (1930s), and queen Farida of Egypt (1940s). Who was the first queen in Jordan to play such a role? --85.226.40.64 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way: I understand Lalla Salma is the first royal consort to play a public role in Morrocco?--85.226.40.64 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say without a precise definition of what constitutes a public role, but in Queen Alia, the third of King Hussain's four wives you will find a likely candidate. Princess Muna al-Hussein, his second wife, was and still is involved in promoting nursing in Jordan and Queen Noor, his last wife, continues to work on a wide range of issues, but it was Alia who really began to develop the public role of the Queen of Jordan. She helped secure women's suffrage in Jordan in 1974 (though implementation was delayed until 1989), was a benefactor of the arts and the poor - with a particular focus on women and children - and, after her death in a helicopter crash in 1977, Hussein continued to implement various humanitarian and cultural programmes on which she had started work. She is somewhat later than the examples you give above, but Jordan has only existed as a country since 1946 and Hussein ruled from 1952. Fouracross (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the OP is correct about Lalla Salma. However, King Hassan II's daughters, especially the eldest Lalla Meryem, played a public role for years in Morocco, including charity work and acting as hostess for visiting first ladies. They are the ones who established a precedent for a female member of the royal family having a public profile. --Xuxl (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! So the queens before queen Alia lived more secluded? Queen Zein al-Sharaf Talal seem to have been very influential and is called modern in her article, but perhaps she did not show herself in public, but rather worked from behind the scenes? (She is said to have given "full rights" to women, but it does not precise eaxctly what rights?)Thanks for the clearifying of Morrocco, I was not sure! What about the queen of Iraq? Iraq was a kindgom until 1958, I believe? --85.226.44.143 (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem I was talking about in defining a public role for the Queen. Zein al-Sharaf Talal was certainly influential in Jordan's political development (probably more so than her husband) and worked for charitable causes both before and after Talal's short reign, but whether that established a public role for what you might call "the office" of Queen of Jordan comes down to your definition. She certainly didn't live a life of seclusion. Fouracross (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is true of course. A "public role" can also be defined simply as a person visible in official ceremonies and events: in muslim countries, the royal consort traditionally lived hidden from the public eye in the private home of the monarch, and did not show herself to the people, even if she had influence in politics and engaged herself in various matters, and therefore, to merely show herself unveiled in public at public events would be quite a big difference from how it was before. Did Queen Zein ever do this?--85.226.40.22 (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. She wasn't at all retiring - she was the chairman of the Regency Council that bridged the end of Talal's reign to the majority of Hussein and she was also involved with the previous regency after the assassination of Abdullah. By the second definition you have given, Zein would be a better fit than any of Hussein's wives, though whether any of Abdullah's wives fulfilled this type of public role, I couldn't tell you (that we don't hear much about them suggests not). Fouracross (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. If she did live a visible ad official life, then she would be the first Queen in Jordan to have played a public role. This should perhaps be mentioned in her article. Perhaps she was the first to have been seen withouth a veil? If so, it is significant enough to be mentioned in her article. If she was the chairman of the regency, she could be counted as regent, which is not made fully clear in the article, so that should also be added. Thank you very much, your answers are most helpful! --85.226.44.117 (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobility and royalty in witch trial

Are there any example in Europe of royalty or high nobility to have been openly accused, trialed (and, perhaps, executed) for sorcery? --85.226.40.64 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Joanna of Navarre wife of Henry IV of England was found guilty. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacquetta of Luxembourg, mother of Elizabeth Woodville, was tried for using witchcraft to force Edward IV of England to marry her daughter. She was found not guilty. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Athenais de Montespan, mistress of Louis XIV of France, was accused of witchcraft, but I don't know if she was actually tried. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn wasn't convicted of sorcery. Tempshill (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The question concerned trial, not necessarily conviction. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Our article Anne Boleyn doesn't mention any trial for sorcery, either. Tempshill (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Eleanor Cobham. AndyJones (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Among his crimes,I believe Giles de Rais was accused of sorcery...Rhinoracer (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There was the Poison Affair in France that involved many several members of the nobility and other important individuals in the French court. (Poisoning and sorcery were closely related in the public mind). La Voisin wasn't herself noble, but many of her clients were. - Nunh-huh 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

During the reign of Christian IV of Denmark (who was nuts about witch trials), the noblewoman Christenze Kruckow was executed for witchcraft. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How interesting! I did not realise they were so many, I had the impression that it was extremely unusual for someone of rank to be oppenly trialed for such a thing. Though it seems that people of rank was at least given milder sentences? Or perhaps there are royalty to have actually ben executed for sorcery as well? --85.226.44.143 (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacques du Molay, that Baphomet-worshipping miscreant, got a good dose of French justice: his own barbecue.

holocaust denial

holocaust denial has often been associated with neo-Nazism, but what surprises me slightly, is that one doesn't see neo-Nazis who have such a complete absence of common humanity that they don't deny the holocaust but think it was a good thing. Are there sick individuals like this? Is there a name for it? Porch goat (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

they certainly exist. "Fascist", or "inhuman" are the only words I've ever heard used to describe such people --Saalstin (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't looked closely at their stuff, which I suppose is no bad thing. They often deny the holocaust and say it was a good idea and the Jews deserved it at the same time. There's no special term for it because it is extremely common amongst neo-Nazis. Dmcq (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Irrational philosophies like neo-Naziism are not necessarily internally consistant. Don't expect people who adhere to such irrational philosophy to suddenly find a problem when such consistancies are pointed out. "You cannot reason someone out of a conclusion they did not actually arrive at via reason." Or something like that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

June 26

Feeling personal attachment towards footwear

Some people name their shoes and get attached to them, as if they were their friends, and refuse to throw them out. Is this attitude more common among women, and is this part of the stereotype about women and their shoes or not?

Huh? I'd like to see the evidence that this actually happens, for starters. // BL \\ (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a male computer nerd and have felt that way about shoes (grungy old hiking boots as it happens). I didn't give them names though. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that attachment to boots is not that uncommon, I have already met a couple of men with this problem.--Mr.K. (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a simple example of sentimentality to me, rather than anything specific to footwear. --Tango (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on Shoe fetishism, however what you're talking about doesn't sound worrying unless they wear them in bed :) Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A different Richard Southern?

It strikes me that the author of this bibliography is not the Richard Southern of the Wikipedia page (here plus several interwiki). My Google search hasn't revealed anything substantive about the one who writes on theatre history. I've queried on the Talk page, suggesting that the medieval historian might suitably be referred to as Richard W. Southern with at least a disambiguation page noting two similarly named published academics. At this point, I'd appreciate help on investigating this further. -- Thanks! Deborahjay (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. The Library of Congress authority file (official site here, but more easily searchable via WorldCat), also recognises these authors as two different people:

• Southern, Richard (lccn-n50-21642) is the theatre historian.
• Southern, R. W. (Richard William), 1912- (lccn-n50-21643) is the mediaevalist.

WorldCat lists one library holding about the theatre historian: the Richard Southern Print Collection at Bristol whose website you already linked to. The Bristol website includes a biography and reproduces an obituary from The Independent. Searching LexisNexis for August 1989 also finds obituaries that were published in the The Times (4 August) and The Guardian (7 August), so it looks like there's enough source material for a short article on him. EALacey (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that titles of articles about authors should reflect the names that they used on their publications (cf. C. S. Lewis, T. S. Eliot, H. G. Wells). Since the medievalist invariably published as "R. W. Southern," I'd recommend moving Richard Southern over the redirect at R. W. Southern. Then an article about the other guy could be created at "Richard Southern" (if it's determined that he's notable), and hatnotes could be added for cross-referencing. Deor (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just made a redirect from R.W. Southern the other day...it was unusual to see his name without the W. and I never thought to make the link that way. I think Richard W. would be fine, but Deor is right, his name is invariably "R.W." Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can countries declare bankruptcy?

Definition according to WP:

• Bankruptcy is a legally declared inability or impairment of ability of an individual or organization to pay its creditors. Creditors may file a bankruptcy petition against a debtor ("involuntary bankruptcy") in an effort to recoup a portion of what they are owed or initiate a restructuring. In the majority of cases, however, bankruptcy is initiated by the debtor (a "voluntary bankruptcy" that is filed by the insolvent individual or organization).

Mr.K. (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In bankruptcy an individual or organisation has their financial affairs supervised by a court. There is currently no international court with powers to exercise such financial supervision over a country. Our article on default (finance) says "Sovereign borrowers such as nation-states generally are not subject to bankruptcy courts in their own jurisdiction, and thus may be able to default without legal consequences ... In such cases, the defaulting country and the creditor are more likely to renegotiate the interest rate, length of the loan, or the principal payments." Gandalf61 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Countries don't declare bankruptcy, as such, they just default on their debts and the only thing anyone can do about it is not lend them money in the future (this is a significant deterrent, though). There is no way to compel a sovereign nation to pay up. --Tango (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bankruptcy has become a shorthand way of saying the phrase "Bankruptcy protection" This definition is somewhat new, under the literal meaning of the word, the term bankruptcy is merely a synonym of sorts for "insolvency". When you declare yourself bankrupt, you are merely notifying your creditors that you will not be repaying them. Anyone, even national governments, could default on their credit obligations and thus be "bankrupt". Many governments, such as the U.S. government, have provided bakruptcy protection laws which protect bankrupt individuals from being destroyed by the condition, and which also provide means, such as bankruptcy courts, for there to some sort of remediation availible to creditors. But concepts such as "state bankruptcy" do exist, even if there is no "supranational bankruptcy court" to preside over any sort of remediation hereing, the term "state bankruptcy" is in common usage to refer to the insolvency of a national government. We do have a fairly new article titled National bankruptcy which needs some help, but there are LOTS of examples of state-declared bankruptcies; for example that of Philip II of Spain, of Denmark in 1813. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "bankruptcy" is used that way when people are speaking very loosely, but as a legal term it is a state that can only be declared by a judge. There is a difference between insolvency and bankruptcy in that respect. --Tango (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In short, a country can declare bankruptcy whenever it wants. That declaration does not appear to much in the way of legal ramifications however, since it can also default on its loans whenever it wants without such a declaration. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Has a country ever used the word "bankrupt" to describe itself? Usually they do their best to make the default look like something else (no-one is fooled, but they try!). --Tango (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a confusion here between states and countries. States can default on their debt : if you don't give any formal legal meaning to the term, they go "bankrupt", as they cannot pay what they owe. Countries do not have any legal existence : in legal terms, they do not exist. So they cannot go bankrupt. --Gede (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Most prolific Britannica author

Who has written the most articles for the Encyclopedia Britannica? --69.113.82.135 (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

William Smellie would be a good contender - as the first editor, he borrowed shamelessly from other works to compile the encyclopedia. Christine Sutton was apparently the most prolific contributor to the 2007 edition with 24 articles. Fouracross (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

conservative Catholic bishops

About 60 Catholic bishops publicly opposed the President Obama's speech at Notre Dame Recently. Is there a list somewhere of these bishops? --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to look too far [4] Fouracross (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, that was just what I needed. --Halcatalyst (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a list of US American bishops, a country where politicians - specifically presidents - have chosen not to stress a separation of Church and state (so help me God). --62.47.146.184 (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Ooops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

They sound more "activist" or "radical" than "conservative." Edison (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Salary on Think tanks

Do think tanks pay better than newspapers?--88.1.123.111 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That depends on what job you are doing in each. There isn't an obvious correspondence between the levels in one and the levels in the other. It also depends on the relative size and prestige of the think tank and newspaper. --Tango (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I thought that since the requirements are equivalent, the salary could be equivalent too.--88.1.123.111 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Requirements for what? The prerequisites for making the tea at a local newspaper are very different the prerequisites for heading up a major national think tank. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tango would be correct even if he was more generous about trying to interpret your question correctly. Plus currently print newspapers' business has gone to hell because of the Interbanet, and a lot of journalists have been laid off, so the supply of talent is currently clearly larger than the demand, which must mean that salaries at newspapers are not going to rise for a long time. Tempshill (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave an intentionally extreme example to make a point, but as I said in my first reply there is no obvious correspondence between the jobs in each industry, so I can't possibly interpret the question any better. --Tango (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Zanele Dlamini

What year will south African first lady birthyear be like. Since Thabo and Zanele mbeki marry in 1974, then Zanele is likely going to be Thabo's 20 year junior, for Zanele to be at least 15 years younger I thought. I'm guessing Zanele should be born in 1960s. Ana Paula Santos is born on October 17, 1963 is junior of jose by 21 years.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:Guessing at the birthdates of people is a fruitless and pointless exercise. Every day or so, you ask a question about someone's birthdate, and then go through a long bizarre method of deriving a supposed birthdate, and then ask someone for confirmation of your weird deductions. If you want to know someone's birthdate, seek out an official biography somewhere. I don't see where these questions of yours get anywhere here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He does often get help here, and I assume (and hope) he's subsequently improving the Wikipedia articles about these persons. Tempshill (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. That was uncalled for by me. I guess I was in a sour mood. I should not have been so rude about that. Please accept my apology. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

June 27

Popular reaction to antisemitism in nazi germany

I am looking for anything on the popular reaction to nazi agressions of the jews. I've read somewhere around wikipedia that the attacks of the SA against jews were not popular. What did the general public think about the nurember laws ? About concentration camps ? About the final solution ? Cold Light (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See German resistance and related articles. Bear in mind that german peoples opinions may have been swayed by domestic Nazi propaganda. In a totalitarian state with no freedom of speech or freedom of the press, people tend to think what their told to think. Willy turner (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise looking for multiple respected opinions on this before forming your own. I've looked into this a few times over the years, and some historians insist the German people were totally devoted to Hitler until the bitter end, while other's claim they were more like collaborators, going along with him out of fear, not respect or adoration. Whether the antisemitic actions were a reflection of a minority or the majority (even given the propaganda element, which further skews interpretation) is very much still debated. Add in the fact that Germans tend to claim post-war that Hitler was the root of all evil, and that they were unwillingly dominated by him possibly as a national coping mechanism, and finding meaningful answers is very hard. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that people "tend to think what their [sic] told to think" in a totalitarian state, it's that there is not a lot of opportunity for different actions. If you spoke up or protested in even the most minor way, poor fortunes would await you. One nice example of this is when the Nazis took over the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, full of scientists, many of whom were not fans of the anti-semitism at all. Hitler had them do things like sign petitions saying how great Hitler was, taking loud and public oaths to how great Nazism was, publicly salute the flag and etc. If you had reservations, if you disagreed—it would go on your record, and that could be used against you in the future. In this way, partial collaboration in the Nazi activities by anyone who didn't or couldn't flee the country was assured.

Keep in mind that of the things you've mentioned, about half are public and half are secret. The general public had some inclining (and a lot of fear) of camps (they could be sent there themselves), but that they were specifically being used as death camps (rather than just labor camps or prison camps) was not so obvious. (Consider that the US also had "concentration camps"—e.g. Manzanar—but they weren't being used as death camps. Just because you have camps doesn't mean you have a final solution.)

But as User:Prokhorovka points out, this is a highly contentious matter and one of the great, great debates amongst professional historians. How much did the German public know, how much were they complicit? There are a lot of very well-argued answers to this that disagree with each other entirely. Because of the nature of the Nazi state, actual polling, or even things like party membership, etc., are useless indicators. Even someone who was an active member of the Nazi party might have been doing it to save their own skin alone or to save their job. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Although it's a complicated issue, anti-Semitism was at least a part of the views the Nazis campaigned democratically on. Some, but (importantly) not all, of Hitler's and the Nazi Party's views towards Jews was known, when people voted for them. SA attacks had started before Hitler's chancellorship in a capacity - although I'm not sure whether some of these were anti-Semitic. While not all plans were known, some of them were. I forget exactly what is said in Mein Kampf on this issue, but our article certainly says it had anti-Semitic elements to it: "In Mein Kampf, Hitler uses the main thesis of "the Jewish peril," which speaks of an alleged Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership. The narrative describes the process by which he became increasingly anti-Semitic...". Hitler did win votes, so those people either didn't understand his views or at least were prepared to put up with anti-Semitism. We're talking around 45% of the voting public voting for Hitler in normal democratic elections. That may help you to draw answers. Of course, people's views change. There must have been people who were happy to have Jews discriminated against, but not killed. Reaction to different events or ideas would have been different. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a different thing to be anti-Semitic and to be genocidal. (As a parallel, there are plenty of people in the United States who would describe themselves as "anti-immigrant." But very few of those people would want them rounded up and actually shot.) The most common German sentiment I have seen written about is the idea that they thought Hitler would mellow over time, or that his policies would not be nearly as radical as his rhetoric. These are not ridiculous notions—they are true in almost all political situations. The Third Reich was not exactly business as usual, politically speaking; they are one of the few (only?) examples of an advanced industrial democracy transforming into a completely centralized totalitarian state. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If that's a reply to me, that's not what I was saying. The question was everything anti-Semitic, from the minor to genocidal, and this must include measures which people knew about and voted for. Good points on rhetoric, though. I'm not suggesting people were voting for genocide, far from it, but by the laws of probability, some would have known and approved of some policies when they voted for them. As a bonus, parties weren't going to mention unpopular policies, so if you look at what they were offering, as it were, you can gauge what they thought would be popular, to a fair extent. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 20:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, though I'd always heard (ie, I found a good level of agreement on this) that a good portion of the German population believed the more racist policies of the Nazis to be the more racist wing speaking, and that Hitler would move towards the centre once elected (a not uncommon thing for elected leaders to do). Also, one must remember the lack of serious possibilities to lead Germany circa 1932, the country was in a bad way and almost all political parties were too. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's controversial book, Hitler's Willing Executioners contains much source material of relevance to this question. The book's title says it well, but if I may generalise a complex book into a trite half sentence, Goldhagen does not believe there to have been popular opposition to the persecution of the German Jews. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty dresses

For lack of a better headline. :P

What is it called when fabric is woven so that it shines in two colors, like this? I seem to recall how you do it, which is that the warp and weft (horizontal and vertical threads) are just different colors, but what's the name of the technique? Or to be more specific, how can I go about google-searching for more of it? --Masamage ♫ 01:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Iridescent fabric" turns up many Google hits involving fabrics of the type you're looking for, some even stating that they're made in the manner you describe. The humanities desk doesn't seem the right place for this question, though. Deor (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try "taffeta", though not our article of the same name, which has no sources and no pictures (sigh). // BL \\ (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

When I was growing up in 1970s UK, two-tone trousers and Crombie coats were all the range. I thought someone had trademarked "two-tone" as a trade name for this fabric at the time. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's "shot taffeta". (Taffeta is just the type of fabric weave; shot refers to the variety with differing colours.) Can come in a variety of fibres: the luxury version is made with silk, but you can get it in synthetic fibres. A similar effect is gained in chambray: a cotton with white/unbleached in the weft, and colour in the warp, but it's not iridescent. Since this is a reference desk, I'd better find you references: shot taffeta cf. taffeta and chambray. Gwinva (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fabric stores may describe it as "changeant" which is just French for "changing". It most commonly comes in silk (or substitutes). It requires fairly thin yarn and close weave to achieve the affect, with warp and weft the same thickness. Taffeta is the name of the weave pattern used. There is depressing little about this, both in Wikipedia and in Google. - KoolerStill (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Faaaantastic! Thank you, that gives me a whole lot more to go by than I had before. :) --Masamage ♫ 19:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Have John Kufuor met Daniel Arap Moi ?

<BLP violation removed> Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The original question was asking whether two African presidents had met, and then complained about their rule. (Which I'm not sure was a BLP violation, though it is certainly soapboxing). The more interesting general question was asked about whether most leaders in Africa were "good or bad." That's a pretty big question but one that has been asked before—African nations have had some notoriously poor leaders (defined in their ruthlessness, corruption, and anti-democratic ways, for example), and the exact reason for that probably lies somewhere in the general poverty of the continent, its unfortunate colonial history, and it general lack of strong democratic and reform-minded institutions. Still, this is a vague answer, and plenty of more qualified people have written entire books on the subject. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

books or films which significantly contributed to social change?

for example, a book about racism which sparked national debate and led to change in mindsets and laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.226 (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin. Tempshill (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you're looking for examples from any country, then Cathy Come Home is often cited as having made a significant contribution to a change in British public attitudes towards families with social and economic problems, particularly those caused by unemployment and homelessness, and towards the taking of such families' children into the care of the authorities. Karenjc 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And some of those listed here may be of interest. Karenjc 16:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks a lot. i forgot to mention, i particularly appreciate examples where there were attempts at censoring the publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.226 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems led to a theological debate and a trail on charges of heresy - see Galileo affair for details. Of course, heliocentrism is now the accepted truth. Astronaut (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...and the propoganda films made by Leni Riefenstahl in the 1930's no doubt contributed to the consolidation of power by the Nazis. Astronaut (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of controversial books that led to forms of social change one way or another. Perhaps if you are a little more clear about what your intention is, we could be of more help. Otherwise this will just be a poorly organized listing of important books. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle had a lot to do with federal food safety laws... AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Silent Spring led to a wave of antipesticide sentiment and contributed to the evvvvvvvvventual popularity of organic produce. Actually our article says it's popularly credited with helping start the environmental movement itself. Tempshill (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cry, the Beloved Country and apartheid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the TV miniseries Roots, which generated astounding viewership ratings, had an impact in the perception of African-American history among both blacks and whites. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

i am writing an essay about censorship. one of my points is that censorship prevents open discussion which is needed for society to progress. so i need examples for this argument. here, there was this movie criticising the government and education system, and people expected it to be censored, but the government reformed the education system instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.254 (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In almost all of these cases though you are talking about works that ended up undermining the government that was trying to censor them. That's not the kind of "progress" that a censoring government wants. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Origin of Species is still promoting debate and changing mindsets. Steewi (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Common Sense (pamphlet)? Tempshill (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Beauty apparently had a direct effect on British cultural attitudes towards cruelty to horses, and subsequently (it would seem likely) to other animals; it seems to have prompted changes in laws regulating horse-drawn taxi cabs (benefitting the horses), which likely led on to more general animal welfare legislation. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Indian man/child who, though alive, was officially dead in public records as a result of a family member trying to scam money

Can anyone recall the case above? It was several years ago - can't be more specific than that - but I'm hoping one of you can. My memory might have embroidered the details, but I think the person in question was also having trouble getting the labyrinthine govt. system to have him declared alive, despite that he was standing there talking to them.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that was Lal Bihari. See also No. 6 here. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're the man, Jack, thanks so much. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ceremony when a tribe wants the new technology of an explorer by praying to god/gods

Many inferior tribes and civilizations have a ritual or ceremony when they meet an explorer and do not understand the technology that they have is man made. they believe the technology (such as rifles) to be gifts from gods, in response they then do a ritual or ceremony.

what is the term used to describe this?

i think it is two words and has culture or ceremony used in the phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.118.125 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You might be looking for cargo cults. Algebraist 23:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to avoid 'inferior' in this context. I also understand that cargo-cult practice is quite rare, so your assertion that 'many ... tribes and civilisations have a ritual...' might benefit from being revised. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I expect you mean "technologically inferior". You really should specify that, otherwise it looks rather racist. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarke's Third Law may also be relevant. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

June 28

Earlier ancestors of the Families of Brabant and Hesse

Can anybody tell me who were they? They are obviously Frankish/Neustrian counts.

1. Count Brunulf I in Neustria
2. Count Aubri I in Neustria
3. Count Walter I in Neustria
4. Count Walter II in Neustria
5. Count Albo in Neustria
6. Mainer, Count of Sens, d. 800
7. Gainfroi, Count of the Maasgau,
8. Gilbert I, Count of the Maasgau, d. 842
9. Gilbert II, Count of the Maasgau, 825–875

What do you want to know about them? A google search turns them up in a variety of genealogy sites, of which this seems the most useful (and cites its source as Burke's Peerage, which is reputable). Our article Neustria offers a bit of political background to the area; we hear a little about Brunulf here in a discussion of Dagobert I's reign. (Brunulf appears to be the uncle of Dagobert's half-brother.) Gilbert gets a passing mention in this book. You migt find similar pieces of info by googling some of the names yourself. Gwinva (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How do germanic and latin europeans 'behave differently'?

People seem to think that they do.--Bored of the world (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt to group people together like that are destined to fail dismally. Every individual belongs to all kinds of groups divided along all kinds of lines and those classifications will all have an influence (of varying degree depending on the classification and the individual) on what kind of person they are. To pick one specific classification and consider it in isolation is never going to get particularly meaningful results. --Tango (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

True. So why would someone hold such a belief, just stereotyping?--Bored of the world (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Stereotypes do usually have some basis, but only on a large scale. Applying them to individuals is meaningless. --Tango (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst stereotypical, there is a view that the butter/olive oil line (also the Protestant/Catholic line) functions as an honest/corrupt line, as seen here. Recent revelations in UK (a hodgepodge of german, latin, viking and celtic europe) politics may suggest that such a line is meaningless, of course --Saalstin (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget other similar European lines like the Beer/Wine line as well; however such differences are likely more botanical than cultural (i.e. barley and grapes grow in different climates; just as olives and cattle grazing land does as well). However, such difference have NO bearing on individual personality traits, and any claims that they do should be taken with serious suspicion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Who discovered coffee?

From sentence 4 at coffee: "Coffee was first consumed in the ninth century, when it was discovered in the highlands of Ethiopia." Who discovered it, and how do we know? (And can you add the answer to the article.) Thanks! Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 01:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, it was discovered by people living in the highlands of Ethopia in the ninth century. There may not have been any known first discoverer who documented his findings; rather it is far more likely that the earliest archeological evidence we have that coffee was consumed was in artifacts dated to the ninth century, and located in the highlands of Ethiopia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• thank you for your help ... but I was looking for a reliable source so I could improve the article. I'll post the question at the coffee talk page. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 03:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The discoverer may also not necessarily be male.174.3.103.39 (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you even look at the article? The statement is not only referenced to a reliable source in both the lead and in the text of the history section AND in the article History of coffee, but it is elaborated on, and THOSE elaborations are also referenced. It is quite well sourced! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've responded at coffee, but the upshot is, the statement is patently false, regardless of how well sourced it is; the reliable source I'm looking for would have to say something more credible. I've found six sources on google books and posted them there. Thanks. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 18:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we seriously considering that a single individual first discovered the coffee plant, or that we could know who it was? Mac Davis (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Trieste Rivers

Where are the rivers Arsia (today Rasa)?174.3.103.39 (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We seem to lack an article on it, but doing a search [5] seems to indicate the river is mentioned in many articles. The modern (Croatian) name seems to be the Raša River, while the earlier Italian name seems to be the Arsia River. Here is an external article about the modern town of Raša, which is presumably located on said river. There's a picture of the river in the article: [6]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The river can be seen in this map of Istria. --Cam (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A question about the FBI, CIA and the Armed Forces

Can the FBI arrest a person? and CIA? and the Armed Forces?. Or... must they call ordinary Police to do it? --190.50.115.132 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I know of them, the FBI is basically a special police unit, so they definitely can. The CIA are a small wing of the army whose job it is to do bad things behind enemy lines (among other things), so almost certainly not. I suspect the military don't have arrest powers either, however if the concept of a Citizens Arrest exists in the US then members of the CIA and Army would sure be in a good position to use it, seeing as they could likely beat up and detain any member of the public. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The CIA is not part of the army. The military has their own intelligence departments: Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency, United States Army Military Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Activity but they do not have arrest authority. But the military can in some situations detain people as POW's or "enemy combatants" without arresting them. The U.S. military is restricted from domestic law enforcement activity under the Posse Comitatus Act (although the National Guard isn't when acting as state militias.) The military police can arrest people trespassing on federal property though. (Military_police#United_States) The FBI is a federal level policing agency with arrest powers. Rmhermen (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's martial law and military police. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See Posse Comitatus Act. The military does not have civilian arrest powers, the everyday arrests made on NCIS notwithstanding. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally - B.E.M.

One does go all over the place just to get here. From what i can see, you have everything all but what im looking for. Do you hold names of those who were actually awarded the B.E.M during the second world war. NZ soldier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniminz (talk • contribs) 07:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we do not try to maintain a complete list of British Empire Medal awardees. We have articles on notable people, some of whom were awarded the BEM: see Category:Recipients of the British Empire Medal. To be considered for an article in Wikkipedia, the subject must meet our notability guidelines, and receiving a BEM does not automatically qualify. receiving a Victoria Cross does automatically qualify. -Arch dude (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to look at the London Gazette website. This carries names of all medalholders when they were awarded their medals. [7] It also carries help for family historians. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)I've just noticed that New Zealand has its own gazette, which is linked from the London Gazette page I gave you above.--TammyMoet (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens parents

Who were the parents of Peter and Christopher Hitchens? 91.104.12.215 (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Their father, Eric Ernest Hitchens, was a commander in the Royal Navy; their mother, Yvonne Jean, née Hickman, was of Jewish descent. See the summary of the first search hit here for the names and here for some details. Deor (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Constitutions

In Canada, our constitution has a special formula: what i mean is that a certain percentage of the population or number of provinces, or number of provinces and territories have to accept a proposalchange to the constitution, before something about the consititution can be changed. And I'm not sure ofif the provinces and/or territories have to hold (legally binding) referenda.

This Canadian constitution is harder to change compared to just a regular Canadian law.

Is this the case with all constitutions? , For example, the European Constitution?

So in actually, the Canadian constitution has a bunch of laws. And with the Canadian constiutional formula, these Laws (literally), are harder to change, considering hasit has to go through a percentage. Hypothetically speaking, say if this was the case, we could have a polity that has only one law in the constitution, Yay, nay?174.3.103.39 (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)174.3.103.39 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)174.3.103.39 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the U.S. at least, the constitution is also harder to change than general laws, and I suspect that this is true in many places, because the constitution is not just a random set of laws; it is a set of laws which constitute the government; that is it is supposed to be a description of how the government is supposed to be organized and operate, and not just a random set of rules about how people behave. In fact, there has been exactly ONE true "law" in that sense in the U.S. Constitution, the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that was shortly repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution. Other than that aberation, the rest of the constitution is about how the government (as opposed to the people) are to operate. Since one wouldn't just want to change such an important document willy-nilly, the amendment procedure is by necessity quite involved. In the U.S., the amendment procedure is described in Article Five of the United States Constitution, which sets two procedures for amending. An amendment requires the recommendation of 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress OR 2/3 of the state legislatures may request a special Constitutional Convention to deal with a proposed amendment. After either proposal procedure, the proposed amendment then as to be passed by 3/4 of the states, either by their legislatures directly or by state-level conventions called specifically to deal with the amendment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping entrenchment and Constitutional amendment would have some useful information.

Constitution of Australia#Amendments and linked articles deal with the issue in Austrailan constitutional law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the relevant article for entrenchment is Entrenched clause. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Constitution of Australia#Alteration of the Constitution describes the procedure laid down in the Australian Constitution. Palace Guard's link talks about the history of actual changes to the Constitution. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In concordance to what is stated above is only logical to assume a countries basic laws or constitution, representing the basic values on which the state is built, to be more difficult to change then everyday laws. (Imagine people abolishing the separation of powers on a whim) There are even some constitutions that restrict changes to certain parts completely. Namely the Eternity clause of the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany. --91.6.41.211 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that most constitutions require a higher standard of amendment than an ordinary law, since they define the fundamental principles by which the country is run. The British constitution is an oddity in this respect, since formally it doesn't exist as a single written document, but is instead the sum of statutes, court judgements, and treaties, and Parliament can simply pass new laws to alter existing ones. The Irish constitution, on the other hand, can only be amended by the amendment being approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas, then approved in a referendum, and finally signed by the President. As to the European constitution, note that that's so difficult to enact that it has not been ratified and come into force. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Constitution of the People's Republic of China is not entrenched: it can be changed by Congress as easily as Congress can amend most other laws. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the European constitution so difficult to enact?

Is it possible to "entrench" (from what I take from the above responses, entrench = to make something harder to change (or amend (in law))) ordinary law such as: Jailing for a period of 3 weeks for not putting hay in a barn before sundown, without exception?

In any level of government, for example, in Italy, the commune, the province, the region, or the state (as in, if, European Union was legally binding]]?174.3.103.39 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the population of Tierra del Fuego?

The article doesn't say. Don't imagine it would be that high, but the article gives no particular indication.--Bored of the world (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Chilean part of the archipelago is Tierra del Fuego Province (6,904) and Antártica Chilena Province (2,262) and the Argentine part is Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina) (101,070). So total about 110,000, back in 2001-2 when those censuses were done. --Cam (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Spanish wikipedia articles, the Argentinian part has 126,212 inhabitants, and the Chilean part 6,904. Total of the island therefore around 133,516 --Saalstin (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WWII London Bombings

Was Germany still bombing London in February 1945? I was sure that at that point they had stopped. Copana2002 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actual planes flying over and dropping bombs had long ceased, but V-1 and V-2 attacks continued... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

According to our V-2 article, the last V-2 attacks were on 27 March 1945 and our V-1 article says "The last enemy-action incident of any kind on British soil occurred on 29 March 1945, when a V-1 struck Datchworth in Hertfordshire." --Tango (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"enemy-action incident"? Ewww. I'm changing that to "enemy action". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost as bad as describing a plane crash as "an undesirable ground/aircraft interface". Exxolon (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather fond of the phrase "lithobraking". --Tango (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Model for sales in a market

I'm trying to make a computer model for sales in a market, for a game (i.e. not real money). The market has a number of products, each with a fixed price and fixed value to consumers. Each customer has a preferred buying price. The result should be a number of sales for each product. Is there any function, statistical distribution, or otherwise that would give realistic sales figures?

To give an example of what ought to happen:

- If a customer has a budget of $100 and the product nearest to $100 has a value of 1000, he should probably consider a 900-value at $90 and a 1100-value $110 product equally. But a $120 product might be so far outside the budget that it would need 1500-value to be considered equally. Similarly, a product of 800-value might have to have a price of $50 to consider. - It shouldn't lead to paradoxes like a product that is the same value but cheaper than another selling less. - No market is perfect. Even if one product is clearly the best, some people will buy worse choices. The more outstanding a product it the less people would buy the others. - It should be smooth - there should be no sudden jumps between e.g. $99 and $100 products.

This could also go in mathematics despite the economics aspect, so if it's the wrong section I'll move it to there. 86.163.186.102 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It might help to look at some price/number sold graphs. It's a similar concept - perceived value and the price one has to pay for it. I mean, if you can't model the current situation, this one (which has definitely been studied) might help. All it is is a different variable - you have the value of the product in actual terms, and the number who bought it, which can give you an indication of perceived value - the more who bought it, on average they must have valued it more highly. It would be some work, but there's lots more material. A poor second, really, but messing around with this might be the answer. I don't have the links, but others will if you don't find exactly what you're looking for. 92.1.236.171 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Nobility

I would like to know when Canada stopped the practice of allowing titles. Does Canada have nobility? Is it written into the constitution, the British North American Act? No nobility in Canada USA has it written into thier constitution that everyone is equal. Since Caanada has the British style of governance do they still have Sir somebody, or Lord this or that, or the Earl of Ottawa, etc. The first Prime Minister was knighted by Queen Victoria. Sir John A Macdonald. Lord Black gave up his Canadian citizenship to get a title from Queen Elizabeth. When was the priactise of allowing titles dissoved in Canada? Thanks for your answer, Nottawa Nottawa (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See Canadian titles debate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just reading this article, I was curious — can any Parliament in the Commonwealth (or the UK, if it's not part of the Commonwealth; I can't remember) make demands of the reigning monarch? Of course they can resolve to make requests of the monarch, and the Prime Minister's advice is always taken in practice, but would it be seen as proper/constitutional/traditional/whatever to make an absolute demand upon the sovereign? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Legally, I doubt it. Conventionally, yes. The Queen rarely makes any political decisions for herself. She'll hand out honours and titles to members of the royal family unilaterally, but not to other people. --Tango (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what I meant about requests and the PM giving advice — I can't imagine such requests/advice being ignored or rejected. Given the highly formal system of the British constitutional monarchy, it just seemed to me rather disrespectful to demand something (in those words) from the monarch when "requesting" or "advising" would get the job done well. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it would have been done very politely and diplomatically. Who suggested it was a demand? --Tango (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Queen, by convention, acts on the advice of her ministers. In relation to the UK, this would be her UK ministers. In relation to Australia, her Australian ones. In relation to Canada, her Canadian ones. If the Canadian Prime Minister properly advised her to bestow a title (except those within the monarch's personal pleasure, like the Order of the Garter) -- then she would.

Making a public and hostile demand is probably a breach of convention already. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Australian, Canadian, Jamaican ... Prime Ministers could advise her to award a knighthood or some other sort of honour. But I would have thought the only person who can advise her to raise anyone to the Peerage of the United Kingdom is the PM of the United Kingdom. Just as the British PM could not advise the Queen to appoint someone as a member of the Order of Australia, for example. (Not that the Australian PM is involved in that process either; it's decided by an independent committee). -- JackofOz (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This Woman in the Ordeal by Fire

Who was this woman in this painting? I found it in Breton Wikipedia of Richardis.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You've answered your own question: she is Richardis, who was put through an ordeal by fire, according to her article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

June 29

Jesus as myth?

I believe in Jesus as depicted in the New Testament, but no, this isn't an attempt to start a debate about the reliability of the canonical gospels, of the noncanonical gospels, of Jesus' actual personality, etc. — I'm curious about the application of the word "myth" as defined in our article on the topic: "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form". In this sense, are the New Testament accounts of Jesus properly to be considered myths? I recently ran across someone making such a claim, and clearly intending the academic meaning, not saying that Jesus never existed. This definition sounded rather incorrect, because the gospels clearly depict Jesus in a world very much like our own, minus technology and miracles done by Jesus' power. To my mind, biblical myths appear only in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, where we can read accounts of creation, the first humans, etc., all with God working directly in the situation rather frequently. Do I understand rightly? Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the New Testament fits the definition of a myth. I don't see anything in the definition that requires the most powerful character to play an active role. A lot of Ancient Greek mythology revolves around fair minor gods and even some mortal heroes and they are certainly considered myths. I'd say any story that is claimed to have really happened but doesn't have the kind of supporting evidence required to be considered a historical event is a myth. --Tango (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By deciding on your definition of myth you decide whether Jesus is a myth or not. Notice that the definition you gave above can apply to the Gospels, even if they are true.

I strongly suggest you read C.S. Lewis on this matter. He spent a lot of his life studying mythology, and among other things came to the conclusion that the Gospels were in a completely different style to every other kind of "traditional myth", such as the Greeks. However he also eventually said that he considered the story of Jesus to be a "true myth" - i.e. that it was mythological in character but also true. For the rest of his explanation you'll have to read it yourself. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You might also be interested in Christ myth theory, an article about the view that Jesus never existed. For a discussion of the mythological elements of Jesus, see Jesus Christ and comparative mythology. For a list of related articles, see Jesus and history. // BL \\ (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a "true myth" isn't strange to me; I've read Tolkien writing about biblical accounts as true myths, so hearing that a close friend had the same idea. Confused, though — most of your answers seem to attempt to help me to come to an understanding of whether the biblical accounts are historically accurate, but that's not what I was asking: I'm simply trying to get at the literary/sociological/otherscholarly sense of "myth". Nevertheless, thanks for the insights: I have a strong respect for Lewis that this is a very useful answer. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There's clearly a good deal of overlap in the ways "myth" and "legend" are used; and both are vague enough to admit a variety of applications. Personally, being somewhat old-fashioned, I'd say that the Gospels (except for the beginning of John) partake more of the qualities of the legendary than of the mythical. Deor (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. From my perspective, another yardstick for something being a "myth" rather than a "legend" is the age of the story when it was recorded: the Gospels were written comparatively soon after the events they describe, while myths tend to tell stories of very remote times. There's a different feel to those two perspectives. 24.172.156.74 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The main CS Lewis essay on the subject is "Myth became fact" in God in the Dock. You might also be interested in "Myth Matters" - a discussion on Lewis's views on myth, imagination and Christianity. Gwinva (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at The Hero with a Thousand Faces, a work of comparative mythology by Joseph Campbell, which studies Jesus -and many others like Apollo, Buddha- as a mythological hero.ProteanEd (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's worth keeping in mind that scholars of myth tend not to take Cambell's work very seriously, the charge being that he's imposed a uniform interpretation upon what are diverse mythological elements, and thus assumed what he set out to demonstrate. 24.172.156.74 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Might not the Gospels be more properly described as legend? After all, many of the historical events in the Bible are known to have actually happened, and most historians agree Jesus actually existed. Unlike myths, which tend to have more of a pure-fantasy feel to them, legends tend to have a basis in the history of a people and draw on mythic elements in recounting (more or less) what actually happened. In terms of Greek lore, we would say that the story of Arachne is a myth because we know that spiders weren't created from a woman who challenged a goddess to a weaving contest, but the story of the Trojan War is a legend because archaeologists have excavated a place that matches the description of Troy and was completely burned to the ground at around the right historical time - but scheming goddesses trying to win some poor schmuck's favor to get a golden apple probably wasn't what started it! (Notice, you always hear larger-than-life figures described as "living legends" all the time - but have you ever heard someone called a "living myth"? Myths represent our spiritual truths; legends are where the spiritual meets the physical in the halls of memory.) Likewise, the Gospel narratives are rooted solidly in time and place, but some matters such as Jesus' miracles remain a matter of personal belief. - Aletheia James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Colloquially, the term "myth" means a false story. Academically, "myth" means any traditional story, including sacred narratives.ProteanEd (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As Deor suggests, the categories of (hi)story, legend and myth need not be mutually exclusive; a given "traditional narrative" can contain various proportions of all three. I would suggest that academically (in ProteanEd's sense), traditional stories (which might be historically true, partly true or entirely untrue) are in addition myths if they have important cultural (in which I include religious) significance regardless of their actual degree of truth or untruth.

Thus, for example, the (European, well-known in Britain) story of Cinderella is a traditional one, and like many folk tales carries social/cultural messages, but is neither a legend (since no-one supposes it's based on any particular and actual historical events) nor a myth, since it does not significantly contribute to the self-perception of a particular culture.

The traditional story of Robin Hood is a legend (since many do believe it to be based on some historical events, though in reality these are likely to be minimal), but not really a myth, since it contributes only slightly to (British) cultural identity.

The traditional story of King Arthur is both a legend (since many people do believe it originates in historical events, which is possible though currently unverifiable) and a myth, because it does form a significant element in the cultural identity of "the British."

The traditional story of The Battle of Britain is not a legend, since it is a verifiable recent historic event, but it is a myth since, although some popular beliefs about it (such as it being won mainly by Spitfire pilots - "The Few") are distortions of actuality, their contribution to British cultural identity transcends their strict historical (lack of) accuracy. (I accept others may differ with me over the history/legend/myth quotients of these four examples: they're meant more as illustrations of the principle than as definitive judgements.)

It's therefore important to realise that often, when people discuss stories which have religious significance for themselves or others, their characterisation of those stories as "myths" or "mythical" does not mean that they are explicitly denying those stories' historical truth, or insulting other's beliefs in them: it means that they're discussing aspects of those stories for which their literal truth is irrelevant, such as how belief in their truth has influenced subsequent history and cultures. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Visual Bible

There have been some movies made that use books of the Bible word for word as the script called The Visual Bible; I know they have made Matthew, Acts, John - are there any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the recent The Passion of the Christ was supposed to be fairly loyal to the Bible (wouldn't know myself, haven't seen the movie nor read the New Testament...) TomorrowTime (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not movies, but visual narrative-- Robert Crumb is bringing out a graphic novel adaptation of Genesis from Norton books this September. Extracts in the New Yorker seem to show a very literal take. Rhinoracer (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You've also posted this question on the Entertainment desk. Please don't crosspost. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Witch trials in Ortodox countries

The witch trials in Catholic and Protestant states are known, but can anyone tell me about the witch trials in the ortodox countries, in Russia and South Eastern Europe? It seems that this subject simply isn't very well known. --Aciram (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a search and came across V. Kivelson paper on the subject, but you need a university subscription to access it. What it says, in a nutshell, is that yes, there were witch trials in Muscovy in late XVII and in XVIII century, but nowhere near the scale of the Western European ones. Typically there were 1 or 2 accused, and the largest recorded number of accused in a single trial was 8. Also, 75% of the accused were men, in stark contrast to Western Europe where women were more likely to be accused of witchcraft. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot the link. You need to do a Google Scholar search for "author:kivelson Witches and Gendered Categories in Seventeenth-Century Russia" and it will come up. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

contemporary classical music question

ok, so I am a huge fan of 'classical' classical music, up to and including Mahler, Bernstein, Copland etc, but who has been writing in the last 50 years who is comparable in style and quality? I am not interested in minimalism, or other directions that classical music has taken, I want things that have the same emotional resonances (for me, I recognize that tastes are subjective) as the historical greats - any ideas? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.100.62 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Howard Shore? John Williams?--Wetman (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Karl Jenkins. Steewi (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Truman = War Criminal?

What was the justification for Truman dropping a nuke on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Would the results have been different if he had instead nuked a military base? Or why not a warning shot off the coast instead of right in the middle of the city? Why was it necessary to kill 140,000 civilians? (Yes, I have read Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it doesn't really shed light on why this was necessary). TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you also read Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have now, it still doesn't explain why it was deemed necessary to drop the bomb directly over cities. This page seems to be more involved in debate on whether it was necessary to drop the bomb at all. I want to know if there was debate and what justification was given for nuking a city versus a military target or a warning shot over the ocean. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The main reason to not do a warning shot over the ocean was that at that time, the US nuclear arsenal was 2. Since Japan did not surrender after the first hit, it is obvious that a warning shot would not have caused them to quit either. And contrary to your statements that it was not a military target, Hiroshima was a regional army base, as well as a storage site for large amounts of war materials. I would state that due to these circumstances, Truman as a war criminal because of the nuclear strikes is not a widely held belief. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are considering immediate deaths, then the bombing of Tokyo had a much higher casualty count. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an argument that a weapon is only effective if you are willing to use it. It's fairly pointless keeping a gun if you are not prepared to shoot an intruder. Exxolon (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The "military target" objection also requires you to suggest what such a target would have been -- by and large, there wasn't one. Military bases, airfields, factories, and other such acknowledged military targets are almost invariably near cities, inseparably so when you're looking at nuclear weaponry. A naval fleet might be sufficiently isolated but Japan's navy had already been swept from the sea. Our article on the strategic bombing of Japan notes that "by July 1945, only a fraction of the planned strategic bombing force had been deployed yet there were few targets left worth the effort." Of course, as Gadget notes, conventional bombing was just as deadly as nuclear and was far more sustainable. Further, the primary reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't already been bombed was to preserve worthwhile targets for nuclear weapons. The value of the atomic bomb was shock -- a single bomber carrying the destructive power of a thousand. It is exceedingly difficult to make a cogent argument that the use of nuclear weapons caused more fatalities than an equivalent conventional campaign. My personal opinion is that there's no moral ground to be gained unless you go all the way back to arguing the Allies' stated goal of unconditional surrender, which has been cogently argued by many historians as prolonging the war in both theaters. — Lomn 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As is pointed out above, the firebombing of Japan achieved similar results (and even more explicit targeting of civilians, arguably) than the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whatever one concludes about the atomic bombs, if anyone was to be a war criminal they would have been one some time before nuclear arms came into play. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Woman giving virginity to another woman

Is there any accepted standard on what constitutes a woman having given her virginity, when her partner is another woman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Modern usage of the word virgin simply means not having had sex. That can be with man and man, man and woman or woman and woman. The old school years ago term only used to apply to men and woman penetration sex, but no one uses it in that narrow minded way anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people still do. It will depends who you ask (quite possibly depending what country they live in). Vimescarrot (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not having had intercourse....or we're back to debating with Bill Clinton what counts as sex. By extension it is also used for a man who has not had intercourse. Medically it's called virgo intacta which means the hymen has not been broken, a definition which leaves a lot more leeway for related activities. - KoolerStill (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could equally debate what counts as intercourse. 'Sex' is more straightforward, with 'penetrative sex' being more specific when needed. 'Intercourse' is rather euphemistic. 89.168.19.118 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein as sexual "relations" or "congress".

I'm curious about the wording of the question. To "lose one's virginity (to someone)" is quite common, but I've never heard of "giving one's virginity to someone". It almost suggests the other party has to be someone who was not a virgin themselves, but now gets their virginity back. Is this a common expression in your part of the world, questioner? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This strikes me as a bit odd, too. I think "give one's virginity away *to* someone" is what was intended. I believe in certain contexts, a man (and perhaps a woman) can be counted as a virgin if he has not been anally penetrated. Wakablogger2 (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting that vaginal, or penetrative, sex is the only real kind of sex. I'd say what Clinton did absolutely counts as sex - not "[vaginal] intercourse" perhaps, but certainly sex. However, not all activities that fall in the realm of the sexual can be considered "having sex." Tongue-kissing is certainly sexual, but by no stretch of the imagination would most of us consider a tongue-kissing couple to be "having sex." I guess what I'm really asking is, since a woman can't penetrate her partner's vagina with a (real) penis, at what point can they say they've had sex, as opposed to just engaging in foreplay or heavy petting? I suppose this would apply to any sexual encounter, whether it was a woman's first time ever, her first time with a new partner, or just making the distinction between different kinds of amorous encounters . . . but I do believe that the first time ever is rather more fraught with significance for most folks, no?

I would say sex has been had when you feel satisfied and content —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's rather vague. I'm feeling satisfied and content right now, but I don't think I've had sex lately. Algebraist 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Satisfied and content directly because of a recent sexual activity involving another person is closer. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but still clearly wrong. A woman who has been raped has had sex, and (if previously a virgin) has lost her virginity, but is probably neither satisfied nor content. Algebraist 00:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again we run into that "accepted standard" thing. You say that a woman who has been raped has lost her virginity, and some people would agree with you. Others identify loss of virginity only with a person's first consensual sexual encounter. There doesn't seem to be a hard-and-fast standard as to the meaning existing anywhere. The Wednesday Island (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether a woman who has been raped can still call herself a virgin gets to the heart of what I'm really asking. Rape would take a woman's virginity in the medical sense, but a raped virgin still hasn't made the choice to give herself to another person that way, and as such she may still consider herself a virgin in a spiritual sense - I'm not referring to any religious view per se here, but to her own sense of dignity and whatever her virginity means to her. A woman can be raped or molested by another woman, and in this sense she would still be a virgin, if she hadn't given herself. . . . But the "satisfied and content from interpersonal sexual activity" is really begging the question, because the question I was asking was, just what IS that "sexual activity" supposed to be in the first place? As I wrote before, I think we can agree that tongue-kissing is definitely sexual - you don't kiss your mom like that - but you can do it and still be a virgin. And making out/petting/foreplay can result in satisfaction, while by definition stopping short of "going all the way."

Acts of parliament/congress - differences between UK and US terminology

On a current AfD, Phil Bridger asked a question I've been wondering about for a while as well. As he puts it more succinctly than I am likely to be able to, I quote him below:

"In the UK, with which I'm more familiar, a proposed piece of legislation is called a bill, and only becomes an act if and when it is passed. Is the terminology not the same in the United States? We seem to get a constant stream of articles from the United States with "act" in their titles (and they nearly always seem to have been proposed by someone called "Ron Paul" - is he famous or something?) that don't appear to be acts by the definition of the word with which I am familiar"

Can any one more familiar with the political systems of the respective nations please help us? Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be answered in the first paragraph of Bill (proposed law). Tempshill (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is just a bill until it becomes law. Only then is it an act. Until then, the name proposed in the legislation, such as PATRIOT Act or Megan's Law, is just the name the legislation would have should it become law. This is all explained in cartoon form here: [8]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul Kagame's master in university

How what deree have Paul Kagame got in unversity. Have he got master of science or major in science. he seems like a philospher, and he is very smart. Does he know alot about astronomy?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything at all about an earned degree for Kagame. There is nothing at the WP article and nothing on his official website. I assume, then, that his last formal schooling was in high school, as the article says. He has a number of honourary degrees, but they have nothing to do with any field of study. None of this speaks to how "smart" the man might be. // BL \\ (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So his degrees doesnot imvolve academics? Kagame looks like he is almost as smart as Barack Obama by his appearance. A thin young-looking-black-man-with glasses. people usually look smart with glasses on 24-7. Robert Mugabe said he won a master in Science, people good in science is usually good in astronomy. John Kufuor majors in Law. Do lawyers usually hve strong astronomy skills?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

His honourary degrees do not involve any academic knowledge. As for the rest of your comments, I can make no sense of them. Mugabe's article has him with six graduate degrees, most earned in extension courses. So far as I know, all the wearing of glasses indicates is some form of weak eyesight. I can find no correlation between the obtaining of a law degree and competence in astronomy. // BL \\ (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Bangabandhu Kemal Mustafa Ataturk

Why do I have a feeling that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Bangabandhu was influenced by Kemal Mustafa Ataturk when it came to nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.103 (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Only you can answer "why" you have a specific feeling. What question are you asking of the Reference Desk? // BL \\ (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

June 30

Gnosticism

Is it like the 'religion of philosophy'? 94.196.114.87 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, see Gnosticism. There are lots of things which get called "gnosticism", but generally the term gets applied to any of a number of Judeo-Christian heretical sects of the first few centuries AD. Most would be considered "cults" under the modern understanding. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)