Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

October 21

How old

For those who believe in God, how old would they say he is?--Light current 00:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Which God? --The Dark Side 01:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets assume there is only one entity that all religions call god, Allah, etc.--Light current 06:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably the Christian One. My guess is that if someone said His age, He would smote them for some reason or other. XD Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The christian god is eternal, so he is infinitely old. -THB 01:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't everything have to come from something? Did God (Christian) just appear one day out of nothing and make the universe as we know it? --The Dark Side 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

But that can be countered by asking where the material that preceded the Big Bang came from? Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The christian god didn't "appear one day". He's always been. He's eternal. God created everything. He didn't need anything to create it out of because he's God. Before he created it, there was nothing. -THB 06:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In what sort of nothingness can God exist?--Light current 06:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The same nothingness in which the bounded cosmos exists. Poof. Wasn't, then was. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

B4 the BB there was nothing at all. Not even nothingness existed. ie a big fat 0. Nothing outside this nothingness could exist for God to live in. THe bounded cosmos creates and exists in its own space. no mass --> no space--> nothing at all (not even nothingness).--Light current 15:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Christian God doesn't have any mass, He is a spirit, according to their teachings. He technically could live in nothingness if He is "nothing". | AndonicO Talk 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I think he would have to be nothing if he existed in nothingness! I think youve just prove he doesnt exist!--Light current 16:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

By jove, you're right! Get the pope on the line! -Elmer Clark 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

God was in eternity; or, in Himself, if you want to put it a different way. Whether "eternity past", as it has been so-called, had time passing, the Bible isn't terribly clear. Trying to think about things in this way though, just in terms of what can be seen/touched etc., is always going to lead to a wrong conclusion when we're talking about God. Like trying to see in 4D. BenC7 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK where does he exist in 4D? 8-?--Light current 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

PS When is WP going to sort out this f****** stupid indentation protocol? --Light current 18:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

exdenting at LC's suggestion: This indenting protocol is usually only a problem with any question about religion, politics and sometimes sex. --hydnjo talk 07:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's facetious to say that nothing existed before the Big Bang - the big bang is primarily a mathematical/theoretical event where our theories start to break down. We simply can't predict what the universe was like "before" the Big Bang. Look into gravitational singularity. Also, your interpretation of "god" seems to be rather limited and 3-dimensional. Does any modern religion claims that gods are fully corporeal? sthomson 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

i don't believe in a god, but if there was one, i think the actual age would be Damn Old.Lrpelkey 11:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

U.S presidents who did not have a ship named in their honour

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was always wondering, why don't Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon have a warship named in their honour ? I could somewhat understand for Nixon... but Johnson ? Matt714 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of these three men only Gerald Ford's name has been considered for a ship name; if congress aproves the recomendation, his name will grace the as-yet-to-be-named carrier CVN-78. TomStar81 02:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

When did this practice start? Is there some poor ship out there named after Warren G. Harding (a garbage scow maybe)? Clarityfiend 04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is an old tradition going all the way back to the time of the contenental Navy. As for Warren G. Harding, no there have been no ships named after him, but there have been two ships named USS Harding. As far as the names of people on ships there are several examples here on wikipedia that you can check out, among these are the list of U.S. military vessels named after living Americans and the George Washington, Ethan Allen, Lafayette, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin series of ballistic missile submarines, all named after politicians. Collectively, these submarines comprised the "41 for Freedom". TomStar81 (Talk) 08:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"41 for Freedom" ... or Fight! Tesseran 09:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the Ethan Allen equipped with sturdy, well-built wooden furniture ? :-) StuRat 11:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The news satirists will have a field day should the USS Gerald Ford ever accidentally crash into the dock. 192.168.1.1 11:44, 21 Rocktober 2006 (PST)

Actually, Ethan Allen was a drunkard. | AndonicO Talk 19:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with being a bit sauced all the time? --Drunk Cow 20:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that they only named ships after deceased presidents. --The Dark Side 01:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't be. They just christened an aircraft carrier after George H.W. Bush. Clarityfiend 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. From the list of U.S. military vessels named after living Americans article:

The United States Navy has a long tradition that no vessel is named for a living person, and an equally long tradition, stretching back to the Continental Navy, of breaking it from time to time. The number of U.S. military ships so named constitute a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands have been commissioned.

In a sense I was right too. --The Dark Side 02:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

All Navys around the world have long standing traditions of naming ships after people, dead or alive. Usually the honor of having ones name considered for as a ship name comes about under one of three possible headings:

• The person in question was a great leader to his or her country. In the US our leader is the president, so if the president was excpetionally good at his job during the 4-8 years he held office his name may be considered for a ship. This was the case with Ronald Reagan, Harry S. Truman, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, all of whom have had navy ships christened in there honor. The United Kingdom had a long standing tradition of naming their battleships after the royals, such as HMS King George V and HMS Queen Mary. The Germans named the battleship Bismark after Otto von Bismarck, who engineered the unification of the numerous states of Germany.
• The person in question was a political friend of the navy. Senetor John C. Stennis was such a man, his names now graces an aircraft carrier in the US Fleet.
• The person in question was an excelent military commander. Chester Nimitz and George Washington were two such people, both have had ships named in their honor. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a school in the Washington area in 1906

I am trying to find a school that my Mother-in-Law's mother attended back in 1906. She was in the eighth grade taking a home economics class and her teacher was Ms. Gore. The school was called the Corcoran School. Everytime I put in a search for that all I get is the Corcoran School of Art. Unless that was a public/private grade school in those days it is not the one. If anyone out there can help I would appreciate it. The closest reference I have found is (Corcoran School (historical)somewhere around Olive,28th & M. St. NW Washington DC)from www.hometownlocator.com

sewinteacher :-) 7:41, 22 October 2006

• You may want to try contacting the Washington, D.C. public library reference desk. See [1] for contact information. --Metropolitan90 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mich Andersen & Son M.A.& S.

I have a ceramic Male and a Female Bust with markings [M.A. & S., Bornholmsk Keramix] Numbers 3934/2 and 3935/2 Can anyone tell me anything about these pieces, or the Artist Thank you, JimJim Costanzo 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Gettin' Busy

I have heard from a couple sources, including Jay Leno's monologue, that more people are born on October 5 than any other day of the year. The reason? Do the math. Is this true? Does Wikipedia have an article which presents such information? 66.213.33.2 16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

According to this he's right. At least for the United States. The article on birthdays mentions it too. I just noticed that the Wikipedia article uses the same reference I just gave. Dismas|^(talk) 16:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The most common birthday in Sweden is allegedly nine months after midsummer... =S 惑乱 分からん 16:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the math doesn't work out. The average pregnancy lasts 40 weeks when dated from the mother's last menstrual period (LMP), which is two weeks before the actual conception occurred. A pregnancy lasts 38 weeks when dated from conception. 38 weeks after January 1st is September 24th. 40 weeks after January 1st is October 8th. Someone has naively used the 40 week figure in their calculations, when the 38 week figure is the appropriate one for calculating conception. 38 weeks (266 days) before October 5th is January 12th. - Nunh-huh 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Once I found out my mother was born EXACTLY 9 months after the repeal of Prohibition, I never looked at grandpa and grandma quite the same again. :-) StuRat 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

At a party, I would never be one to spoil a perfectly good anecdote by overanalysis. But at the Reference Desk, I am otherwise compelled. If Mom was born exactly 9 months ( = 36 weeks) after repeal, she was most likely conceived two weeks before grandma and grandpa could get it on with a legal snoot full, since the average time from conception to parturition is 38 weeks). - Nunh-huh 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

But 9 months is not 'exactly' 36 weeks. The cumulative difference between 28 days (4 weeks) and the number of days in actual months is probably very close to the 2 missing weeks. Anchoress 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It may or may not be depending on how the calculations were done. The point is: pregnancy's average duration is 10 (lunar) months = 280 days from LMP, or 9.5 (lunar) months = 266 days from conception. "Exactly nine months" doesn't enter into it at all. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Who means "lunar months" when they say months ? I meant calendar months, which average 30.4 days each. So, 9 calendar months = 274 days = 39 weeks, which puts us right in the proper range. StuRat 10:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lunar months are what people who describe the duration of pregnancies actually use. The length of an average pregnancy is 280 days from LMP, or 266 days from conception. Not 274. - Nunh-huh 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it that people use lunar months when talking about pregnancy. Also, gestation periods are not precise, to the day, but rather a fairly wide range. 274 days is well within that range. StuRat 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to your beliefs, but the fact is that people do indeed use lunar months when talking about pregnancy. [2] [3] etc. And yes, I know these things are not exact: you were the one who emphasized "exactly" nine months. And if you want to use an erroneous method for calculating the most likely date of conception, go right ahead, but the facts are this: The length of an average pregnancy is 280 days from LMP, or 266 days from conception. On average, conception occurs 266 days prior to birth. Not 274.- Nunh-huh 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your first source supports what I said, that most people mean "calendar months", when talking about pregnancy (or anything else, for that matter):

"While most people talk about pregnancy being 9 months long (divided into three trimesters), most health care providers refer to a pregnancy as being 40 weeks long, starting with your last known menstrual period. You might like to know that this is also equal to 280 days, or 10 Lunar Months.

BTW, you really know how to suck all the fun out of a humorous remark, with nitpicking. StuRat 21:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I did warn you up front. What "most people" mean isn't the issue. If you want an accurate calculation, you will use what "the people who know" (i.e., doctors) say. Which is 10 lunar months = 280 days from the LMP. - Nunh-huh 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because you were going off what I said, which was 9 months, which you somehow misinterpreted to mean lunar months. StuRat 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually understood what you said. "Exactly nine months" of any sort is not an accurate duration of the average pregnancy, and using it as a basis for calculation will result in a mistaken estimate. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, your conversion of my statement of nine months to 36 weeks shows you took it to mean lunar months. Calendar months are 4 1/3 weeks long, so 9 convert to 39 weeks. StuRat 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, and 39 weeks is still incorrect. - Nunh-huh 01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But still well within the normal range. StuRat 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This article, after first discussing the birthday paradox, gives a table of average daily birth frequencies by month in the United States for 1978-1987, which I reproduce here together with a crude, hand-plotted graphical representation. (*'s farther to the right indicate higher birth rates; of course, the axis for this graph is far off to the left).

   MONTH     DAILY FREQUENCY         GRAPHICALLY         9TH MONTH BACK
   January      .0026123          *                        April
   February     .0026785             *                     May
   March        .0026838              *                    June
   April        .0026426            *                      July
   May          .0026702             *                     August
   June         .0027424                 *                 September
   July         .0028655                       *           October
   August       .0028954                        *          November
   September    .0029407                           *       December
   October      .0027705                  *                January
   November     .0026842              *                    February
   December     .0026864              *                    March

So October is past the peak. The highest rate of conceptions that lead to births is clearly during the months when the weather is getting colder, not when it's at its coldest; and conversely, it's lowest in April, not midsummer. Note incidentally that this could be for reasons other than the obvious one: there might be seasonal changes in fertility levels, in multiple births, in miscarriages, in abortions, even in contraception usage.

I also have here a table described as a "frequency distribution of birthdays from 481,040 policies at a US insurance company", but no record of where I got it from, although it must have been from some Usenet or Internet source. I'm not going to post it here, but I am going to comment on it. There's too much noise in the data to accurately pull out variations at the level of individual days, so even though the data set includes numbers separately for each day, it doesn't answer the question of which day has the most births. It does generally fit the pattern shown above, with the same three top months. (The pattern isn't exactly the same, which is not surprising since this data set would be drawn from a different population, older and including some immigrants.) For what it's worth, in this data set October 5 ranks 13th, most of the higher-ranking dates being in August and September.

--Anonymous, 05:32 UTC, October 22, 2006.

---

This has me giggling—that's my birthday! Hyenaste ^(tell) 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a Theist and an Atheist

Is not the difference between a Theist and an Atheist the difference in the definition they assign to God? 71.100.6.152 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Check out theism. 惑乱 分からん 18:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am relating one's definition of God to their belief. If one defines god as nothing, i.e. not existing, then are you saying that he can still believe in God? 71.100.6.152 19:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If you insist in your right to redefine every term as you please you risk that nobody will understand you any longer. Simon A. 19:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be stupid! That's like saying "Is not the difference between a Santa Claus believer and an Atheist the difference in the definition they assign to Santa Claus?" Atheist does not depend on the definition of God, merely that it is not rational to believe in fairy tale concepts (aka superstitions). The main difference is that Atheist see religion as (a collection of) hyper sophisticated fairy tale concepts while the religious believers see God as self evident truth. 211.28.178.86 12:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"The definition they assign to God" — no. Atheists and theists can have the same definitions of God, but they can have different beliefs about whether or not the definition exists in an ontological sense or not. Atheists do not define God as "nothing", for another thing. If all you are trying to say is that atheists and theists differ in that they don't agree as to whether God exists or not, that is not a novel reformulation but rather the exact meaning of those two words. --Fastfission 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What I am asking is if a person characterizes thenselves rather than the devine or supernatural entity they define by their definition. 71.100.6.152 17:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say they do, although that doesn't seem to be your first question... 惑乱 分からん 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

From an atheist point of view, atheists does not defined themselves as athiests anymore than normal people defined themselves as normal. No one goes around saying "I'm define myself as normal". The term "atheist" is given to atheists by the religious believers. 202.168.50.40 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I've usually seen atheist used as a specific term of self-definition; much more so than "theist" (no one says "I'm a theist" as its inspecificity about belief makes it almost useless as a term; it is almost always used in contrast with "atheist"). Lots of people go around saying "I am an atheist" when asked, there are entire organizations of such people around. And from a purely statistical point of view it is far more "normal" to have some sort of belief in a deity than it is to avow any possibility of a deity whatsoever. --Fastfission 01:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Atheism is not a mere "passive lack of belief in anything supernatural". Quite the contrary, Atheism is a rather "active" belief that there definitely, positively, absolutely is no God. If you're looking for the most "passive", "I don't know" position, agnosticism would seem far more appropriate, and far more "natural". Loomis 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please notice that any "Atheist organization" is in fact a political organization and might claim to represent the Atheist POV but in fact represents its own political ideas. Flamarande 09:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes! The strong atheism versus the weak atheism debate. Only strong atheist is a real atheist, weak athiest is a false athiest. No. no. no. Weak atheists is the only real athiests, strong athiests are ideology bigots. 211.28.178.86 07:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to difer, too many believers are convinced that their belief is the only right one, and that everybody else will burn in Hell. Talking about ideological bigots... Flamarande 09:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that most fervent believers in some religion or other frantically want to brand aetheism as another form of religion, and therefore to "smear" it in the same way as they feel they have been smeared. In a similar fashion, religionists want to brand evolution as a religion.--Filll 13:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fola

−Good day:

I am translating a late 19th Century French poem and have come across a reference to "Fola". which I assume is someone's name. I can't find any references whatsoever. Can someone help?

Thank you so much,

Linda Hollander

Do you have more information about the poem? (title, author) Context would help. -THB 18:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Information about family courts?

I'm looking for information about the specific legal/court proceedings in a child abuse/neglect situation when the child(ren) is/are removed from their (former) guardian's care. I know that an initial hearing is not always held (as per this [4] secondary source) but I need to know what goes on at the later hearings and when an initial hearing is held--the typical events, the people involved (defendant(s), social workers, lawyers (?), etc), and any other possibly relevant information. Thanks! Moriane 18:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The procedural details and people involved depend on the state (or country). Ask your lawyer if you really "need to know". alteripse 19:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is actually another question (in addition to the one I posted on the miscellaneous desk) relating to the novel I'm working on. I've done some poking around on US federal sites and on the Maryland site, but I find government sites impenetrable and will probably have to go elsewhere for my information. Anyway, thanks for your help with both questions. -Moriane 20:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you get an answer here, but IMO the best resource for this kind of stuff is your local librarian (or the librarian in the region you are researching). They absolutely LOVE to help aspiring writers, and they are usually very familiar with the kind of research you are doing. Or they will happily find it out for you/direct you to where to look. Anchoress 22:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What interesting family relations in monarchies are there?

Hello,

I just discovered that (thanks to Wikipedia!) that the current Spanish king Juan Carlos I of Spain and the current Belgian king Albert II of Belgium are both direct descendants of Louis XIV of France.

An earlier question of mine here pointed out that the current British Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is a direct descendant of William I of England.

I also read that the British king during the first World War (George V of the United Kingdom) and the German emperor William II were cousins!

It also appears that the current Dutch queen Beatrix of the Netherlands is a direct descendant of William the Silent.

This is pretty amazing, none of these things were ever pointed in my history class. So my question is : are there any other interesting relationship that you can think of?

I would also be interested in famous/and or still alive descendants of Charlemagne or Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor.

Thank you very much, Evilbu 19:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in William the Silent, Father of Europe, where you can see William's descendants and in Genealogics, where you can trace such things out for other nobles and rulers. - Nunh-huh 19:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Two items that may or may not amuse: George Washington was a 12th cousin of King George III of Great Britain (by common descent from John of Gaunt); King Henry VIII of England was 5th cousin of Pope Paul III, who excommunicated him, (by common descent from Nicola Orsini). - Nunh-huh 20:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As you might know, marriage was a most important political tools to form and strengthen alliance between the European rulers. Hence, it is no surprise that they are all related to each other in some degree. For your question on Charlesmagnes the answer might surprise you: There are many millions of his descendants alive today. Think about it for a moment:You have 2 parents, 4 grabdparents, 8 great-grandparents etc. Charlesmagne lived 1200 years ago, that is roughly 48 generatations. Now, you, and everybody else has , naively calculated 2⁴⁸ = ca. 10¹⁵ (thousend million millions) of greatgreat...grandparents. But where never as many people in the world, hence most of the family trees overlap heavily. This means that of the people who lived many centuries ago, each one has either millions of descendents in today's world or none at all. Recently, several studies were published (Rohde, Olson, and Chang, Nature 431 (2004) 562) that calculated how long a ago the most recent person lived that appears in the ancestry trees of all people alive today, and they concluded that this person lived between 1700 and 2500 years ago (if I recall correctly). So, there should be plenty of descendents of Charlemagne around. This discussion estimates bewteen 100 million to 1 billion. Taht would be even more than Gengis Khan who lived considerable later but was sexually so active that he seems to appear in the familiy tree of one quarter of all mongolians. (See here for the story.) Simon A. 19:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Royalty are expected to marry royalty so the royal families of Europe have intermarried for hundreds of years. It's quite a tangled web. See nobility for basic info. Something you might find interesting: Haemophilia in European royalty. -THB

I remember reading somewhere that Prince Charles of England (to become Charles III?) is related to every English king except James II and another Charles. I might be wrong though (most probably). If you really want a good royal family then check out the Bourbons.

Not exactly. Charles is related to every monarch that's been on the UK (or before 1703, English) throne since at least 1066, but there are quite a few he isn't descended from. You can be related to someone without being descended from them - a distant aunt or uncle, for instance, would be your relation but not your ancestor.

It's true that Charles I and his sons Charles II and James II are the only monarchs who left descendants that he's not descended from. However, there are a passel of monarchs who didn't leave any descendants whatsoever, even illegitimate (Edward V, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, William III, Mary II, and Queen Anne come to mind - there are likely more) and naturally Charles isn't descended from them either.

As to relations of various monarchies, remember that up to a century or so ago most royals *had* to marry other royals pursuant to the laws of their home countries. This wasn't the case in the UK, but it was in many European countries. If they married a commoner or even a nobleman/noblewoman they lost every penny they had, they lost their place in the line of succession (a BIG deal when the king actually ruled, instead of simply reigning), and their children wouldn't inherit their titles. More importantly, in many countries their children wouldn't even be legitimate even if the marriage was otherwise regular. Some German houses had laws stating that any marriage to a lower rank of royal was invalid. --Charlene.fic 03:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles' royal antecedents go back well before 1066. The Anglo-Saxon link was kept alive by Margaret of the royal house of Wessex, who married Malcolm III of Scotland. Their descendants would later ascend to the throne of England. Clio the Muse 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not find a line of descendance for Beatrix of the Netherlands from William the Silent.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

See this site which shows her descent. Rmhermen 04:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The missing link on Wikipedia is that the mother of Henry Casimir II of Nassau-Diez, Albertine Agnes of Orange, was a daughter of Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange. Is it just me or is that site ridiculously difficult to use, forcing you to a peephole slit of a few lines at a a time through which to peer at these long scrolling galleys where the genealogical tree structure is given by indentation.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

King Arthur

I am doing a project on king Arthur and i can not find the information that i am looking for

What information are you looking for? You do know he's fictional, right? - Nunh-huh 19:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional but might be based on a real person. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you start with King Arthur? -THB 19:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know about King Arthur, simply read Le Morte d'Arthur by Mallory and The Once and Future King by White. Those are the two novels that most Aurthurian legend is based upon. As for the "real" Arthur, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to different people around the 5th century - but nothing strong enough to claim that there was a single person who the Arthurian legends were based upon. As a suggestion, I wrote my English thesis (34 pages) on the Christian influence of sin and punishment in the Arthurian legend. I chose it because it is rather simple. Arthur sins and the product of that sin kills him. Lancelot sins and the product of that sin weakens him and eventually causes his demise. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, there. Arthur starts in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regnum Britanica, then gets a makeover in Layamon's Brut, then gets another in Wace's Roman de la Rose, then gets another in Mallory. Mallory integrates a number of versions of a number of stories and recasts everything in an acceptably chivalric mode. Arthur begins as a Celt driving out Anglo-Saxons and Romans and he becomes, eventually, a fairly Anglo-French guy (with French wife Guinivere, French knight Lancelot du Lac, and Welsh boogey-man/sage Merlin). The legend is based on Geoffrey, but the modern tellings are from Mallory. Geogre 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As you point out, I was stating that anything that is not included by Mallory or White is not considered common knowledge in the modern Arthurian legend. I used all the books (and movies - including "The Holy Grail") for my thesis. I intended on hunting down a French book (long forgot the title) about Lancelot before his story was sucked into the Arthurian legend. I'm sure there are many stories that aren't even considered Arthurian that also got sucked up into the mess. --Kainaw ^(talk) 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Or you could read all of List of books about King Arthur and meditate on King Arthur in various media. Better still you could write about how all those stories including a time travelling Arthur have it right as he is really a man out of time, continually re-imagined for every age (including here). Although making up your own story about Arthur may be most in keeping with the legends it may not fit your project. BTW Wace also wrote a Brut , Roman de la Rose was written by others and Artus is only briefly mentioned. MeltBanana 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

D'oh. (My girlfriend at the time was working on an obscure translation of Historia Regnum Britanica and the insertion of a variant on the Prophecies of Merlin. The Prophecies of Merlin was an independent literary work that floated about and goes back a good bit before Geoffrey. He had been a prophet in the Old Testament sense: his "prophecies" were rewritten to refer to current events, generally, and localizing those prophecies and the events they refer to is a very difficult project.) I meant, of course, Chretien de Troyes. Geogre 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Saint Julian of Moraime

I am trying to fill in a few holes in the article on Muxia. One of the prominent features of this Spanish town is a building that used to be Monastery of Saint Julian of Moraime (if I have translated correctly; San Xiao de Moraime in Spanish). I am not quite sure where Moraime is or was (named for Queen Moraima, wife of Boabdil?), although I gather it is the name of a harbor but I have not managed to verify this from a map. I also have not been able to find a Saint Julian in the list of Catholic Saints. Was this one of those Saints that lost their sainthood? Any ideas?--Filll 22:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the years, roughly? There are any number of Julians to choose from, and the by-name is likely to drop or change in other language's calendars. It can be tough getting to a master list of saints, as there are over 10,000 official saints, and there are local saints that are referred to by the title without getting official canonization. I don't find a Julian of that permutation in my Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and my various Golden Legend variants don't list alphabetically. Geogre 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

12th century, apparently, so probably before canonization became quite so standardized. My Golden Legend has an index, and lots of Sts. Julian, but none seem to fit this one. - Nunh-huh 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Monastery, apparently with that name, was functioning by the early 1100s, so I presume he was canonized before that. When, I cannot say.--Filll 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Julian of Toledo, Julian the Hospitaller, and Julian of Le Mans are three St. Julians who have articles on Wikipedia. All are from before the time the monastery you mention was built - it wouldn't be unusual to name a monastery after a long-dead saint. I think "Moraime" might describe the location of the monastery. You see that sometimes with Roman Catholic religious buildings - Notre-Dame des Neiges is in Quebec, St. David of the Mountains is up in the Rockies, etc. "Xiao" looks Galician, not Spanish - wouldn't it be Xulián in old Castillian? --Charlene.fic 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

One can find references to both Xulian and Xiao in the literature. I do believe Moraime is the name of the harbor near the Monastery. I wonder if Moraime is related to Moraima, the wife of King Boabdil.--Filll 05:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

October 22

Naming Royalty

Is Charles the most common name for European Royalty? I noticed that there are King Charles (or the equivalent title for empires) from Great-Britain, Sweden, Spain, France, HRE, Monaco, Romania, and Italy. --The Dark Side 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. There have been two kings of England named Charles, but there have been eight Edwards and eight Henrys; even the Georges (six of them) have done better. In Spain there have only been four named Charles (Charles V of the Empire was properly Charles I of Spain) compared with thirteen Alfonsos. They have done better in France, getting as high as the number ten; but even here they were outweighed by the Louises, who went as high as eighteen. In the Empire their record is matched by the Henrys. They do best in Sweden, but only just-the Erics got almost as high! Clio the Muse 05:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the hundreds of little kingdoms, principates, etc. that existed in Germany before ca. 1870, it would be a heck of a lot of work to figure out exactly which name was the most common in all of Europe. Maybe Ludwig?

BTW, there haven't been any kings of England named George; they were all Kings of the UK. The last sovereign of England was Queen Anne; in 1703 the kingdoms of Scotland and England merged to make the kingdom of the UK. Minor point, but sometimes it's tiring to hear people talk about "England" when they mean the entire United Kingdom. It would be like calling GWB the President of California. --Charlene 04:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lectionary for October 22, 2006 Mary

Charlene, thank you for that; but you will note, to be absolutely precise, that I really only said there were more Georges than Charles. Also on a minor point, Scotland and England combined in 1707, not 1703, to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland dates to 1801. Clio the Muse 05:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oooh! Well, the Act of Union is prior to the actual ratification and union. :-) (Gosh, but it's been a long time since I've gotten to do this. "The miners have reduced their demands to three reasons why Richard II was a bad king." (The Treaty of Utrecht being negotiated and agreed in 1712 but not ratified until 1713.)) The Charles habit in royals is likely going to wait for Charles Martel/Charlegmagne to really take off, so, if you want to count the unnumbered barons of raubriter's of Germany, you're going to still have a relatively shorter period for popular Charles than you would Leopolds, Fredericks, and various permutations of Sig/Vict. Geogre 13:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Acts of Union did indeed preceed full incorporation (1 May 1707); but they were passed in 1706 and 1707 notwithstanding: so I am not really sure in what fashion your observation clarifies-or detracts from-what I have already written, namely that Scotland and England combined in 1707, not 1703. Clio the Muse 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, there were about eleven Edwards in England/UK. The regnal numbering only started after William the Conqueror, but prior to him there were Edward the Martyr, Edward the Elder, and Edward the Confessor. In Germany, the Reuss house included Heinrich LXVII Reuss zu Schleiz (that's Henry the 67th !!). JackofOz 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Reuss family is a special case though as every male child in every branch of the family was named Henry and numbered (well, you would have to since they all had the same name.) Rmhermen 04:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true; one tends to overlook the pre-Conquest, and unnumbered Edwards. As far as Germany is concerned I suspect-though I have no intention of testing this-that there were far more Heinrichs, Friedrichs and Willhelms than Karls. Clio the Muse 22:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Were all of those Germans actually kings? I thought most of them were princes, dukes, grand dukes, counts, landgraves, margraves, electors, and so on. Do they count as "royalty" if they weren't kings? -- The Photon 04:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They most certainly were not all kings; but they still count as royalty. Clio the Muse 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Afonso/Alfonso V of Galicia??

In the article on Muxia, I make the following reference: Alfonso Raimúndez (King Afonso V of Galicia and the future King Alfonso VII of León and eventually of Castile, and of Spain) Does that look reasonably accurate? Should I spell Afonso as Alfonso?--Filll 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't he the one who killed his brother? Anyways, yeah, spell it Alfonso. Яussiaп F 14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Racism

Is it being racist if you object to someones culture or way of thinking?--Light current 18:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say it depends on your reason for objecting to it. If it's solely dependant on the person's race, then that would be racism. If there are other less subjective reasons then I don't feel it would be. I don't know if you'll find much of an objective standard of racism though. Dismas|^(talk) 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no standard for racism. You can easily argue that anyone and everyone is a racist. It is a term that has been diluted by years of special interests. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because culture and race are two different things. Someone who discriminates by race is a racist and someone who discriminates by culture is ... ehm ... an ethnicist? DirkvdM 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to object to someone's entire culture or their entire way of thinking, because many of those things would overlap with your own culture and way of thinking. You might object to certain practices, eg. female circumcision; lynching negroes; putting Jews in gas chambers; Apartheid; eating Vegemite, or whatever - but that's confined to a particular behaviour, not the entire culture of the person practising that behaviour. On the other hand, if you hated all Belgians and actively discriminated against them merely because they are Belgians, that would be "racism" in the common understanding of that term. JackofOz 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's a different thing yet. Not race or culture but country. That would be ... ehm ... nationalism? Or anti-nationalism? Oops, we've even got an article on that, but as I suspected it's not what I meant (or rather 'you meant'). DirkvdM 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, that depends on if your idea of the culture is based on an attempt to understand it, or just prejudice... 惑乱 分からん 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its just bias. Bias is favoring one side over the other, like the tendency of favoring one sides culture or race over someone elses culture or race. Racism, therefore, would be acting on your bais.

Of course objecting to a person based solely on his or her culture is...well not racism, but something equally objectionable. However, I take a slightly broader approach than Jack. If you believe that, say, Communism is backward, and that those who believe in it are backward to the extent of their belief in it, I wouldn't see anything objectionable in that at all. As long as you've been duly diligent in researching and are well enough educated in Communism, its origins, its tenets, its philosophy, etc, and after all that you decide that you reject it as a backward philosophy, then I wouldn't say that's being prejudiced at all. Prejudice is based on ignorance. Literally, it's to "pre-judge". However, having collected a reasonable amount of knowledge on the subject, and nonetheless rejecting it as nonsense is not prejudice at all. I see nothing objectionable about it.

With "culture" it's quite a bit tougher to be clear that you're objecting to a "way of thinking" rather than the person him/herself. I suspect that what your trying your best to avoid is whether or not it's "racist" on the one hand, or "legitimate" on the other, to object to Islam. (Of course I've been wrong so many times with my assumptions!) In any case, and though I'm sure this post will be met with a great deal of outrage, I've spent some time researching Islam, its holy book, its origins, its tenets, its philosophy etc, and I just can't help but be honest and finally say that I find the entire philosophy of the religion (no not just "fundamentalist" Islam, but Islam itself) to be quite objectionable to say the least. Though the "Islam is a Religion of Peace" mantra has been repeated over and over again, I can't help but conclude, that personally, I feel that I MUST break the silence and declare that I believe Islam to be an objectionable religion. Objectionable in its regard for human life. Objectionable in its regard for women's rights. Objectionable in its intolerance of the vast spectrum of human sexuality. Objectionable in its regard for those who don't share the Muslim faith. Islam is to me, a rather objectionable "religion". Bring on the outrage. Loomis 03:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, now it's political ideas and religion. I thought the question was about culture. What would be the terms here? Objecting to political ideas is ... ehm ... having your own political ideas? And objecting to a specific religion )not religion in general) is ... ehm ... religiism? Btw, you seem to think that your hatred of someone else's religion is something new and shocking. Ever bothered to have a look at the history of mankind, especially of your own people? DirkvdM 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OUTRAGE! communism backward?!?!? you attacked me personally with that as being a believer in the IDEOLOGY of communism YOU RACIST! should you not have disclaimed that could not have actually been considered racism but I still took the offence(since this is an open response site) . and saying an entire ideology is faulty however can not be seen as racism even if your knowledge is incomplete. if it would have been politics would be one OPEN game of racism*I mean out in the open with this, contrary to the backroom now*. however saying in a diminishing way TO someone or acting against someone such a thing could be considered Racism.

Someone explain this one to me, is it meant to be taken literally? If that's the case, I still can't figure out what's being said. Is it sarcasm? That would make it even tougher to figure out. Loomis 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

as for your view on the Islam-religion. I think I should support your opinion but then I would also have to suggest that litlle book the Bible(I'm sure it isn't that new, may even have lost its copyrights) in which quite a darn lot of racism and low regard for human life, women's rights, sexual spectrum is shown. but then I say you may have to read it in Latin(or greek preferably(first-ever "complete" bible was written in greek)) to comprehend what I mean to the full extent. Graendal 05:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point Graendal. I take it then that if I were to be living centuries back during the various Dark Ages of Christianity, such ages as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch Trials etc..., you'd support my right, during those dreary times of so much senseless bloodshed, to stand up and make the (rather mild, I should say,) assertion that I consider Christianity to be rather objectionable. Of course Christianity has matured, and it's come to accept that other religions have their rightful place within humanity. Oh, and also, that there's no such thing as witches. (Should I now expect similar outrage from the Wiccans?) :) Loomis 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

People seem to have a very odd understanding of racism. Objections to Islam and Communism can hardly be defined as 'racism' for the simple reason that as systems of belief they transcend both race and culture. Both of the above contributions seem to be moving very far from the point. Clio the Muse 06:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

At last someone else sees the light. :) DirkvdM 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to the original question, please. I would also like to know the word for objecting to someone's culture. Ethnicism seems like a logical word. There's no article here, but when I look it up, all I find in reference works is 'Heathenism, paganism, idolatry' (all sites seem to have copied the same source), which is something entirely different. But texts seem to use it in this sense too. Another word might be culturalism. Ah, an article in the Guardian uses the phrase "... as the anti-racist component of the struggle ebbed, multiculturalism as policy began to degenerate into what I would term culturalism or ethnicism." This seems to be about focussing on one cultural group, but that's the same as rejecting any other cultural groups, so same dif. DirkvdM 07:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I find loomis to be too offending in his ideas against one sect of faith. Every faith has two sides to it. It all depends on the way people interpret it. Loomis has revealed his hatred against islam for foolish reasons. This act of manifestation of ones feelings cant be tolerated even if its penned down. Christianity is faithlessness, it only leads to lack of faith, that people are totally driven by the state of mind. Every person can go endlessly debating on this foolishness. A few days back a person of asian descent was attacked on Russian streets on grounds of rascism. This acts of insanity clearly reflects the attitude towards freedom and democracy. The above act of racial violence can only be out of place in todays modern world of freedom and democracy. {kjvenus}

That's a relief! If "kjvenus" finds my comments to be offensive, at least I know I said something right! :) Loomis 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and Loomis is entitled to his opinion too. He was simply being honest (surprisingly so, in these PC bullshi**y times) and didn't hurt anyone at all. In "today's world of freedom and democracy" hundered's of thousands of ppl go on the rampage (and kill ppl in the confusion) because newspapers on another continent published some cartoon's. That's modern Freedom. Mighty countries invade other countries for political (nothing better than a war to win elections) and economical reasons (oil, soo much oil) loudly proclaiming that they only want to make the world safer and free the ppl from oppression and give them democracy. That's modern Democracy. Try to be a little more jaded and cynical or, if you prefer, realist and wiser. 10:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) And do me a favour and please really sign your posts, beside giving a "false signature".

Any more outrage? :) Loomis 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Outrage from the Wiccans? I thought you did not believe in witches? Loomis, I must say I'm a little puzzled by your general approach: you seem to actively solicite 'storm and stress'. Is any useful purpose served by creating a bear pit? Clio the Muse 12:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very astute of you, Clio. Yes there is indeed a method to my apparent fit of "madness". My semi-staged hyperbolic rant above was meant to burst that PC bubble that surrounds and protects Islam and Islam only from any criticism whatsoever. We feel compelled, in order to conform to political correctness, to qualify any criticism of Islam with words like "fundamentalist" or "extremist" or "radical", so as not to offend Muslims in the slightest possible way, as that, according to the laws of PC is verboten.

Pretty much every other religion bears its share of criticism, and that criticism, again according to the PC authorities, is just fine. Just don't ever criticize Islam! Don't even joke about it! "Have you heard the one about the Priest, the Minister and the Rabbi?"..."No...is it a good one? Tell me!" "Have you heard the other one about the Priest, the Minister, the Rabbi and the Mullah?"..."SHHHHHH!!!! Ixnay on the Ullahmay!"

Christianity, Judaism, and pretty much every other religion, gets its fair share of criticism. But as a Christian or a Jew, it just seems to go with the territory. Even here on Wiki, criticism of the Bible as even going so far as promoting genocide is common fare, yet Christians and Jews tend to take it in stride. If some idiotic cartoonist were to paint Moses or Jesus in an unflattering light, we'd respectfully and peacefully object, not descend into some mad frenzy resulting in actual deaths. It goes with the territory when you believe in something you can't prove, like the Divinity of the Bible. It seems to be okay to ridicule those who believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that Moses split the Sea, that Jesus walked on water, etc. It's all foolishness to many, and they feel no compunction in labelling those who take the Bible seriously in any form as being ignorant imbeciles, nor should they feel any. It's a matter of free speach, and tends to be harmless. Yet, while PC law tells us that it's okay to ridicule the Bible, even the slightest criticism of the Koran is off limits. (Yes, you read it "KORAN", not "Qur'an"...I'm sorry but in the English language, the syllable QUR is unpronounceable. It's a general rule in English that each syllable must contain a vowel. It's also a general rule in the English language that the consonant "Q" has no sound as a consonant on its own, unless followed by a "U". "QU" is therefore a "constructed" consonant, meant to express a consonant blend that can be expressed rather accurately as "KW". To expect the "word" "Qu'ran" to be prounceable by English speakers according to the rules of English is impossible. "Qu'ran" is basically the phonetic equivalent of "Kwran". Huh?) Same goes for the holy figures of the various religions. There's no scarcity when it comes to Jesus jokes. "How do we know that the Biblical account of Jesus walking on water is a lie? ... Because he had holes in his feet and would surely have sunk". Ha Ha...very funny. Besides being inaccurate, (the "walking on water" event was surely before his cricifixion,) much more importantly, it makes a mockery of a Biblical figure revered by a billion plus people. Yet Christians take it in stride. But criticize or mock the Koran, and boy, you're in for trouble! Thank goodness for the semi-anonymity of Wikipedia, and that no one knows my street address! Loomis 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Loomis, for that very detailed response: it's obviously something to feel strongly about. I wonder, though, if you have given full consideration to the historical conditions which shape certain types of extreme reaction? If you look at the relative history of Christianity and Islam it is possible to conclude that people behave in extreme ways when they believe themselves, their faith, their culture and their whole way of life to be under some form of threat, real or imagined. For centuries the most murderous forms of extremism were found in Christian Europe, defiled by pogroms, wholesale persecution and mass witch burnings, while Islam preserved the legacy of Classical learning, and made important contributions in the advacement of arts and science. The Muslim world saw little of the persecution of Jewish communities, for instance, that became such a regular feature of Christian Europe from the Crusades onwards. I'm not saying that Islam was completely free of the urge to persecute 'non-believers'; but for the most part minorities, both Jewish and Christian, lived in relative harmony with their Muslim neighbours. So what has changed? Well, for one thing the decline in faith over much of the western world has also seem the decline in the desire to defend the faith. But where belief remains strong it can still result in murderous over-reactions. Have there not been cases in the US where medical staff involved in abortions have been pursued and harmed by fundamentalist Christians? But faith in general remains far stronger in the Islamic world. When this is combined by the feeling many Muslim people have that their world is under threat from the secular western powers, in both political and cultural terms, then you have an explosive mixture. For us cartoons and jokes depicting sacred figures may not be taken that seriously (though how do you think adverse depictions of Jesus would go down in the Bible Belt?), but for Muslims it's just another sign of western insensitivity and the danger they believe themselves to be under. Fundamentalism is one form of reaction to this threat, and should be understood in political terms. There is notwithstanding much beauty and wisdom in Islam; don't let your anger blind you to this simple fact. Clio the Muse 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the intelligent and respectful response, Clio. I'm glad that at least someone, though they may disagree with me, understands that my post had a serious purpose, and wasn't just an empty attempt to provoke outrage for outrage's sake. You've offered some good food for thought. You say that historically non-Muslims, in Muslim society, lived in "relative harmony" with their Muslim "neighbours". Well, I suppose that's true to a certain extent. Historical Christian anti-Semitism has no parallel in the Muslim world, be it pogroms or the ultimate unmentionable attrocity that occured about a half-century ago, an attrocity it must be remembered that was strongly insipred and motivated by a feeling of insult and disgrace, a feeling all too similar to "the feeling [that] many Muslim people have that their world is under threat from the secular western powers, in both political and cultural terms,...an explosive mixture". An explosive mixture indeed!

We all of course agree that such feelings are no excuse for violence.

I disagree with you, though, in your assertion that faith is "much stronger in the Islamic World". I consider myself a rather devout person of faith. So when I'm offended by this or that insult to my faith, what do I do? I write. That's about it. I don't go out and get involved in physical violence. I simply write. And write and write and write. (Ad nauseum I'm sure some other Wikipedians would say!) To local newspapers, here at Wikipedia, wherever...I just keep on writing and writing and writing. The [keyboard] is indeed mightier than the sword.

Of course there'd be nothing I'd like better than for this so called "clash of cultures" to be resolved as peacefully as possible. You say Islam had a golden age of peace and goodwill? Great! I'd love to help my Muslim cousins in any way possible to finally return to that golden age.

But the PC bubble I spoke of is no help at all. Shelter a people from criticism when they stray from the path of peace and goodwill and you damn them to the suffering that the rejection of that path inevitably leads to. In other words, what I'm saying is that the Muslim world is suffering. Look at the Palestinians. They're suffering worst of all. Why? Israel? It's got nothing to do with Israel, and it's got all to do with the fact that they're brainwashed by an elite that has more hatred for Jews than a love for their own people. But these are human beings. Human beings deserving of peace and comfort and prosperity.

Again though, Political Correctness forbids us to criticize the Islam of today, which of course is the Islam that is defined by the Islamic elite. Inevitably, in turn, the suffering continues. On the other hand, if we'd only permit ourselves to stand up and criticize the Islam of 2006, perhaps some good can finally come of it. Perhaps my Muslim cousins will finally be able to create a new "golden age" of Islam.

And that, in short, (in short? who'm I kidding! :) is why I find the Islam of 2006 so objectionable. Loomis 04:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You defend your faith by writing? There are also a great many Muslims who take this road, who have always taken this road. The whole concept of jihad has cultural as well as political meaning. There are indeed people of faith in the western world, like yourself, who will always take the reasonable course; but there are still others less subject to reason. The point remains, however, that faith in our world has long been surpassed in the world of Islam, where belief is not limited by a weekly and somewhat perfunctory visit to a local house of worship. There are many people in the Muslim world who do not identify with the complacent and corrupt oligarchies that rule over them (at least some of whom are propped up by the west) and find identity in religion. It's when they feel this to be under attack that their reaction is all the stronger. Consider also the impact of forms of political hypocrisy on Muslim public opinion. You say the Palestinian people (many of whom are Christian, incidentally) are suffering because they are brainwashed by an elite? Well, they and other Muslims have been continually lectured to about the benefits of democracy. But when they voted in a democratic way, what then happened? I would not recommend that you ever go to Gaza; but try someday to visit parts of the West Bank-the legacy of anger and hatred over grievances past and present is poisonous. But, I have to say, in conclusion, that our debate is probably without resolution. There is a fire burning; I just question the wisdom of adding more fuel. Clio the Muse 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I defend my faith by writing. You almost make it seem like there's something wrong with that! In any case, you're probably right, that our debate is probably without resolution. It's unfortunate though, because your manner of debating is rather intelligent and respectful, and I appreciate that. All the best. Loomis 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We are bound to come across each other again, Loomis, and feel sure that we will have other useful and civilized exchanges. Please do not misunderstand me. I think it admirable that you defend your faith-whatever it is-by writing or any other means you consider appropriate. The question was merely posed for dialectical purposes, followed, as it was, by the observation that this too is part of Muslim cultural discourse. It's not all violence and outrage. My best wishes to you too. Clio the Muse 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia article on Cultural relativism (scroll down to get o the political stuff)... AnonMoos 14:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following: racism is one species within a much larger genus, and the genus is 'mistaking things which are morally irrelevant for things which are morally significant'. Racism is thought bad (by sane people) because someone's 'race' (skin colour, facial features, where her grandparents came from, etc.) has no relevance to moral questions about how she should be treated. The suggested parallel term, 'culturalism', should be avoided, because if culture is an institutionalised pattern of behaviour and attribution of significance, it certainly can be morally relevant. Aztec culture, so far as we know, had many admirable features but also condoned human sacrifice. Both of these things have obvious moral significance if true. That said, there is a related mistake about cultures: condemning or praising them without understanding their complexities and contestations. Cheers, Sam Clark 19:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If I get you right, you are saying that objecting to someone's skincolour or nose-shape (or whatever physical feature) is inherently immoral, whereas objecting to someone's culture, something they can do something about, isn't. Good point. But that doesn't mean there should be no term for the latter. Maybe it should not be used in parallell with racism (to paraphrase you), suggesting they are of the same kind, but if something exists there should be a word for it.

Btw, 'racism' among humans is a misnomer because there is only one human race, homo sapiens sapiens. DirkvdM 07:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very wise wise of you to mention that, Dirk. But people do discriminate, appropriately or otherwise, on the basis of what they perceive to be another's race. That's the issue. JackofOz 09:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a very wise wise homo (don't be getting any ideas, though). :)

Ok, it exists, so there should be a word for it. But that should then be a correct word. ... ehm ... appearancism? Also note that it is in essence the same as teasing the red haired kid. It's really just xenophobia in the literal meaning of the word (disliking anything that is different), except focused on appearance. DirkvdM 07:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

United States Police

• I've been wondering about this and perhaps someone here can help. In the USA, who are the police employed by? I first thought that the US police were Federal, and employed by a nationwide agency in Washington, in the same way as the FBI. But I also wondered if the police were employed by individual states. Now I'm being told that American police are employed at the county level or by city authorities. Which is correct? It's very confusing. Here in Britain, the police are employed at county level (although our "counties" are mid-way between your counties and states), but I was never sure about America. And is there the same police force in the countryside as in the cities? And what's the difference between a sherriff and his deputies, and normal police officers and their commissioner? Do sherriffs exist in the cities, or are they just for rural areas and small towns? It's very confusing... Rusty2005 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Most often, police are employees of municipalities (towns or cities). But there are also county police and state police (so jurisdictions overlap), as well as police forces with specific responsibilities, such as park police or highway police. So the situation is every bit as confusing as you believe, and you can't really generalize about who employs police because almost all governmental entities do. But policing is generally a local rather than federal activity. - Nunh-huh 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no "united states police." There are numerous agencies, each with their own jurisdictions, from the town level up to federal special agents. Even state by state it varies, as some have sheriffs as their main structure of local law enforcement, while in others the sheriff handles only a handful of specific duties. I'd recommend starting with the relevant articles, which should have the information you want. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In the US there are many types of police (law enforcement agents with right of arrest):

• There are many types of federal police (e.g., FBI, Park Rangers, Treasury, Drug Enforcement).
• There are state police employed by each state, often referred to "state troopers" or "state highway patrol".
• There are county police, usually termed "sheriffs".
• Towns and cities of any size employ municipal police.
• Many institutions (e.g., large universities) maintain private police forces. These private forces are often referred to as security guards, but may legally carry weapons in some circumstances, often drive "squad cars", and typically maintain close relationships with the municipal police. Legal ability to detain and arrest varies and is usually more limited than government police. alteripse 21:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The city police generally do law enforcement inside a city (unless they are outnumbered and outgunned, or the crime requires specialized forensic investigators a small town doesn't have.) The sheriff has primary responsibility for enforcing laws in unincorporated areas of a county outside a city, The state police have a statewide jurisdiction, and I'm not sure how their jurisdicion jibes with the city and county officers. Under the posse comitatus the military was barred from law enforcement, since shortly after the American Civil War, but that restriction may have been or is to be eliminated. Edison 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See also Category:United States law enforcement agencies.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- the FBI is not a police force like Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police. You will never find the FBI patrolling the streets and giving out speeding tickets. Its jurisdiction is limited to enforcing federal law and assisting other law-enforcement bodies as needed. Most run-of-the-mill crimes fall under state law and therefore are under the jurisdiction of state and local police. The role of state, county and municipal police differs by state and sometimes even within states. Ohio has no state police per se, but it has a highway patrol that patrols state highways and assists local law-enforcement agencies. County sheriffs are the primary law-enforcement bodies outside of municipalities, although some townships have their own police too. In cities, municipal police departments do the policing. The sheriff also runs the county jail. But in other states, they might have a county police with primary jurisdiction both inside and outside of cities. -- Mwalcoff 00:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The RCMP patrols the streets and gives out speeding tickets? I'd say the RCMP is a lot closer to a combination of American agencies such as the FBI the ATF and the DEA, (and even, up until the 1970's, the CIA), than a "regular" police force. Of course it's true that some more rural provinces (representing a minority of population) lend their inherent provincial jurisdiction to the RCMP, where they also act in the capacity of what would be equivalent in the states as "State Troopers". Loomis 01:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In Ontario and Quebec, the RCMP is like the FBI. Out West, the Mounties can give you a ticket. -- Mwalcoff 01:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Here in Quebec we have the Sureté du Quebec (SQ), and in Ontario they've got the Ontario Provincial Police. As for the rest of the provinces, as I said, they choose to "outsource" their inherent jurisdiction to the RCMP. Of course in any municipality of any reasonable size outside these two provinces, the largest I can think of being Vancouver, BC, I can't see the RCMP patrolling the streets there, just as the SQ doesn't patrol the streets or hand out speeding tickets in Montréal, but leaves that jurisdiction to the Montréal police force. Loomis 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou all for your help, it's cleared up the matter a little but I'm still confused. Thanks though! Rusty2005 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to confuse you a bit more, you can not make any generalizations about any of this. For example, in my home state, Connecticut, counties are little more than vestigial boundary lines on a map. There are country sheriffs, but their duties are limited to not much more than delivering subpoenas. Police are employed at the town or city level, although some of the smaller towns might not have a local force at all, and rely on an assigned state trooper for law enforcement. In Virginia, where I live now, there are no "town" governments at all, one lives either in a city or a county (and cities are NOT part of the surrounding counties, which can be confusing when you have the city of Fairfax, surrounded by the county of Fairfax. But I digress). As in Mwalcoff's example, the police in these municipalities are the patrolmen, detectives, etc, while the sheriff's office runs the jails. --LarryMac 17:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The title for a US policeman is "Federal Marshall", and, indeed, they only investigate violations of federal laws and those which cross state boundaries. StuRat 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's United States Marshal. I don't know why Matt Dillon was called a Marshal on Gunsmoke, unless, during the entire run of the show, it took place while Kansas was still a territory, he should have been at least a sheriff. The US has other types of police, as well, such as the New York Port Authority police, and airport police. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true, Kansas became a state in 1861, and Gunsmoke appears to have been set after that. In such a case, state and local police would have been the normal law enforcement officers. StuRat 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Factual basis in psychology for claims about the power of the imagination

(These questions have been moved to the Science reference desk.) Marco polo 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Religion

I have looked through Wikipedia many times when I need questions answered and it has helped me alot, but there is something I can't find many specifics on. I want to become an actress or a movie director someday so, obviously, I read alot about celebrities, but I can't find that amny articles that actually state the celebrity's religion. I was wondering where I could find this information. If Wikipedia cannot provide most of it personally, I'd just like to find out about two specific actors: Christian Bale, and Johnny Depp. If you could help me find this information I'd be very grateful. Thank you.

Well the key is to latch on to the most recent popular trendie religion. My prediction? Islam.72.70.12.167 22:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)moe.ron

Hahaha. Very funny. Seriously, it simply may not be known what religion, if any, they ascribe to. Not everybody chooses to publicise their religious beliefs. And not everybody that believes in a god or gods attends organised religious services.

Moe.ron does have a point that actors, as a group, are not known being strongly represented in the ranks of the more conservative Christian churches, --Robert Merkel 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do assume that they have a religion? For many people today, even if they were brought up in a religion, it is not a significant part of their lives, and they would not mention it unless pressed? --ColinFine 13:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

October 23

Strange battleship-like game...

Does anyone know of this game, or what its name is?: You start with a square grid and someone hides a under one of the squares. You try and guess the square, but if you get it wrong, they have to tell you the distance between them and your guess. Is there a specific name for this? 68.39.174.238 00:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the Minesweeper game that's included with every copy of Microsoft Windows and some Linux distros, although the aim is not to click on the hidden "mine". --Canley 02:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't really sound like Minesweeper to me (the numbers on the squares don't indicate distance to mines but number of adjacent mines, and there are far more than one mine hidden), but I don't have any idea as to what it could be. -Elmer Clark 02:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't imagine it would be a very long game - you could locate any spot within three guesses... BenC7 05:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Or even two.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a sort of 3D Battleship-like game called Sub Search, could that be it ? As I recall, instead of just a "hit" or "miss", as in Battleship, they also had a "near miss", when you were within one grid space of hitting the sub, in any direction. StuRat 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wumpus? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, since you didn't have to move on the board, you could randomly pick squares and had more then 1 chance. If you want to play, it's part of Intel's latest attempt at viral marketing. 68.39.174.238 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

searching a link on Product review page

Hi there,

I am searching a page where I can R&D on product also can Review, Test & provide comments on software OR products are added in wikipedia site.

please help me in the same.

Your request is not quite clear, but in any case Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a product review site.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But a link to a product review site, from an article about that product, might be OK. StuRat 04:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hindu fasting calculation

Need information on Hindu fasting. The type of fasting, Why fasting is important in spiritual mean, Meaning of punnya in fasting, If man do fasting will punnya divide in me & my wife, Rules for punnya

If our articles on fasting and Hinduism don't help you, I suggest you ask your guru. You wife must do her own fasting.--Shantavira 13:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

His wife is already pretty fast. I couldn't resist. Scared another one away... X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 07:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

I have a few questions which relate to the doomed ocean liner, RMS Titanic. The first question is, why is the stern section so much more damaged than the bow? The second pertains to the forward grand staircase, who designed it, and was it custom built for the Titanic- and the Olympic I believe. Thirdly, on the film, the forward most chimney stack appears to collapse because the wires - at least thats what I think they are - collapsed; what held the funnel on. Penultimately, how much would a ship like Titanic cost to build today? And are there any projects that seek to rebuild the ship, or possibly even raise the wreckage? I apologise for such a loaded question. Ahadland 15:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can answer one or two of the questions:

• The bow was lighter than the stern, which contained the massive engines. The bow sank once it filled with water and broke from the stern. Having water inside and outside meant the pressure was equalized, so no crushing occurred as it sank. The stern, being much heavier, was able to sink while still containing lots of air. This meant that once it sank to a sufficient depth, the pressure from the outside water caused it to implode. It also then was heavier than the bow, so sank rapidly, imbedding itself into the bottom and causing further damage.

• I believe there was a plan to raise the Titanic using balloons filled with air. However, this was never done.

See our RMS Titanic article for more info. StuRat 18:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Titanic can never be raised; it's in such bad shape that (according to Eaton and Haas in Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy) it would fall into a million pieces if anybody even tried. *Nothing* would work. It's just too fragile and too badly damaged.

Titanic is also only one of a dozen or more ships of its age and size that are lying on the ocean floor. Her sister ship Britannic is one of them, as is the Lusitania, the Empress of Ireland (sitting on the bed of the St. Lawrence very near to Quebec City) and the Wilhelm Gustloff, on which over eight thousand people are thought to have died. If somebody wanted to raise a ship, they would likely look at one of these, since they're better situated and in better condition.

As to recreating her - Titanic is a very romantic ship. People think that because of the hullaballoo surrounding her sinking and because of the beauty of the decor in the first-class sections, she must have been the greatest ship that ever floated. Not so. The First Class accommodations were luxurious *for their time*, but there were only three bathtubs available for all the First Class men (and no showers - despite what was shown on that odious 1996 TV mini-series, Titanic had no showers). Only a handful of cabins had private washrooms. The engines created enormous amounts of smoke compared to modern ships, and a lot of that descended onto those walking the decks. Only some staterooms had electric heaters; there was no central heating except to the common areas. The lights in the cabin could be dim and flickered.

Many people would contest that, seeing as your giving a point of view, rather than fact

Quite frankly, the lowest-priced room on a Carnival Cruise Lines ship is probably more comfortable than a first-class room on Titanic was. Add to that the fact that you'd have to make significant changes to the ship to make it insurable and registerable under modern laws, and add to that the immense cost of all that First Class decor in a time when woodworkers, carpenters, etc. are paid a living wage (unlike 1910), and the idea of building a new Titanic as is becomes economically unfeasible. --Charlene 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it could never be raised. There are several strategies that could work:

• Cut it into small pieces, raise them one at a time, then reassemble it at the surface.

• Lower a rigid platform to the sea floor, "roll" it onto that (using balloons filled with air), then raise the platform.

• Encase it in some type of rigid foam which will hold it together, then raise that.

Note that none of these approaches are practical with current financial and technological limitations, and there is also the "disturbing a grave site" aspect to be considered. However, it could be raised at some point in the future, if there is anything left to raise, by the time we are ready. StuRat 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I used to be in to reading about the Titanic in my younger years. I recall that apparently the forward funnel of the Titanic was false and wasn't a functioning chimney, and in fact was used as storage, mainly for deckchairs. Although this doesn't say how it was attached it may explain the ease with which it broke._-Stubbly

• Could anyone help with the Grand Staircase question? or the one about the collapsing smoke stack?

• The smoke stacks aren't nearly as substantial as they appear. They are just thin sheet metal, so will even collapse under their own weight if laid on their sides, especially after they've had a chance to rust for years. StuRat 18:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ye but Stu what made it collapse whilst the ship was sinking? Surely, as its portrayed in the film it wasnt just held on by cables?

The force of the water against the funnels would tear them off as it sank. This force is similar to air resistance, but much greater, due to the much greater density of water. StuRat 04:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So what about the Grand Staircase

Was it custom built or not and who designed it? Also was it made of real wood, and how much pressure would have been on the glass dome when it shattered

Franc value in 1910

What was the value of the French franc in 1910?

100 centimes, and the rate was quite constant during more than a century. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In the year 1913, it took 5.18 Old Francs to buy one U.S. Dollar. That would have been about 4.2 German Marks. One Franc of the year 1910 is equivalent to 3.39975 euros of 2005. [5] - Nunh-huh 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

When the French discuss money, is it always a franc discussion ? :-) StuRat 21:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

i'm sure francophiles always profit from such tête-a-têtes. - Nunh-huh 21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Francly my dear, I don't give a damn. Clarityfiend 00:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is every reference desk required by Law to have at least one noxious and silly conversation going at any one time?! 68.39.174.238 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The nerve of us! That's the job of Congress. Clarityfiend 16:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no, that's the beauty of free speech! Being allowed to be silly and annoying just for yourself... ;) 惑乱 分からん 22:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The value of the FF at that time was expressed in units of gold. The article French franc explains it well. -THB 03:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Recommended Tenchi Muyo series?

As an otaku-in-training, I'm interested in getting into the Tenchi Muyo! anime. However, with the sheer number of TV series, OVA and related spin-offs out there, I'm not sure where to start. Can anyone please give me any recommendations on where to start, which series are the best and a recommended viewing order? Ppk01 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the OAV/OVA are the original. They go in order, and are the real timeline. The movies are also part of this timeline, I believe. Second came the TV series, which is also known as Tenchi Universe or Shin Tenchi or No Need for Tenchi in the U.S. (no need because every episode title start with No Need for...). This is a different timeline, and different histories for the characters. Then the third series is Tenchi in Tokyo, which is again a different timeline and different character histories. This one was also broadcast on TV and focuses more on romance than anything else. There's also GXP which has a relative of someone from Tenchi but doesn't really focus on the main cast, and I have not seen it. There are spin-offs like Magical Girl Pretty Sammy too, but that's like Card Captor Sakura, and I've never seen those either. Hope that helps. BTW, I like the original the most, including the character histories. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! --Ppk01 23:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Venezuela in UN Security Council

What are the countries that are supporting Venezuela in its bid to obtain the non-permanent Latin American seat on the UN Security Council? -81.170.56.183 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

See 2006 United Nations Security Council election#Latin American and Caribbean seat and the links at the bottom of that page. User:Zoe|(talk)

California Real Estate Exam

What is the title or name of "the" exam to get a real estate license? Further, how long does it take to obtain such a license...could it be done in a few months?

On a slightly different tangent, I was curious, approximately what percentage of all people that are now around the age of 18 go to college?

ChowderInopa 20:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer your first question, the article real estate broker explains that realtors in the United States generally go through two phases of licensing. This is also true in California. An entry-level realtor must first obtain a sales-agent license. According to this real estate school (which I found at random and which neither I nor Wikipedia endorse), a dedicated student can pass the exam for a sales-agent license after just two and a half weeks of study. After a realtor gains some experience, he or she can take the exam for a broker's license. You might find claims on the same website about the time needed to study for that exam. Another resource is the website of the California Department of Real Estate. Marco polo 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the second, assuming you're in the US, the Census says that 35.1% of people 18-24 years old are enrolled in college or graduate school. If you click on the "Change geography" link in the light blue box in the upper left corner, you can view by state, by urban area, etc. (38.9% of 18-24 year olds in California go to college, for instance.) --ByeByeBaby 05:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about Music Production

When songs are recorded and sold on CD's, are the techies and "little guys" involved in their production paid royalties based on how big the song sells, or are they just paid a fixed rate no matter what? Thanks, anon.

Flat-fee plus the prestige of working with big artists (and the resume boost it could entail).--152.23.204.76 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

October 24

magazine ownership

Who owns Rolling Stone magazine?

Wenner Publishing? See Rolling Stone. Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Great civilizations

I'm doing a project which relates to the years 793-1066. I need some general background info on the the major civilizations and players of the time - I'm quite well versed in European history in this period - I'm however lacking a bit regarding... the rest of the world :(

What major players existed in the world in this period? What was the major cities in which their powers were focused such as Rome, Samarkand or Constantinople. I'm looking for anything outside of Europe - Africa and Asia in particular. I'm aware that North and South American history is very sketchy for this period so it ok to come up with an educated (and substantiated) guess.

Gardar Rurak 05:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Americas, you'll want to look at the Maya civilization, Toltec and Zapotec in Mesoamerica (we have an article on Mesoamerican chronology with a timeline), and the Nazca and Moche amongst those in Peru. In North America, start with the Mississippian culture in the US and the Haida in Canada; there's not enough recorded history to establish "players", but these are a couple of the more advanced and interesting cultures.

In Asia, there's a lot to learn; check History of China, History of India, Persian Empire and Khmer Empire to begin. This map, although a little later than you want, gives a good overview of Asian cultures. Similarly, start with History of Africa; the Ghana Empire may be interesting. --ByeByeBaby 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This period saw the apogee of the Byzantine Empire, reaching across Europe and Asia Minor, under Basil II, after whose death began the long decline.. Have a look also at the Chola Empire in India. For the Chinese Empire the early part of this period was marked by political division, which ended with the rise of the Song Dynasty. Clio the Muse 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders about those years, 793-1066 is known as the Viking Age. DirkvdM 08:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course; but can the Vikings really be defined as a 'major civilization'? Like the Goths and Huns of a previous age they were a 'people on the move', so to speak. They had little in the way of political unity, though they did, of course, establish a number of important power centres in Europe and beyond. Clio the Muse 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Vikings" didn't move. They travelled, but they didn't actually move anywhere, or colonize much. But there's no such thing as a "Viking civilization" to begin with. The Viking Age people of Scandinavia never considered themselves to be a single people. Some of the distinctions were even maintained for centuries after they'd lost any political or cultural meaning. --BluePlatypus 20:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They moved alright, and they colonized. To the north-west they settled in Iceland, Greenland and, for a time, North America (Vinland). To the south-west they established settlements (and kingdoms) in England, parts of Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland, where Dublin was established as a Viking base. Still further south they were granted lands on the northern coast of France, where Normandy (the land of the north men) was established in 911. Their descendants were later to settle in southern Italy. To the east they sailed down the great rivers, and are said to have established Kievan Rus, the first Russian state, in the ninth century. Still further south many settled in Constantinople, becoming the bodyguards of the Byzantine emperors. So, I think the contention that the Vikings moved, colonized and settled is reasonably accurate. Don't you? Clio the Muse 22:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that colonisation doesn't necesserily mean conquering. And quite often the Vikings lived peacefully alongside the original inhabitants, exchanging bits of culture. Possibly like the way the Dutch later colonised - first establish a trading post, then more and more, spread your power and eventually take over. Although they did plunder too. Just like the Dutch did (except that they raided Spanish gold transports). And what do you know, in the North of the Netherlands live Frisians, close relatives to the Vikings. DirkvdM 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Literature and art dealing with the question, "What makes a man?"

I'm looking for stuff that thematically deals with that question. (Ex. plays or paintings.)

Could you perhaps narrow it down just a teeny-weeny bit? As far as literature goes, you could probably make a case for most of the world's best-known works as dealing with this topic. --Robert Merkel 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The poem If— by Rudyard Kipling.
2. The painting The Creation of Adam by Michaelangelo. Anchoress 06:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You could start with What are Little Boys Made of?. --Shantavira 08:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well Death of a Salesman concerns a man whose idea of "what makes a man" is horribly misguided and destroys him, if that helps. But yeah, I really don't anticipate you having much trouble finding material for this, gotta agree with Robert Merkel that a huge percentage of literature has been devoted to trying to answer this in one way or another. -Elmer Clark 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In terms of finding a painting, the Web Gallery of Art, http://www.wga.hu/, is a good website. I plugged in Creation under a title search and found various renaissance bronzes depicting the creation of Adam. -midnight_coffee

Origin of the phrase 'violence begets violence'

Is it apocryphal, or did the phrase originate with someone? If so, who? Thank you. Adambrowne666 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, somebody must have been the first person to utter such words, but I have no idea who. Epigrams can't be proven or disproven, they are true for those for whom they have meaning, and untrue for others. It's not a question of apocryphality (?). An apocryphal story is one that many people believe to be true, but isn't true. For example, the oft-repeated claim that Columbus discovered America is apocryphal. He was not only far from the first to find the Americas, he never got to the USA at all. JackofOz 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Americas are not limited to the US, but also include the island Columbus managed to find. While he wasn't the first person to discover the Americas (that would be the original native Americans) or even the first European (that would be the Vikings), he was the first European from whom the information propagated to the rest of Europe. The Vikings didn't make maps, and, in any case, just thought they had found an inhospitable island, so this info never spread. The info did spread from Columbus, such that subsequent explorerers were able to discover the scale of the continent (and accompanying islands) that had been discovered. StuRat 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The earliest reference I have found to the exact phrase is from The Sham Squire by William J. Fitz-patrick printed in 1866 but citing a letter from 1798. A slightly later reference but from a book printed earlier is Alvan Lamson's Sermons of 1857 which has the words right after a quote from Jesus about living by the sword (Matthew 26:52), probably explaining the popularity of the phrase. There have certainly been a lot of "something breeds/begets something" phrases used, but whether any are older then violence would be interesting but difficult to discover. If you just want someone clever and distinguished to have said something similar try "These violent delights have violent ends" Romeo & Juliet, Act II, Scene VI MeltBanana 13:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then there's "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword"...a warning that keeping swords on the wall will kill you when they fall ? :-) StuRat 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes - I took one definition of apocryphal - 'of doubtful authorship' - to mean just that, where it actually means 'of dobutful authenticity', as you say, JackofOz, so thanks for pointing that out. Thanks, too, MeltBanana, for your amazingly scholarly answer - how do you find these sources? Adambrowne666 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you'll be able to find an easy answer for that - it probably didn't originate in English, given how many other languages have the same expression. --BluePlatypus 10:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

GREAT KANTO EARTHQUAKE

In total how much damage, in Pound Sterling, in todays money, did the earthquake, fires, landslides etc do??? thanks--William dady 09:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. 1923 Great Kanto earthquake states "The damage is estimated to have exceeded one billion U.S. dollars at contemporary values." Convert to sterling on your own.

2. STOP YELLING!

B00P 10:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says that the damage exceeded $1 billion at the time. Let's be conservative and suppose that the damage totaled $1.2 billion in 1923 dollars. According to this site, that would be $13.7 billion in 2005 dollars. This works out to roughly $14 billion in 2006. That roughly equals £7.5 billion (sterling) today. Note that this is a very rough estimate. The article says that the damage exceeded $1 billion. The total could be $1.2 billion, as I have posited, or it could be twice that. Marco polo 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An alternate method of working out the cost would be to take that $1 billion estimate, convert it to 1923 pounds at $4.03=£1, so roughly £250 million in 1923; then apply this site to convert to 2005 pounds, which gives around £9.5 billion. Of course, the damage could have been well over $1 billion.... -- Arwel (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Ivan Scanlen (Captain) 1886-1941

Could you provide me army records of Captain Thomas Ivan Scanlen. He is my grand father. He fought for HIS majesty's Forces in East Africa in the 1900's. His parents are both from South Africa. thx bryan scanlen E-mail scanlen_bryan (at) yahoo·com.

I'm afraid we do not keep army records. Do you know which army this was? In that case, you might try inquiring with that army.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Mona Lisa

Hypothetically, if the Louvre were to have the Mona Lisa valued, is there an estimate as to what the art guy's prediction might be?

If you go to Mona Lisa, it says that what it was insured for $100mil in 1962, which is equivalent to $645 million in 2005. However, it has probably since then rose in value, considering Picasso paintings did, and I would say over a billion wouldn't be too much of an estimate? But that's probably still too little due to it being the world's most famous painting. Thus, priceless is really the only real estimate. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "priceless" is a cop-out. If you tried to sell it for 1 trillion dollars, nobody would buy it, so it does have a finite value. The only thing I know of that's truly priceless are all the foods in the grocery store which they "forget" to mark. :-) StuRat 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do I have the nerve to say that it is just a piece of colored poplar? I wouldn't pay more than a hundred dollars for it. It's just a painting. StuRat you philistine! X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 18:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd pay everything I have for it, knowing I could turn around and sell it for millions, wouldn't you ? StuRat 04:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Priceless simply means it has no price. In other words it is not for sale, and will never be for sale under any imaginable circumstances. It may have an insurance 'value'; but that is really quite arbitrary. If lost it could never be replaced. Clio the Muse 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine it being sold. Say the museum is in bankruptcy and needs cash to survive. They could then sell it to another museum, which would care for it properly, and the first museum could have the money they needed to keep their doors open. StuRat 04:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It actually belongs to the state of France; and states do not go bankrupt. The painting was stolen once, in 1911, and caused great national concern. Anyway, add as many zeros as you like to a figure of one: La Gioconda will remain in the Louvre. Clio the Muse 07:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually even if it belonged to the museum which as stated by clio it does not they still could not and would not sell it, however they could loan it out to another high-profile museum for money for a pre-set period of time. this should make them enough money to keep in buseniss, also the specific museum (le louvre) has enough other forms of art to loan and some they might even sell.Graendal 11:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we're talking France here. Nevermind the Mona Lisa, they pretty much sold Paris itself to Hitler. Say the US government offered the French Government Stu's hypothetical price, a trillion $US. The Mona Lisa would be on its way to the US faster than you can say: "on capitule" Loomis 23:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Another contention that will never be proved one way or the other! What I will say is that possession of this painting is so caught up in French notions of national pride that it would take a very bold-or very foolish-politician to agree to the sale. Images of 'falling heads', 'rampaging crowds' and ' bloody guillotines' all flit across my mind. Clio the Muse 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it more caught up in French notions of national pride than Paris itself? "Falling heads", "rampaging crouds", "bloody guillotines"...can you get any more French than that? Loomis 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the image that flits through my mind is that of Herr Adolph admiring from that particular viewpoint in Paris, (I don't know the name for it, but I remember being right there,) the latest trophy he bought from the French: The Eiffel Tower. Can anything, and I mean ANYTHING, be it the Mona Lisa or whatever, be more instilled in the notion of French pride than the Eiffel Tower? Loomis 17:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is one piece of information about the Eiffel Tower that you might not be aware of, that could go some way to explaining the French national character. After the Germans occupied Paris in 1940 the key to operate the lift/elevator to the top was found to be missing. It remained so throughout the whole occupation, forcing the Herrenvölk to demonstrate their Aryan prowess by climbing all the way up to admire the view, no simple feat. It mysteriously reappeared in 1944, after they had been ejected. Oh, yes, I think Hitler's viewpoint was from the Champ de Mars. Needless to say, he made to attempt on the Tower.Clio the Muse 23:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Interesting indeed. But that only leads me to two further questions: 1) Are you saying that Nazi Germany, despite all of its achievements, including such technological feats as the development of the Enigma code, and the invention of the V-2 rockets, couldn't muster the brainpower necessary to pick a simple lock? And 2), even if they couldn't, are you saying that their buddy Phillippe didn't have a copy that they could borrow? (Quoi?! Vous n'en avez pas le clé pour l'ascenseur? Ne vous inquietez pas! Je m'en ai une copie dans mon tirroir! :) Ok, now I'm just being silly. Loomis 15:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why were typewriters invented for the blind?

In wikipedia's typewriter article, it states that many typewriter prototypes were invented to help the blind communicate. I see a couple of problems with this. First of all, they were blind, not mute, they should have been able to communicate via speech. Secondly, if it was in regards to written communication, aren't blind people capable of writing? And think about how much harder would it be to teach a blind person to type rather than write!

Much help appreciated !

Xhin 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to write if you can't see the lines of text on the page. However, it is rather easy to type a message without worrying about one line of text overlapping another one. As for them not being mute, being blind doesn't help a person talk to someone else in another country. Having a typewriter helps the blind communicate with people who are far away. Of course, communication by letter has died down a lot from the old times - first because of telephone, and now because of email. As for a blind person using a computer, I know a blind programmer who works at Microsoft. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In one of the Little House on the Prairie books, Laura Ingalls-Wilder described how Mary Ingalls, who was blind, learned to write with a frame and stencil - she knew where the letters were by feel, and could line them up on the page. I imagine that learning to touch-type would be a great deal easier and much quicker in the end.sthomson 14:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be almost impossible for someone who had been blind since birth to learn to write, as they couldn't see how others write (and since seeing what they themselves write is important feedback needed for learning). If they already knew how to write when they went blind, then maybe they could keep the skill up, but it wouldn't be very readable. Just as an experiment, try writing a letter in the dark and see how bad it looks. StuRat 04:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Apostle Paul, Sexual Orientation

When I was much younger (in the 1960's) I worked with a group of priests and brothers from an order where there were lot of members with advanced degrees in theology. Around the monestary, they used to refer to the Apostle Paul as the "Gay Apostle". I orignally thought this was some kind of "in house" joke (because some of the brothers had been gay before joining). But, when I inquired, I was told that there was some evidence that Paul/Saul had been homosexual before becoming a Christian. The evidence they talked about included the fact that Paul was raised in a Greek city, a Roman citizen, and from the upper class and that both Greek and Roman upper classes had a higher precentage of homosexual activity than society in general either at that time or today.

I recall the discussions indicating not only that there was some historical basis for this assertion, but that there was a small body of theological work discussing the implications of this assertion.

The issue has recently been raised by some gay friends.

My question is whether there is in fact some historical basis for this assertion and whether there are theological works discussing the implications?

--71.38.135.176 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's an online extract of Bishop John Shelby Spong's Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism discussing the possibility that Paul was gay. Marcus Borg may also have written on this issue, but I'm way out of my expertise here... Hope this helps. Cheers, Sam Clark 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was about to refer you to the same essay by Spong, but Sam beat me to it. Here are a couple of other observations. First of all, there probably wasn't such a thing as a gay identity or self-identity in ancient times. This seems to be a recent thing. There were actions, considered sinful in the Judeo-Christian tradition, that a person might feel drawn toward. The person might be tormented and consider himself (or herself) a sinner, but that person would not have considered himself or herself "gay." It is important to remember that, while Paul was raised in a Greek city and was a Roman citizen, he was also a devout Jew before his conversion experience. So he was raised with the Jewish scripture that labels homosexuality an "abomination". That could have caused some self-loathing if he felt drawn to such activity, even if the Gentiles around him accepted it, if only in the limited context of relations between adult men and adolescent boys. (See pederasty and homosexuality.) That self-loathing could explain Paul's (ascribed) authorship of some of the most homophobic passages in the New Testament, such as Romans 1:26-27. Marco polo 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are some interesting implications... but the fact remains that there's no evidence to even suggest that he was homosexual --froth^{T C} 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You both for the assistance. --71.38.135.176 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll mention that Bishop Spong's theology is considered by most to be heretical. Have a look at the numbered points under "New Reformation" on his article page. BenC7 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

politics

Is a vote for a republican a vote against the self interest of most Americans?

The answer to this question depends on whether people see the Republicans as the defenders of "traditional values" or of America against terror and whether they see these traits as more central to their self-interest than things like habeas corpus, health care, education, public services generally, future debt loads, the environment.... Marco polo 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a distinction between what people perceive as their interests and what their actual interests are: I wonder which the questioner meant? Sam Clark 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See What's the Matter with Kansas?... AnonMoos 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, unquestionably, voting Republican is against your interest unless you think averting gay marriage is more important to you than keeping our economy healthy by reducing the deficit, stopping wealth transfer to corporations and rich folks, slowing the growing social divide between rich and poor, forcing corporations to reduce pollution and follow regulatory rules, sending the children of middle class and poor people to fight and die in horribly destructive wars for the benefit of Halliburton Corporation, continuing to generate fear and disgust in many of the other countries of the world, and getting the bastards who have been lying to you for the last 6 years out of office. I bet I could think of a few more reasons if those are not enough. alteripse 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why mommy is a democrat ;) Anyway, I don't like the Republicans, either, but you could read up on the articles and make up your own mind... 惑乱 分からん 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An amazing book. I never saw it before. Unfortunately, the sample pages make me think it lives up to virtually every dishonest Republican caricature of Democrats. I would rather argue that Democrats sure aren't saints, but it is hard to imagine any other group of people causing as much general harm to most of the citizens of the US as the current administration has. This has to be a 120 year high tide for incompetence, greed, corruption, stupidity, dishonesty, and debasement of the Constitution and American political traditions. alteripse 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that book for real? It looks like a satire.

Anyway, I agree with Sam Clark that it's a matter of perception. I think a lot of white Americans, consciously or subconsciously, identify with the "haves" over the "have nots" because of the racial dynamic in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff 01:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not in a monarchy. The only monarchy in America I can think of is Canada. Any republican movements there? DirkvdM 07:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Zat is right. Zee first ting ve fur trappeurs do apres ve put oop our igloos is 'ang oop a picture of zee Queen. Clarityfiend 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Only Canada? You dissapoint me Dirk. What about the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba? Not to mention all those Carribean island-nation monarchies that have the Queen of England as their head of state. Loomis 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about those. Silly me. Although there is some controversy over whether islands can be regarded as part of a continent - the reason some Brits don't consider themselves to be Europeans. DirkvdM 11:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But of course none of these countries is in "America", as Dirk would have us believe. They're in The Americas. The word America, where used without any qualifier such as North, South or Central, indicates the USA. There might be a confusion between this and the word "American", which these days is used by some people to refer to people from any part of the Americas, eg. Peru. While a Peruvian might be described in some context as "an American", that doesn't make it correct to say that Peru is part of "America". JackofOz 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See America. DirkvdM 11:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think voting for a Republican is for your interests. Laleena 12:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think so too Laleena. But shhhhh! Don't tell anyone. Loomis 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country to go out and vote for them, right? 惑乱 分からん 22:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends.

It seems to me that the ability to vote against what others define as one's 'self-interest' must count high among the core definitions of democracy. Sadly, there are two many places in the world where the state is all too ready to define what the 'interests' of its citizens are. Clio the Muse 07:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

October 25

Comparing prizes for common goods and services

Hi, does anyone know if it exist a webpage that compare and update prizes for different items like food, alchohol, taxi and dining..For instance, on this site I would have been able to compare the prize for one beer in Athens with one beer in Mexico City. I understand that this kind of estimation have to be both roughly calculated and constantly updated. But does anyone know if a site like this exist? --Petteroes 08:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean prices ? StuRat 15:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Of course! Sorry - I'm Norwegian...:)--Petteroes 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I got the idea that English was a second language for you when you said "if it exist a webpage that compare and update". A native English speaker would have said "if a web page exists that compares and updates". Here is your question corrected, in case you would like to improve your English:

Hi, does anyone know if a web page exists that compares and updates prices for different items; like food, alcohol, taxi and dining ? For instance, on this site, I would be able to compare the price for one beer in Athens with one beer in Mexico City. I understand that this kind of estimation has to be both roughly calculated and constantly updated. Does anyone know if a site like this exists ?

StuRat 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to be an impossible question concerning an impossible task, like counting the grains of sand on a beach. Just consider the amount of information that would have to be processed moment by moment. Clio the Muse 05:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, they didn't say the site would have to list every product in every country. Perhaps it could just have a few sample products compared in several countries. StuRat 06:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course; but, even so, take the example of something simple, like the price of beer. How would you compensate for the differences between bar to bar, neighbourhood to neighbourhood, district to district, city to city etc. etc. etc.? I'm sure you get the picture. Taxi rides? I shall have a brain-storm even letting that one cross my mind! Clio the Muse 07:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The search terms you are looking for is "cost of living" With this [6] google search you get a lot of worldwide results, some just compare salaries, while some others should compare housing and other goods, just look through the results a bit. Nowimnthing 16:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A cost of living index adjusts for an average of many such items, but doesn't typically break down costs of each individual item by country. StuRat 22:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All about Persia

What is the Total of Persian lemon production per year in tons and dollars for 2005 or 2006

- the Total of Imports of persian lemon per year

- the Persian Lemon prices (everywhere)

- and the names of the companies who sell the lemon

By Persia, do you mean Iran ? StuRat 15:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He probably did mean Persia. See Iran naming dispute. JackofOz 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps, as I mentioned below, in speaking of "Persian Lemons" s/he was referring to Persia/Iran no more than one would be referring to the capital of Belgium when speaking of Brussels sprouts. The Lime, also known as the Persian Lime, apparently originated in Persia/Iran, and, according to the article on it, its name was apparently "derived from the Persian name لیمو, limu (the fruit was introduced to Europe during the Crusades)". Of course the fruit is now cultivated around the world, and so its connection to Persia is in name and origin only. Loomis 23:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler sell lots and lots of lemons. Clarityfiend 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They also sell lots of quality cars, and foreign companies have sold lots of lemons, too, like the infamous Yugo. Land Rover, with 204 problems per 100 models tracked, placed last in the 2006 J.D. Power & Associates Initial Quality Survey: [7]. The second to last place finish was Isuzu, with 191 problems. Cadillac, on the other hand, had a better quality rating than foreign car companies Acura, Nissan, Audi, Volvo, Mitsubishi, Kia, Mercedes, Scion, BMW, Subaru, Mazda, MINI, Saab, Suzuki, Isuzu, and Land Rover. So, your implication that all US cars are junk and foreign cars are quality is just plain wrong. StuRat 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Michiganer ! Loomis 22:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously though, despite the misleading header, the questioner is probably asking about a Persian Lime, which is much more commonly known simply as a Lime. I'm guessing that the Lime originated in Persia, but beyond that the question probably has little to do with Iran. Loomis 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez, lighten up StuRat. ==>> IT WAS A JOKE! <<== (Excuse me. I must report my success in wrecking the U.S. economy to my master, Kim Jong Il. He'll be tickled pink...er...red that he can bring the Great Enemy to its knees without bothering with all that nuclear bomb nonsense.) Clarityfiend 22:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's a sensitive topic here, where the local economy has been wrecked by exactly the misperception perpetuated by that type of joke. I therefore take every opportunity to set the record straight. StuRat 23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no more American car jokes. *heavy sigh* Clarityfiend 03:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest Yugo jokes ? They really were crap, and now they don't even make them anymore, and the country no longer exists, so those jokes can't hurt anyone. StuRat 05:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, doesn't Ford own "foreign" cars like Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo and even a third of Mazda? Doesn't GM own Saab? Isn't Chrysler run from Stuttgart these days? Aren't most Toyotas and Hondas on the road today in the US manufactured in Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio? Doesn't GM manufacture more cars in Ontario than in Michigan? With the new global economy, it's not like the old days when an "American car" was an "American car", and a "foreign car" was a "foreign car". And that, in short, is what I have to say about the "Total of Persian lemon production per year in tons and dollars for 2005 or 2006". :) If I'm not mistaken, somebody up there originally asked a question about Persian citrus fruits. Loomis 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the original poster would like to clarify whether they are talking about Iran/Persia or just about a particular kind of citrus? And to sign their question with four tildes? (~~~~) Then it is possible that somebody might be able to help. --ColinFine 14:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Colin! Despite my efforts, I really have no idea what the original question was about. Perhaps it was about Iran, perhaps it was about lemons/limes, and perhaps it was even about very badly manufactured Iranian automobiles (not that I know that Iran produces any automobiles, but who knows). In any case, after days without clarification from the original questioner, and after apparently wasting our time in researching the origin of that really sour green citrus, at this point I don't feel there's any problem in salvaging this space for whatever discussion we see fit. Loomis 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert RN

I have a clear recollection of seeing Albert RN on television while in London in 1951 (no doubt about the date). However since the film was not released until 1953, what I saw could not have been the film. Was this a stage play previously and was the play broadcast on BBC in the summer of 1951?

Other titles:

• Break to Freedom (USA)
• Marlag 'O' Prison Camp (USA) (promotional title)
• Spare Man

--Light current 15:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like youre correct! Albert (1951) was on TV. [8]--Light current 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

FlickBook

Could I please have some information concerning FlickBooks Things such as First Flickbook made When was it created? where was it most popular? what is the average page amount for a flick book?

--81.99.103.113 11:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

By "flick book" do you mean a book with a slightly different illustration on each page, such that you see apparent motion when flipping through the pages rapidly ? If so, those are called flip books. StuRat 15:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They're often called "flick books" in the UK; actually until I read this I didn't realise "flip book" was used. I've set up a redirect from flick book, which should sort that out. Loganberry (Talk) 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bosch, the last judgement.

I need a picture of Bosch's "The Last Judgement" with as high of a resolution as possible. Preferrably over 1500 pixels in all dimensions. Thanks. Clq 12:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good site http://artchive.com/ftp_site.htm MeltBanana 13:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that after using the above link, you must pick "Bosch", on the left side, to get to the desired page. StuRat 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it. Thanks. Clq 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it legal for the British Secret Service to assasinate Dodi Al-Fayed ?

In British Law, treason is defined as

The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its English translation.

The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:

• "when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";
• "if a man do violate the King’s companion, or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir";
• "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition"; and
• "if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King’s justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

And treason was punishable by death. The penalty for treason was changed from death to a maximum of imprisonment for life in 1998 under the Crime And Disorder Act. Before 1998, the death penalty was mandatory, subject to the royal prerogative of mercy.

On 31 August 1997 Diana was involved in a car accident in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris.

What if it was not a car accident but an assasin sent to terminate Dodi Al-Fayed secretly but lawfully?

A british agent on her majesty secret service who is licenced to kill. 211.28.178.86 12:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, Dodi Fayed was just Diana's boyfriend. So he wouldn't come under the definition of treason you quote. Nor would Diana herself, since she and Charles were divorced at the time of her death. Furthermore, there was no conspiracy to assassinate either of them. Henri Paul was drunk at the wheel, he got into a chase with some paparazzi and the car crashed. End of story. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

duh! I forgot about the divorce. I thought I had something there. The Prince and Princess of Wales were separated on 9 December 1992; their divorce was finalised on 28 August 1996. 211.28.178.86 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetically if the secret service killed dodi fayed it would be illegal. Dodi was not guily of treason. Diana was divorced from charles and thus no longer his companion. Furthermore even if she where his companion, british law does not apply in france where the killing occured.

Is that right? If the Queen was murdered while on a state visit to some foreign country, would the assassin be beyond the reach of UK law? Would the British legal authorities have to settle for ensuring he was prosecuted under the law of the country in question? Would it make any difference if the assassin was a British citizen or not? JackofOz 21:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out the article on extraterritoriality, Jack. It's not the greatest article as it only deals with the issue conceptually and historically, yet says nothing definitively that would lead to an answer to your question. Still, it might give you a better idea as to the likely answer. Loomis 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

However I'm pretty sure that under international law it doesn't matter whether the killing would have been legal in the country in question or not (in any case, extra-judicial killings are rarely legal). This would be murder under French law and whatever the legality in the UK would be irrelevant under law. Of course, the French government could perhaps choose to go easily on the person. Extrajudicial killings even those that have gone wrong e.g. by Israeli agents have sometimes AFAIK been treated more lightly then they should have under law. Nil Einne 11:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if he was technically guilty of treason against the Crown, judgement and sentence would have to be determined in a court of law. An intelligence agency carrying out an extrajudicial killing would not be protected by the statutes of the Treason Act. --Canley 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But if it had been approved by the Queen would it still be treason? I understand for example that Diana technically committed treason while she was Princess by sleeping around but AFAIK the reigning monarch can't commit treason against the crown/herself so it's questionable whether it would be treason if she approved it. It does matter if the person committed the killing was a British citizen (or other Commonwealth countries with the Queen as head of state). AFAIK there is no way someone who is not a citizen (or perhaps a permanent resident) of the UK or the other commonwealth countries could commit treason against the crown of the UK/commonwealth country.Anyway as others have stated, due to the divorce it seems unlikely it would have been treason to kill Diana even in the UK. N.B. High treason in the United Kingdom might be useful. Edit: Sorry I got confused and thought we were debating whether it was treason to kill Diana Nil Einne 11:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're making the mistake of excessive literalism here, and not understanding the importance of convention in the British system above and beyond the plain written text of the law. In modern times, the monarch's position as essentially above the law carries with it the unspoken quid pro quo that the monarch will act sensibly at all times, which means in the conduct of their official duties they will follow the advice of their ministers, and conduct themselves impeccably at other times. If they don't, ways and means of dealing with them will be found. If we're playing silly-buggers hypotheticals, if the need really arose you could have one of the other royals, um, quiet deal with the situation, and then be appointed monarch, at which point they would become immune from prosecution. --Robert Merkel 11:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about a major change in the law. There is no provision in British law to enable someone to be appointed monarch. Whenever the current monarch dies or abdicates, the person at the head of the line of succession inherits the throne. They themselves have no say about this. If they have become or married a Catholic, or died, then they're off the list and somebody else would be the heir. Deposing a monarch could be done, but probably under the legal artifice of an act of parliament under which they are deemed to have abdicated. JackofOz 03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic and I'd love to get in on it, yet I'm confused by your response, Jack. Are you responding to Robert? If so I don't see where you disagree with him. Is it the fact that he said: "one of the other royals" rather than: "the royal next in line"? What exactly do you mean by "a major change in the law"? I'm sure your contribution was meaningful and intelligent, and that's why I'd be very interested if you could clarify what you said. Loomis 11:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...now that I think about it, I wonder whether there may be some other individuals who may actually be guilty of treason according to the above-mentioned statute. :) Loomis 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge your astuteness, Loomis, in recognizing my meaningfulness and intelligence. Yes, the royal next in line is who the law says succeeds, not just some other preferred royal. If for argument's sake the "establishment" considered Prince Charles so undesirable that something had to be done to ensure he never became monarch, what would the options be? (a) Kill him. (b) Somehow arrange for him to marry a Catholic - impossible without first bumping off Camilla or getting them divorced, and next to impossible in any event. (c) Somehow arrange for him to convert to Catholicism himself. In any of these scenarios, Prince William would succeed Elizabeth, because he would be next in line. If William was also unacceptable, he would also have to be put through a death/Catholicism process and Prince Harry would then succeed. etc etc. If the "powers that be" wanted the Duke of Duckworth to become king, they could not just "appoint" him without bringing about a change in the law to allow such an appointment. Such a change would require the consent not just of the UK Parliament but of the parliaments of all the Commonwealth Realms. For the Duke to become king within the existing law, firstly he would have to be in the line of succession, and then everybody ahead of him (including the current monarch) would have to die, be killed, become a Catholic, or marry a Catholic. Removal of people from the line in any other way would require a change in the law. Installing a monarch extra-legally would amount to a coup. JackofOz 01:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the "next in line part", and that's what I was getting at. However, it might be a bit easier to knock Charles out of the picture in favour of William than your three options. If the government and the PM dislike him enough, they could simply put as much pressure on him to abdicate as they had on Edward VIII, who was neither killed, nor married to a Catholic, nor converted to Catholicism. Loomis 09:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

French franc in 1910? (take two)

Do you know what the worth of the French franc in 1910 would be?

Your question was already answered, scroll up a bit to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Franc value in 1910 — QuantumEleven 13:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem there was that you didn't provide a unit of comparison. What was the value of the French Franc in 1910 as compared to what? Loomis 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The value of the French franc in 1910? Why, exactly the same as it was in 1909 and 1911: it was worth one franc. Clio the Muse 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. One French Franc in 1910 was worth 100 1910 centimes, or, if you prefer, one tenth of a 1910 ten Franc note. :) Do you now see why it was impossible to answer your question the first time around? I'm not trying to mock, but perhaps if you'd give us a bit of context as to why you're asking this particular question, we'd be much better able to help. Loomis 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it was not only possible to answer the question the first time, it was answered. Several times, but only one of the answers was actually useful. It might be best if those staffing the reference desk opted to provide only useful answers. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously annoyed, justifiably so. Any reasonable person would have accepted your useful and detailed answer the first time round, on the assumption that there was a serious intent behind the question. The fact is, though, your research on this was ignored; which means that the whole issue is best treated as a joke. Clio the Muse 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if this were the joke desk. Since it's the reference desk, the equivalent of "see above" was the reasonable response to the repeated question. The answers at a reference desk are supposed to provide information nto the questioner. Answers which seem to have come into being only to make the responder feel or appear to be smarter than the questioner are really out of line. I think the policy suggested on the talk page - of removing unresponsive answers - would do much to improve the page. Nunh-huh 00:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do not want to take this too far, but cast your eye over some of the questions that have been placed on this page. There would seem to be a great many jokers. I treat all questions with the level of seriousness I believe they deserve. Where an honest and straightforward answer is asked for that is exactly what I will give, within my degree of competence. I suppose by definition the person who answers the question-if it is an honest answer-is indeed 'smarter', if that's the right word, than the questioner, since they already have the information required. But to be pefectly frank with you I also believe that a fool is best treated in accordance with the measure of his folly. There is wisdom in that and a purpose in jokes; and I assure you I am not attempting to be glib. Clio the Muse 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference desk would be much improved if the page were treated a bit more seriously. Or, conversely, if only funny jokes appeared here.- Nunh-huh 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is that the definition of "funny" is not "whatever Nunh-huh thinks is funny". I think a reasonable level of humour is perfectly fine, nay essential. The question is, where do you draw the line, and we could probably debate that till kingdom come without ever coming to a consensus. I have less of a problem with jokes (being a regular punster myself) than I do with people who respond to questions saying they have no idea what the answer is but then provide a guess anyway. Astute guesses have their place, but wild off-the-planet guesses are very unhelpful. Would you want a reference librarian who guessed the answers to questions rather than went away and looked in the right place for the answer? Not me. I know this is now getting way off-topic, but that happens sometimes. JackofOz 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, what one wants at a reference desk is the correct answer, or, if that cannot be obtained, helpful guidance as to where one might find that answer. Not guesses, and not jokes. - Nunh-huh 02:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, sorry. Proper questions should always be answered by precise and correct answers. But where a question is frivolous or malicious it should be dealt with accordingly, either by condescension or humour. I'm a little surprised that you seem blind to this simple point. You are not, I hope, without humour, an essential ingredient of true wit. Clio the Muse 08:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This particular question was neither frivolous nor malicious, and should not have been dealt with by either condescension or mockery. Humor certainly has its place, but there are contexts in which it has neither purpose nor beneficial effect. Condescension is particularly inappropriate. - Nunh-huh 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Clio on this one, but I'd just like to add: You have to remember that we're all volunteers here, and we're all human beings as well, not humourless androids. If in the process of learning and teaching we have a little fun, I'm all for it. To be honest, if humour was forbidden at the RefDesk, and it was instead reduced to a sterile Q&A page, I'd imagine many valuable contributors would just stop coming, to everyone's detriment. I know I'd have no interest in slavishly answering other people's questions if I weren't allowed to have a bit of fun in the process.

With regards to Jack's comment, I too try my best to provide accurate answers, and very occasionally, I do provide what I'd call an educated guess. But whenever doing so, I always make sure to make it explicit that I'm not 100% sure on the answer. I hope that in that sense at least, I'm keeping up with the high standards to be expected here. Loomis 11:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, the first question was not frivolous; the second clearly is, because it had already been answered, and the answer ignored. Condescension is appropriate where it is invited; and this is the approach I would take where I feel that the question has a malicious intent. Clio the Muse 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake, gold was money then, not the worthless fiat currency we have now. Exactly how much gold the FF represented at that time is explained in French franc. -THB 03:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course that inevitably leads to the further question: how much is/was gold worth? And once again, expressed through what unit of comparison? Loomis 20:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to study law and qualify as an attorney, but dont want to practise

Please, can anyone provide me with information about online colleges or distance learning schools. Where i can enroll and study to qualify as an attorney. i am looking for colleges that they fees are not too high, and ones that have flexible study programs that you can accerlerate your course. Thanks for your help.

Kenandrewandyke 15:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Please, can anyone provide me with information about online colleges or distance learning schools. Where i can enroll and study to qualify as an attorney.

i am looking for colleges that they fees are not too high, and ones that have flexible study programs that you can accerlerate your course.

Thanks for your help.

i need urgent replies please about qualifying as an attorney i need to study either through online or distance learning and enroll on colleges that you can accelerate your course i am in the United States [email address removed] Thanks

I have removed your email address for your own protection. Take a look at Legal education. Strong English writing skills are generally required for a law degree. I don't know whether any law school offers remote courses, but you can search Google with terms like "law degree" and "distance learning". Marco polo 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

States vary but, usually you need a ba and law degree to practice usually 7 years. Some states have other programs. For example in virgina and vermont, one can still become a lawyer by reading law.

Add to that whatever amount of time it takes to pass the bar, depending on whichever state you're in. Loomis 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

American history

What is another major event in American history from 1300 -1500 AD other than the discovery of America by Columbus?

Since USA didn't exist at that time, are you referring to North America, South America or both? 惑乱 分からん 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there are two major meanings of America and he obviously doesn't mean the second one (for Columbus didn't discover the US), it must be the first one, which regards America as one continent. DirkvdM 11:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The rise of the Inca empire.

• The disappearance the Mississippean culture due to disease? Geogre 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did the disease come from? The Europeans, or was it "native"? 惑乱 分からん 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Mississippian culture. Cahokia was certainly abandoned during that period, but the cause is not known. --ColinFine 14:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Iroquois Confederacy was probably established around that time. Adam Bishop 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Degrees of Protection" of a currency

There's a confusing section on Kazakhstani tenge which says:

Kazakhstani tenge has 18 degrees of protection. Tenge is one of the most "equipped" currencies of the world.

I can't work out what this means. Haven't found anything either on Wikipedia or on the internet at large that would explain what "degrees of protection" are when talking about a currency.

Does anyone know what this means? If it's rubbish I'll remove it. Thanks -- Muntfish 16:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It originates from an edit made by Geevee on April 3rd, 2006.

It seems to be a translation from Russian:

• У казахстанского тенге 18 степеней защиты. Тенге в числе самых «экипированных» валют мира.

Possibly it's referring to security features, such as holograms and watermarks. 惑乱 分からん 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, степень in this sentence has the sense of a step, or a measure. I'd suggest this is a better form of words: "The Kazakhstani tenge has 18 security features, more than most other currencies.". JackofOz 21:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind editing the article? 惑乱 分からん 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. JackofOz 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Crazy Fox has beaten me to it, and came up with an even better sentence. JackofOz 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all, it makes a bit more sense now, but I still think it could benefit from some clarification that this refers specifically to the banknotes (and which ones - just the 2006 issue, or previous issues as well) - not the currency in a more general (economic) sense. And the section name still says "Degrees of Protection".... thanks -- Muntfish 10:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

need help urgently

the question is Which mission is known as the "most expensive rubbish in history"?

need answers..

I guess that depends on personal opinion... There's no clear answer... 惑乱 分からん 17:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No way of answering that - if nothing else, what sense of the word Mission are you using? --Mnemeson 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Have no idea if this is what you're thinking of, but could just as well suggest the Bay of Pigs Invasion... 惑乱 分からん 17:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Iraq War comes to mind. When not adjusted for inflation, has there ever been a more expensive unsuccessful mission ? StuRat 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally, it seems as a failure, although Iraq wasn't a particularly nice country to begin with. At least it was successful in accomplishing its primary target, removing Saddam Hussein from power. 惑乱 分からん 22:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That depends if you're only counting expenditure, or if lost revenue is counted - Norway's yearly expenditure is approx US$100bn. Their income is approx. US$150bn. All of the surplus, and some of the expenditure, is covered by their massive oil revenues, with which they fund the highest standard of living in the world, and bank enough money every year to run the country at that standard for 6 months even if they had absolutely no tax revenue (a rather impressive racket that they've been running for 4 decades now). Considering that, I think the failure of Sweden to assert their control over Norway in 1905 when Norway declared their independence was.. quite stupendous, dwarfing Iraq by a long way in terms of lost money. The Swedish King attempted to do so, and raise an army, but the Swedish people refused to take up arms, so a completely failed military mission with substantial consequences. --Mnemeson 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Heheheh... Well, to be fair, Norway didn't find oil until 60-70 years later. As far as I have understood, in 1905, Norway didn't have much of value. The way I have heard the story, a war would have been completely pointless, but a lot of nationalist conservatives in the government wanted a war, because of silly notions of "national honor". After somebody estimated that a war really would cost more than it would gain, someone was chosen as a scapegoat to prevent the war from happen, and everybody else to keep their honor mostly intact. I don't know this history as good as I should, I really should catch up on the details... 惑乱 分からん 22:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with the Norway story, but hearing it, I'm truly impressed with how well the Norweigians exploit their natural resources to the benefit of their citizens. To tie two of the threads of this question together, I just can't help but wonder and dream of the utterly amazing standard of living the Iraqis would have if, after being freed from the slavery of dictatorship, they just simply followed the Norweigian example. Oh well, I guess I'm just a dreamer. But I haven't entirely given up hope. In the words of the immortal Lenin: "Some may say, I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. Perhaps someday you'll join us. And the world will live as one." Wait a sec, did Lenin actually say that? :) Loomis 23:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like our senses of humour do sometimes coincide. :) DirkvdM 12:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I'm feeling more hopeful already. If Loomis and Dirk's senses of humour can coincide, then perhaps peace in Iraq, the Middle East, and even the entire world is possible! :) Loomis 11:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the common Iraqi population has much possibilities at the meantime. The country seems to be in a state of chaos, with local warlords competing for personal power and gain. 惑乱 分からん 01:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's finally time for me to admit it. The old proverb is true. The path to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. Loomis 05:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't want to cause a war here but AFAIK Iraq were expressedly forbidden from allowing any form of nationalisation of their petroleum resources by the US (and possibly the UK) when forming the new government. So it seems unlikely they could follow the Norway story even if they weren't blowing each other up (and some might say they're blowing each other up because of that but let's not go further there) Nil Einne 12:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for this ? I've seen just the opposite, a proposal by US Congressmen to provide Iraqis each with a payment from oil production, so they each have a stake in it. StuRat 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That just doesn't make any sense Stu. Are you trying to say that there was actually a plan whereby the Iraqi people would actually benefit from the wealth of their own country's natural oil resources? That's got to be nonsense! How would Haliburton benefit from this? Are you saying that the US administration actually dared to put the interests the Iraqi people before the interests of wealthy American oilmen? That's preposterous! Are you actually implying that the goal of the whole thing was actually to benefit the Iraqi people, and was not, as anyone with half a brain sees it, all about taking control of Iraq's oil resources to benefit America's fat-cat elites? Stu...you're being absurd. :--) Loomis 09:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign again...this is becoming a bad habit). Loomis 09:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposal came from some Congressmen, not the administration, so you may well be right about them. StuRat 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the entire war was approved by Congress, 77-23 in the Senate, and 296-133 in the House. Loomis 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me a bit, it's easy to be suspicious when you consider all the dictators which USA isn't trying to remove. 惑乱 分からん 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Slobodan Milošević didn't have any oil, yet the US still attacked him. StuRat 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's so ambiguous that it cannot possibly be a genuine (well thought-through) question. Perhaps it's a pun, or some other tease. Maybe the person who set it is looking for genuine rubbish, like a piece of artwork, made of rubbish, with the word "Mission" in its title? --Dweller 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The mission impossible movies? Clq 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The same question has been posed on yahoo answers, the two onl answers there say "Litter left behind from the Apollo moon landings", though that would not make it a "mission" Clq 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for the help.. the answer WAS Apollo - but the deadline was already over by then.. it was an inhouse quiz question.. Thanks for the help though Arun

Damn, I wanted to say that! Alas I only go through the ref desk once a day. Actually, I was thinking of the Apollo mission itself and manned space exploration in general. Scientifically speaking, you can do much more for a fraction of the money if you send robots because manned spacecrafts have to provide life support for the people on board, be safe enough (losing a robot is an acceptable risk) and return back to Earth (and safely land). Just look at what the Voyager program and Pioneer program brought us (alas the articles don't state the cost). What did 'we' get out of the Apollo program? Some national pride for the US and some shots of guys playing golf on the Moon. DirkvdM 12:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that robotic missions are less expensive now, especially for long trips, that was not true at the time of the Apollo program, since robotic technology wasn't up to the job, then. There was also quite a scientific benefit, such as being able to retrieve moon rocks and study the geology of the moon, and developing the basic concepts of space travel for subsequent missions. StuRat 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the robots would of course have been much simpler then, but they certainly could bring rocks back to the Earth. The first one to do so was Luna 16. I don't see a price indication, but I bet it cost only a fraction of what the Apollo flights cost. But you don't need to examine rock to do scientific research. Taking photos is a major fist step, like Luna 3 taking photos of the invisible far side of the Moon. Mariner 2 took some close ups of Venus and the Venera program went even more close up, taking reading and photos from the surface, somewhere where people could never go, even with today's technology. And sending people where the Voyagers and Pioneers went is still way out of our league. So yeah, unmanned space exploration is definitely the way to go. Unless we establish bases in space or on other heavenly bodies, and Mir has shown how much difficulty that entails. DirkvdM 19:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Luna 16 just drilled a hole in a random spot (where it landed) to take a sample. Humans, on the other hand, could walk around and select rocks and items of interest to take back. As for space stations, you are aware there is one up there now, right ? See ISS. StuRat 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Luna 17 had Lunokhod 1 on board, only 4 years <wrong - see below> after the first manned Moon landings. The USSR tried to get a man on the Moon too, but it's a good thing they developed the technology just too late to beat the US, because that meant that after that they went all-out for unmanned missions. Had they not wasted time and energy on manned landings, they would probably have developed the rovers sooner. (The concept was 'easy' enough to develop with the technology of the time.) And that is my point. If the money that went into manned missions had been put into (ten times as many?) unmanned missions we would have learned a lot more a lot sooner. The Lunokhods didn't return any rocks <also wrong - see below>, but had they had the money for the Apollo programme at their disposal, they most probably would have done a whole lot more. An advantage of unmanned rovers is that they can in principle go as far as they wish - Lunokhod 2 travelled 35 km. With the technology of the time, no human could have travelled anything close to that, largely for safety reasons. Lunar rover says about the US manned rovers that "the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km."

And yes, of course I know about the ISS, and one difficulty is that people are willing to risk their health for an adventurous job, but for a space station to be successfull it has to be constantly manned, which requires a lot of people to 'rotate' because staying in space is a serious health hazard (especially a problem for Mars missions, which take as long as a year). But if the adventure is gone, people will be less willing to go. Except maybe Russians, ironically, because they've got this attitude that nothing can harm them (a cultural thing). DirkvdM 08:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

During that period of rapid scientific advances, 4 years made a huge difference. Look at the differences in technology available during the Apollo program with those from 4 years before it's inception. StuRat 13:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction. That was 1970 (very sloppy, sorry), so just one year later. And it did bring back samples of the Moon. See Luna programme. You're being sloppy too, though. Your point actually supports my position. With the speed at which technology developed it made more sense to put time and money in improving robots than starting manned missions. Ultimately, robots have done science much more good than manned missions. Certainly if you look at yield per cost. DirkvdM 14:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But once you go down that "wait until we have better technology" road, you can wait indefinitely, as surely there will always be better technology available next year. StuRat 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Unmanned space flight will always be more useful (per buck) to science. Manned space flight might be fun, but it should not be confused with doing serious research. Mixing entertainment up with science forces scientists to perform tricks in stead of doing science. Maybe Hollywood should do the manned space flight bit. Too expensive for Hollywood you say? Well, if there is not enough entertainment value, then why waste so much money on it? Of course if you do both, it makes sense to combine them, but I don't see the point in wasting, what is it, 90% of the budget of space agencies on entertainment. DirkvdM 07:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But USA beat the Russians, USA beat the Russians to it!!! @_@ 惑乱 分からん 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look inhouse to me [9]. BTW, the whole question is much clearer as to what it's asking then the version you posted... I suggest you tell whoever was writing the questions to write their own questions and also to copy the complete question and not just part of it if they are going to copy. Nil Einne 12:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if that question was posted, it would probably be answered in less than 30 minutes... 惑乱 分からん 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

More like 30 seconds, unless of course the "Voyager" they were talking about was the tv series. :) (Just kidding -- I'm a bit of a Trekkie myself...only a bit though, I swear I've never been to a convention, I don't speak Klingon and no, I don't even own a pair of cheesy costume Vulcan ears :) Loomis 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Am I the only person to find her sexually attractive here? Even though she has far-right views and I'm virtually a communist, there's something about her. They do say that opposites attract. Does anyone have any sexy pics of her? --84.65.103.207 23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This one works for me.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So you don't mind the Adam's apple, huh? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

She's mildly attractive but the picture on her page makes her look rather ugly (anorexic and old). I mentioned this before on the talk page and suggest we find a better one but no one seemed to care (and since I think she's an idiot I didn't follow up on the issue). The picture itself comes from her page which is one reason it's used so perhaps she doesn't agree Nil Einne 11:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, she's damn ugly on that pic. And if that is the picture she prefers then maybe she is ugly on the inside as well. DirkvdM 12:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

She always reminds me of Hitler's ideal Aryan breeding stock. There was a Star Trek where a planet goes Nazi after a historian from the Federation shows up. The female Party leader on the planet was a dead ringer for Coulter. Geogre 12:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if she prefers it. There are several none of them of particular good quality [10]. Perhaps she should fire her web developer but I guess it's hard to get someone who would want to work for you when you're Ann Coulter :-P

Are you implying that all web developers are freedom-hating communists and terrorist sympathizers? :) I'm not a big fan of AC but I do admire her idealistic, straight-talking nature and her 'never say die' attitude. She doesn't strike me as the sort of person that could ever be bought or sold by anyone either. I'd have much more faith in Ann Coulter as president than GWB. --WineBob 00:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You really admire a woman who said that the widows of 9/11 are happy that their husbands died and are more interested in self-aggrandizement than in getting answers to what happened? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And for that matter, you think someone who could write the astonishingly dishonest drivel in Godless is 'straight-talking'? Good grief. Sam Clark 11:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok let's sum up the above comments. One certain allegedly sexy Republican female is: "Anorexic", "Hitler's Ideal Breeding Stock", "Ugly on Both the Inside and Outside" and "Astonishingly Dishonest". What a brilliant Democratic display to a dissenting view. Beautiful!

Oh well. If only she was as irresistably attractive, debonnaire and oh so suave as Michael Moore, and so astonishingly truthful as he was in his brilliantly unbiased masterpiece: Fahrenheit 9/11... well ... Loomis 07:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

From this discussion I was expecting her to look like Mo Mowlam. Skittle 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I would like to interject and comment that, having weighed up all the available visual evidence - I would 'do' Ann Coulter. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Highest paying profesions

Hi guys! what are (or will be in the next 5 years) the highest paying jobs and/or prophesions?.

here are some jobs, tell me if any of this isn't high paying and stress the ones that are. (specially for foreign people in countries like Canada, the US, Australia and France).

• chef.(technical degree)
• computer programer and/or graphic designer (informatics)(technical degree).

...uh... any more ideas?. --Cosmic girl 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

what is the relation between quality assurance and training? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M25farid (talk • contribs) .

Chefs have technical degrees? And for what country specifically, because I'm pretty sure it differs from one country to the next. Generally, doctors in the US have some of the highest paying jobs. I know for Texas, the highest average salary was for chiropractors a few years ago. And of course, no one can predict the next five years. And it's profession. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Entrepeneurial jobs can be very lucrative too. It's just like scrounging around in the dark though; sometimes you find crap, sometimes you find gold. --AstoVidatu 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Jobs where you have to know how to spell properly. 8-)--Light current 00:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The highest paying jobs (other than being a celebrity or CEO) are generally jobs as a hedge fund manager or investment banker with an institution like Goldman Sachs. Most Goldman Sachs associates make more than $400,000 a year. You don't even really have to know how to spell. :-) You just have to come up with ingenious ways to rip other people off. They generally prefer MBAs, preferably from places like Harvard, Stanford, or perhaps Oxford or Cambridge. Jobs as chefs don't pay terribly well in the US. An average chef probably makes at or slightly below the median salary. Of course a star chef does fairly well (but nowhere near an average hedge fund manager). Computer programmers and graphic designers have average to slightly above average salaries. Computer programmers in particular are facing a lot of competition these days from low-paid programmers in India. Marco polo 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. Maybe this is a clever neologism (is that the right term?) - a prophesy about a profession. Clarityfiend 02:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure she knows how to spell it properly in her native language; Spanish. Do you know how to spell it in Chinese? German? Italian? Let's keep it down with the spelling jokes, some people are actually trying here.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If she's hispanic, perhaps she didn't refer to chef/cook, but "jefe", chief/boss/head... An easy mistake... 惑乱 分からん 11:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

thank u freshgavin =)...the jokes where funny neways...I don't mind :P. but I wonder...what was funnier...profesion? or prophesion? I guess the later...but I corrected it soon enough I guess... dunno how u figured out I spelled it that way the 1st time. I guess I'll just have to ask Aleksey Vayner about success...lol.(success spelling and finding a 'prophesion'I like more than mine, and one that pays nicely, not cause I care a lot about money, but cause I wanna teach someone a lesson :|...( I know..random)--Cosmic girl 03:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of El Jefe, there will probably be a vacancy in Cuba sometime in the next few years. And since one reasoning is that Castro solely represents the Cuban government and the government is supposed to possess the entire economy of the island, he sometimes appears some list of the richest people in the world. Being hispanoparlante would actually be an advantage for any job applications there. And you can put on your CV that you have participated in one of the grandest communist enterprises the world has ever seen, Wikipedia. DirkvdM 12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The highest job would probably be to be the founder of an extremely succesfully company, like Bill Gates. If this doesn't work for you, you could always become the dictator of some rich country. Nil Einne 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I want neither...so being a computer programer or a biotechnology scientist won't do? lol... I don't wanna be filthy rich, though, I just want a col job like designing videogames with a nice paycheck. --Cosmic girl 13:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I think you primarily need to work hard and make your name known... 惑乱 分からん 13:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're serious about programming videogames, it might interest you to know that the DigiPen Institute of Technology [11] in (where else) Redmond, WA offers a four year B.Sc. in Realtime Interactive Simulation. I remember reading an article about designing them - they were more interested in creative people, artists, writers, etc., rather than technical skills, I think. Clarityfiend 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Make your name known, yes. Working hard is one way to do that, but if that's what it takes for you you might be doing the wrong thing. Try something you can be good at jut by being clever. DirkvdM 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Like spending your days editing at the Wikipedia RefDesk rather than getting a REAL job, Dirk? :) Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :) I'd expand on that notion but I'm off to work. See you back here when I get home, relax, perhaps crack open a beer and enjoy the RECREATION that is the Wikipedia RefDesk. :--) Loomis 13:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Just like I do, except I mostly do it in the morning before I start to WORK on the encyclopedia. :) DirkvdM 07:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling us your posts are usually written in a state of drunken inebriation, Dirk? That would certainly explain a few things ... :) JackofOz 10:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

October 26

Concerning This Photograph

I remeber reading somewhere that this photograph was taken at Utah Beach, but the image caption says Omaha Beach. Obviously it can not be both beach, so which beach is it? 75.9.140.241 01:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have said it was Omaha, but the angle-and the limited perspective-makes it difficult to be certain. Clio the Muse 01:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Manneken Pis

I was in Brussels in September and stumbled upon a festival (during the beer celebration) concerning Manneken Pis. It was September 2, 2006. When they unveiled the statue in his costume, the crowd sang a song in French about the statue. What are the lyrics to this song and how do they translate into English?

It seems the song is by Maurice Chevalier. The French lyrics are here. I will leave the translation to others :-) --Cam 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Name that tune

It's a waltz or something ballroomey that has a melody that goes something like this (in super bad notation):

                     E♭

                       D                     D

                         C         C       C

                          B♭    B♭     B♭
      A,      A,
                            A♭,     A♭,
    G       G   

  F       F       F

D       D       D

TIA, this is driving us batty. ¦ Reisio 01:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Musipedia is the best place for "name that tune" questions.--Shantavira 08:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a play with Musipedia but can't find anything that fits the "waltz/ballroomey" description. Tell me if I've got the right order or not:

• E♭, D, C, B♭, A♭, B♭, C, A♭, B♭, C, D, D, F, G, A, D, F, G, A D F.

Can you indicate where the first beat of each bar falls? And are you sure the "A"s in the DFGA runs are not "A♭"s? JackofOz 08:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Worlds Most Powerful Institutions

I'm writing a novel and am trying to come to some sort of consensus as to the world's most powerful institutions, specifically those that if brought to collapse would have the largest impact on the world at large. Some suggestions I have received and researched so far include: The Federal Reserve, OPEC, The European Union, NATO, Harvard, Oxford, NYSE, The UN, The World Economic Forum, WTO, Transatlantic Business Forum, ICC, European Monetary Union, WHO, Business Roundtable, and G8 Summit.

What I'm looking for is a list of the 12 most powerful institutions, with a bit of supporting evidence or links to where I can find such.

Thanks in advance.

--Spriteyone 06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the NYSE, since the stock market crash of '29 revurburated world wide I would say this is a safe group to include. 75.9.140.241 06:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't really imagine the world shivering if Harvard or Oxford collapsed. What about The World Bank, and a few of the world's biggest companies, like IBM, Walmart, Boeing, or Micro$oft? Anchoress 09:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church? Huge in terms of high influence over individuals and groups, being the largest organised religion, and a very wealthy corporation. Natgoo 09:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The IMF? The US? Wikipedia?  --Lambiam^Talk 10:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Walmart that important? I thought they were only important in United States... 惑乱 分からん 11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that they're so important, it's that they're so huge. Several of the biggest companies in the world (including WalMart, IIRC), have economies equivalent to those of small nations. In addition, as stated below, WalMart (and other companies with ties to raw materials and manufacturing networks - Ford and GM are other examples) can cause significant shifts in global markets v/v their purchasing power and the economies they support. Also, although WalMart is US-based, they have had such an impact on the economies of communities where they have eliminated competition (for goods and employment), that if they were to suddenly fold, the trickle-down effect might well shake the US economy, and therefore the world's. Anchoress 12:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean, if you look at the WalMart page (which I hadn't when I mentioned them), it says they are the second largest corporation in the world, and they have 20% of the grocery market in the US. Lots of communities have no other local source for the goods they buy at WalMart; imagine they were to collapse? It would probably throw the US into a recession due to the overnight explosion in the cost of consumables and the resulting unemployment. The article also says WalMart is the largest employer in the US and Mexico. Anchoress 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest FIFA as well. This is of course impossible to quantify so you'd have to make it up yourself. Surely this is part of writing a novel? BTW, if you're talking about companies, don't forget Nestlé. And if you're including Walmart probably should mention Carrefour as well (and perhaps Tesco. These are important actually and even Walmart not just in the US. For example, they say Walmart keeps the Chinese economy growing. Not really true but it is important in many ways. There probably should be some financial type companies as well, maybe ING Group? Nil Einne 12:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mention Tesco, you might as well mention Ahold, which has a much higher net income - at a comparable revenue, which supports the claim that they overprice their products. DirkvdM 13:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The New York Stock Exchange is pretty important, as is the Federal Reserve banking system in the US, but any national bank that goes bust or any national stock exchange that goes bust will have enormous ripples. The bigger the institution, the bigger the ripples. If the NYSE or Fed went bust, the ripples would be tsunamis. Geogre 12:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course who knows, maybe the Bilderberg Group is the most important of them all? 12:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

the catholic church and microsoft :|...and Aleksey Vayner's charity enterprise...lol j/k.--Cosmic girl 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You could try these: Forbes Global 2000 and List of the world's largest companies. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The First Sports Car

Hi, I need to know which was the first sports car developed in the world - I know that the term sports car itself is debatable and we'll not include supercars in this Based on my research I am assuming it is

"the one Ferdinand Porsche invented. It was the first supercharged Mercedes-Benz SS & SSK sports cars in Stuttgart, Germany in 1923" - Automobile History, www.about.com

Anybody with different views / figures?

Thanks George

• There are those who think that the 1911 Vauxhall C-type was the world's first production sports car. [12] --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Night of wilding in Central Park

Many years ago, several black youths were charged with raping & beating a white female stockbroker in central Park. The crime was referred to as the 'Night of Wilding'. What was the outcome of that case?

– — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → ·§ sheryl

The victim's name was Trisha Meili - you can read about the case in her article if you don't want to sit through the Erik Estrada-filled goodness of Night of the Wilding. Natgoo 10:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that "wilding" was a misinterpretation of "Doing the wild thing", that is, having sex, a phrase from a song out at the time called Wild Thing (Tone Lōc song). StuRat 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dora Maar au Chat

Can anyone tell me if the Dora Maar au chat was just painted in oil paint ?

I know it has been painted in a synthetic cubism style but I need to know exactly what media was used

Can ayone help ?

Master Lee Lee 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)--Master Lee Lee 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sotheby's listed it as "oil on canvas". Can't say for sure if it was exclusively oil, but I have a feeling they'd have noted the fact if it had been something more exotic. --BluePlatypus 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Death Star in ROTS

Was thinking of asking this in the ROTS article but OT so here instead. Was there ever any explaination in any of the G or C canon (see Expanded Universe (Star Wars)) of why the first Death Star took 20 years or so to build (and it already seemed to be well on the way in ROTS) but the second one was done in perhaps a year? If not what about the lesser/non canon? Nil Einne 12:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, like any new technology, it took many years to test and perfect. But, once perfected, production could be relatively quick. For example, the first nuclear weapon took any enormous effort to produce, but now they can be churned out quickly on an "assembly line". StuRat 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I need information about online colleges that offer Juris doctor degree that you can accelerate

Can someone please provide me with details of colleges that I can study law online and can accelerate email.....kenandrewandyke.com

You asked virtually the same question yesterday. Please go back and see the answers that we offered yesterday. Marco polo 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Shareholders Suing Company

I'm wondering on what basis can shareholders sue a company they hold shares in? I was reading the article on class action and it said they could sue for losses, but isn't that a risk one takes when buy shares? --Username132 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you can sue someone for anything in the US it seems. However I would say shareholders have the right to sue a company if they have done something illegal etc. Nil Einne 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At a minimum you must have standing, which means you were harmed in some way by the party you are suing. StuRat 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article strike suit mentions some ways in which a stockholder may sue a company - although a strike suit is illegal in some states. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Desperate Housewive

In the pilot of Desperate Housewives, Paul Young decides to dig up the toy chest with the body in it. My question is why didn't he just leave it where it was?

Military to military relations and military culture in Ghana

I would like to have information concerning military to military relations, as well as the military culture in Ghana. This is strictly for academic work. Thank you in advance.

129.237.203.182 16:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You might start by checking out the website of Ghana's armed forces when their server is not down, as it seems to be at the moment. There you will get a sense of their culture, and you will see that they have participated in several UN peacekeeping missions within Africa. If you read the article History of Ghana, you will see that in the past, Ghana's armed forces, like those of other African nations, have initiated coups d'etat that overthrew civilian governments, generally in response to government misrule. Unlike many other African nations, however, Ghana's military has returned power to civilian governments. The main exception was the military government of the late 1970s, which descended into corruption itself. This government was overthrown by a lower-level officer, Jerry Rawlings, who yielded power to an elected government. When economic turmoil and corruption continued under the elected government, Rawlings took power again in 1981. During the 1990s, Rawlings stood for election and was returned to office in elections judged free and fair. He retired from office in 2000, and the opposition defeated his party in elections that year. His party ceded office peacefully, and Ghana has had relative stability under elected governments since. I belive that Rawlings is credited with removing Ghana's military from the country's politics. Marco polo 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What does free will mean?

I looked over free will, but it doesn't seem to answer this question: how is a universe with free will distinguishable from a universe without free will? The only thing I could think of was that a universe without free will lends itself to predictability. Is there any other way? And given that constructing a model of the universe complex enough to be predictable is at the very least monstrously impractical and probably (I think but am not certain) impossible, doesn't that render the question moot, even inane? grendel|khan 16:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not distinguishable by us, else there would be no argument as to whether or not we have free will. However, it will be different to those who are calling the shots and making us think like we have free will, as well as those people who are aware of that. Say you have improv. Can you say that it was scripted or actual improv? As the audience, you can't tell. But you could if you were the staff in charge, or the actor/actress. We're like the audience to the universe. We can only suspect, but not prove. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But why do we bother asking, then? It's about as meaningful a hypothesis as the flying spaghetti monster. It can have no possible, conceivable bearing on our actions, our morality, on anything. And yet the article says that ideas about free will do influence these things. It seems that it's not thought of as just a vaguely interesting hypothesis that ultimately doesn't matter one way or the other. grendel|khan 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Humans ask because when a person commits evil, they want to claim that they were destined to commit evil (no free will), therefore it isn't their fault. When something evil happens to you, you claim the person who did had free will so you can blame them. All in all, it is merely a means for humans to shove blame around. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but then they're destined to be caught, and destined to be punished, and so forth. It's just mealymouthed weaselwording, signifying nothing. Why is it considered an important issue in philosophy? grendel|khan 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see you mention philosophy before. Why is it important to philosophy? It is a question without an answer. If it ever were answered without any doubt of any kind, it would no longer be philosophy. It would be science. You should read philosophy to better understand why it focuses on issues like this. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Southern Presidents?

How many of the United States presidents could be considered to have come from the Southern United States? The presidential section of that article is highly unclear.

Thank you,

--CGP 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

different attitude towards surveys in different countries

I moved from Germany to the US some eight years ago, and there are of course many cultural differences. One thing I realized only recently is with regard to commercial surveys. In both countries, companies collect feedback from consumers. But while German companies provide some incentive (usually a prize), American companies hardly ever offer anything. Are American consumers just so much more willing to donate their time for free, or are companies not really interested in feedback here? — Sebastian (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't participate unless paid. The survey-takers apparently don't believe in capitalism, in the US. StuRat 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, strikes me as pretty ironic, too. — Sebastian (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There are online unpaid surveys in the US, but the results are problematic, because it is a self-selected group and perhaps not representative. Companies in the US do also pay people to participate in focus groups and other forms of market research. Marco polo 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

October 27

King Henry VIII

Did King Henry the VIII have control over the legal system of England? Nick 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)nicholassayshi