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 Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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.

January 1

Majority Shi'a Muslims

Which Muslim countries that has Shi'a Muslims as majorities, like Iran and Iraq? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.193 (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

In addition to the countries you have identified, Shias make up the majority of the population in Bahrain, Azerbaijan and Lebanon. Overall, Shias make up some 15% of the Muslim population worldwide, so are likely to be found in varying degrees in all other countries as a minority. Clio the Muse 03:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One clarification on Lebanon, while 60% of the Muslim population is Shia, only 60% of the total population is Muslim, meaning only about 36% of the total population is Shia, so it's not a Shia-majority country. See Lebanon#Demographics_2. StuRat 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It would also be interesting to know of other non-majority Musilm countries where Shia form the majority of the Muslim community. Like Armenia, maybe? Any others?--Pharos 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on Shia population features a table with percentages. ---Sluzzelin 04:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And the article Demographics of Islam has some colour-coded maps.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pathans in Bangladesh?

When I was reading the article "Pathans", I saw the facts that which countries has the most Pathans, and I saw that 545,000 live in Bangladesh. Which part of Bangladesh do these Pathans live? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.193 (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Do you mean Pashtun "Pashtuns (also Pushtuns, Pakhtuns, Pukhtuns; Pashto: پښتون Paṣtun, Persian: پختون Paxtun, Urdu: پشتون Pashtūn), or Pathans (Urdu: پٹھان, Hindi: पठान Paṭhān) and or ethnic Afghans[13] are an ethno-linguistic group primarily in the North West Frontier Province"? because that page gives no quotes on bangladeshi population as far as I can see?

See also Demographics of Bangladesh???87.102.14.212 18:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

I have two questions to ask you about Zoroastrianism:

1. Do Zoroastrians believe that one can only go to heaven by being a Zoroastrian, or that one cannot go to heaven without being a Zoroastrian?

2. Do Zoroastrians believe that all people go to either heaven or hell after they die?

The Anonymous One 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the page on Zoroastrianism will give some general indications on these questions. The ultimate goal, I believe, is one of universal salvation. Clio the Muse 05:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does Russia care about the independance of Transnistria?

I previously read something about Russia setting up a front organization to support the idea of Transnistrian independence, and the article makes some brief allusions to Russia disputing the Moldovan/Ukranian agreement on Transnistrian customs clearance. What I don't get is why Russia cares about the issue in the first place. Can someone comment on why the Russian govt. cares about this? —Dgies^t c 06:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be largely a question of solidarity and influence. There are a higher proportion of ethnic Russians and Ukranians in Transnistria than elsewhere in Moldova. Clio the Muse 06:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider similar situations in other countries that are regional powers. Why does the United States care about who is leader of Cuba? Why does Australia care about the situation in the Solomon Islands? Why would the E.U. be concerned about Kosovo? Why are Japan and China concerned abut North Korea? These three points may give some indication:

1. Russia is on moderately friendly terms with the relatively stable governments of Moldova and Ukraine. The formal independence of Transnistria will not only create a new - and by all accounts less stable - country in this region, but also (given Transnistria's border disputes with both Moldova and Ukraine) possibly de-stabilise these other two countries. There is also no guarantee whatsoever that Transnistrial leadership would be on friendly terms with Moscow.
2. Transnistria declared itself independent unilaterally from the Soviet Union, despite not being a fully-fledged Soviet Republic. If its independence is supported, it will give added impetus for calls for independence of other former Soviet areas below the republic level - such as Chechnya, Ossetia, et al.
3. As Clio points out, there are Ethnic Russians in Transnistria, and almost certainly also a reasonable number of ethnic Transnistrians and Moldovans in Russia, too.

Grutness...wha? 07:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

These are all reasons why Russia would, should, or could oppose Transnistrian independence, but the point is that they unofficially support it. For further background information, see Transnistrian referendum, 2006 and the references therein.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best, and most disturbing parallel, is that of France and Rwanda, and what might be referred to as language politics. Clio the Muse 15:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean?Evilbu 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Evilbu, I almost missed your question, tucked away in here! I was referring to the build up of interest blocks, usually of a client-patron nature, based upon language and other cultural and political interests. In the French case it became a particular form of neocolonialism, for which the term Françafrique was coined. As far as Rwanda was concerned, it meant the support, military and otherwise, that Mitterand extended to Habyarimana, his friend and ally. This entailed a blindness to the reality of local ethic tensions, which ultimately had terrible consequences. Clio the Muse 03:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Russians see it as a way to "take back" part of Moldova. That is, the larger Russian and Ukrainian population percentages in Transnistria will eventually bring it back under Russian influence, which wouldn't happen if that population was diluted amongst the larger population of Moldova, which is mostly ethnic Moldavian. StuRat 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's weird, Russia seems to support Transnistria (which is in fact an independent state) but does not recognise it. Armenia obviously supports Nagorno Karabach's independence from Azerbaijan and they don't recognise it either. Evilbu 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

International diplomacy can be a very weird game! The Russian and Armenian examples are by no means unique. Think of America and Taiwan. Clio the Muse 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For a state in the international system to recognize a state outside of that system carries significant diplomatic costs, more so than just supporting such a government informally. Consider the diplomatic cost to Turkey of recognizing Northern Cyprus.--Pharos 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mystery of Saddam's WMDs

I know, it's me again. I'm only fed up once again by a recent editorial in my local newspaper telling me that since no WMD's were found after the fall of Saddam, they never existed.

We all know they existed. We all know they were used. So what became of them?

I'm really asking because we all know that Iran is working on nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Yes, you may have called me paranoid had that Iranian midget of a President had not said so himself!

In any case, the saddest thing that happened a couple of days ago was that a human being was killed. Yes, he had to be killed, but his execution is no cause for celebration. A life was ended. No Israelis danced in the streets. Not like the Palestinians who danced in the streets on 9/11.

Incredibly, as I heard of the execution, I almost felt like crying.

But all that aside, where are the WMDs? In particular, the chemical weapons? They were used. They killed hundreds of thousands. And now apparently they never existed.

I just hope that the planned destruction of Iran's obvious WMD program hasn't been spoilt by the fact that the "Mystery of Saddam's WMD's" hasn't turned up anything yet. Loomis 09:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You kind of rambled a bit there... Is it fair to summarize your question as "What was the ultimate disposition of Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs?" —Dgies^t c 09:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction has a whole bunch of theories about WMDs in Iraq. But what do the experts think ? Well, David Kay, who resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group in January 2004, said he did not believe Iraq possessed large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons [1]. And in January 2005 the final report of ths ISG said it had "not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003". I'll go with the experts on this one - I don't think the WMD stockpiles existed. Gandalf61 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See this well-referenced article.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no mystery regarding Iraq's WMD. They had them and they used them. At the end of the gulf war (first) we know they hid them. We know the UN found some. We believe some to have been distributed, with Syria putting their hands up as suspects.

The specific poisons Colin Powel; referred to in his famous address to the UN have not been found and may never have existed, but might also.

I don't think Israel is the sole target of terrorists. Those most likely to be killed from terrorist activity are Arabs, and one assumes Arabs are in the most danger from WMD. DDB 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, DDB. Well said. Clio the Muse 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a little bit of everything:

• Fewer chemical weapons were produced than was thought. This was partly Saddam's fault, for trying to create the illusion he had a massive WMD program (early on) to intimidate his enemies.

• No nuclear weapons were ever developed (although they tried early on).

• I'm not as certain about bio weapons, perhaps a tiny amount were produced, but not enough to be usable.

• Many chemicals weapons were used up against the Iranians and Kurds.

• A few may have gone to his neighbors (Syria and/or Iran), like planes he sent to Iran, which seems bizarre to me. Did he ever expect those countries (his enemies) to give them back at some point ? He must have been thinking he would do anything he could to hurt the US, with supplying weapons to US enemies being seen in that way.

• Others were destroyed, per the UN mandate, but without documentation. This seems like very odd behavior, to deprive himself of weapons and yet not get credit for having destroyed them. Saddam's reasoning seemed to be:

A) He didn't want to risk being caught with them, as that could mean his downfall, so had them destroyed.

B) He didn't want his enemies to know he had destroyed them, as he would then lose his intimidation tool. He thought he could satisfy the UN and US by saying he destroyed them, yet still intimidate his neighbors by failing to prove he destroyed them. This was a major miscalculation on his part. Some destroyed shell fragments bearing chemical traces have been found, but most are probably buried in a forgotten location in the desert somewhere, and my not be found for years, if ever. StuRat 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I think Stu Rat's last point here is the most important mentioned. While the U.S. has found a few random chemical shells (probably just misplaced and abandoned ones) and a few pieces from Iraq's nuclear program, most evidence seems to show that, like the Allies after WWI, he just dumped them somewhere out of the way. Rmhermen 15:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember the former UN inspector Scott Ritter said that something like 90% of Iraq's weapons had been verifiably destroyed. While Iraq was obstructive over the remaining 10%, many of those were biological weapons of a type that degrades over time and would no longer be useable except as fertiliser. Iraq was known to be virtually disarmed by the time the invasion started. North Korea, also part of Bush's "Axis of Evil", has WMD and has not been threatened with military action. I don't think it's any surprise that Iran is determined not to stop their nuclear programme. Ahmedinejad may be a nutter, but he's rational enough to know that America is less likely to attack him if he can defend himself. --Nicknack009 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What can I say, Nicknack, that would add to your wise words? President Ahmedinejad is as calculating as most, and a far better poker player than the intellectually challenged George Bush. If only our politicians understood a little more of the history, culture, politics and religion of the Middle East, we may have avoided the terrible errors of Bush and Blair's war of 'liberation'. Clio the Muse 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the rambling everyone! Blame it on a combination of a little too much New Year's "cheer" (!) and a little too much doom and gloom in other parts of the world. I know the old WINASB (Wikipedia Is Not A SoapBox) Mantra, and I commit myself to it, despite the odd ramble.

But I guess Dgies was best in summing up my question, rhetorical as it may seem by 2007, it's still a mystery to me. No I wasn't asking about nuclear weapons, as the only nuclear program we ever had any evidence of was "illegally" destroyed by Israel in 1981. And I wasn't referring to biological weapons either, as those were never Saddam's WMD of choice anyway, and we have no evidence of him ever using those either. I'm only referring to what the world knows Saddam had and used, those being the chemical weapons sarin, tabun and VX. Now David Kay can scream at the top of his lungs that he didn't believe Saddam had stockpiles of these chemicals in 2003. Fair enough. Perhaps he didn't. But he did have them when he used them in 1988 in Halabja. We know that. What we don't know is what ever happened to them. Did they get used up in attacks such as Halabja? Doubtful, but I suppose possible. Otherwise what happened to them? Were they dumped into the Tigris?

I think DDB and Stu's answers are the most honest and really the best we'll ever have. He had them, he used them, he hid some, he may have distributed some to Syria, the UN went in to look for them, they kept getting the runaround and eventually got tossed out for good, in December '02 the UN demanded an explanation for how they were disposed of, and Saddam replied with several tens of thousands of pages of BS. The US then goes in and cannot find a trace. Not one canister. I'm in almost complete agreement with DDB, except for where s/he says that "there is no mystery". No mystery!? Seems to me like the biggest mystery since JFK's assassination! But I suppose it's all moot now.

As the trite proverb goes, hindsight is 20/20, but back in the winter of '02/'03, even the French and the Germans couldn't convince themselves that Saddam didn't possess these chemical weapons. I hope we don't go back revising history to say that it was their position then that he didn't have them. Even the French and the Germans couldn't figure out what was going on, and presumed he had them, but just disagreed that invasion was appropriate. Or at least not yet.

In any case, another trite proverb is that history repeats itself. What happens now if despite all the evidence and all the posturing, either Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decides to pull another Saddam? "Nuclear capabilities? What nuclear capabilities? Oh you silly paranoid American cowboys! We were just kidding around with all that talk about nuclear capabilities! Gotcha! Just please don't embarass yourselves again by supporting another silly paranoid President who believes in such nonsense!"

(And I promise to shut up about the whole thing from now on!) Loomis 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You completely ignore one aspect, namely that according to the UN inspectors something like 90% of Iraq's weapons had been verifiably destroyed, most of which were chemical weapons, as related above by Nicknack009. From 1991 to 1998, UNSCOM sent 500 teams to Iraq staffed by nearly 3,500 inspectors. These teams examined some 3,400 sites, including 900 formerly secret military installations, and destroyed billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment. UNSCOM had regular access to Iraqi factories and laboratories, used video cameras to monitor Iraqi industrial and military sites 24 hours a day, placed chemical sampling devices around Iraqi labs, monitored the movement of Iraq's industrial equipment, pored over Iraqi documents, and questioned many Iraqi scientists and technicians. After defecting in 1995, General Kamel told his UN and CIA interrogators that "Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them" after the war. Why is it so difficult to accept the possibility that there just weren't any WMD left, except perhaps a few overlooked piles of rusting and non-viable biological weapons?  --Lambiam^Talk 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that possesion of 'WMD' was the pretext for invasion of Iraq. That's why certain politicians were so adamamant that Iraq still had significant weapons of this kind - despite the UN inspectors saying that most had been destroyed. (Notably one British scientist who said that Iraq didn't have any left David Kelly was found dead in a ditch and war began anyway). 'WMD' was an excuse for an action illegal under international law. 87.102.14.212 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that's being completely ignored is my question. No matter how hard I try, my question is met with nothing but cynicism. Dgies had my question right straight from the start. "What was the ultimate disposition of Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs?". The only answer I get are: "He never had them, stupid! You were just duped by the "intellectually challenged" George W. Bush!" No I wasn't. We were ALL "duped", in one form or another by Saddam's final, most "intellectually challenged" failed ruse.

Once again, nobody's answered my question. I asked about what happened to Saddam's chemical weapons, and in response I'm told that he "got rid of them". But that wasn't my question. My question wasn't whether or not he "got rid of them", he obviously managed somehow o "get rid of them". What I'm curious about is how. What happenned to them?

Lambiam tells me that 90% of his weapons were "verifiably" destroyed. Great! Now we're onto something! But who exactly "verified" that they were destroyed? And if they "verified" that they were destroyed, I'm still dying to find out the details. JUST HOW WERE THEY DESTROYED?

I know I've repeated it far too many times, but the one thing that pisses me of more than any other is what I'd call "intellectual dishonesty".

I fully admit it, I was duped. Saddam, apparently, pushed his luck and "cried wolf" one time to many. I recognize that I believed the WMDs were there, as every rational bone in my body made the only logical assumption, and that was that when dealing with a guy who's lied 100 times, his credibility is spent. I expected to find huge stockpiles, but I was wrong. Saddam had apparently made the biggest miscalculations of his life, and ultimately he hung for it.

But unlike many others, when played for a fool, I admit it. Yet so many others just don't have the character to do likewise. Today, one of the first days of 2007, rather than have the strength of character and the intellectual honesty to admit they were duped as well about the whole thing, instead their intellectual cowardice forces then to backtrack and pretend that they "were onto GWB all along". Despite being intellectually challenged, George W. Bush managed to fool a good part of the world into backing him up in his oh so diabolical plans.

Well here's the cold truth folks: I hate to resort to hyperlinks to back up my point, so I'll summarize them, yet provide the hyperlink in any case just to prove that I'm not pulling this out of thin air. Bush didn't fool us. Here are a few opinion polls conducted in the key period between September of 2002 and March of 2003; that period between when Bush's initial speech to the UN about the perceived Iraq threat in September '02, and the ultimate invasion in March '03. Here's sampling as to the public opinion at the time concerning the specific question as to whether the respondent "believed Saddam was in possession of WMD's

• Britain's ICM Research, conducted between January 17-19, 2003. "Do you yourself believe that Saddam Hussein has developed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass production?" Yes: 75%. No: 10%. Don't know: 15%. [2]

• Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor, September 3-8, 2002 (even before GWB's "speech full of lies" to the UN). "Do you believe that Saddam Hussein is an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the US or not?" Yes: 60%. No: 33%. Unsure: 7%.

• ABC News Poll, September 12-14, 2002 (also before the UN speech). "If Iraq agrees to admit the weapons inspectors, but then interferes or does not cooperate with them, in that case would you favour or oppose having US forces take military action against Iraq?" Favour: 81%. Oppose: 17%. No Opinion: 2%.

Well, I have literaly dozens of pages of these polls, each and every one of them saying ultimately the same thing: The vast majority of the public, in the US and the UK at least, took it pretty much as a given that Saddam had WMDs. Anyone interested can simply click on the following link: [3]. Much if not all of the debate was not at all about "whether" they existed, but rather, "how best to deal with it".

Look, nobody trusted the guy, and the general consensus at the time seems to have been as clear as possible that Saddam was a serious threat to his neighbours and the free world. If you believe the war was wrong, you have every right to that. If you believe other actions should have been taken instead, you have every right to that opinion as well. But if you're trying to claim to me that you knew all along that the WMD's never exited at all, and you choose to jump onto the "Bush is a retard" bandwagon, in a cowardly effort to cover up the fact that you were duped just like the rest of us, I have no interest in such flagrant intellectual dishonesty. Loomis 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think we may never know, at least in the near future. If they were destroyed in country, there may be a paper trail -- or not. There may be witnesses and participants, and careful environmental testing can find residues and breakdown products to verify that destruction occurred -- a lot of the time. Did he give any of them away? Don't know -- it's possible, but my feeling (pure speculation) is no, since he was no friend among his neighbors. He definitely had the weapons at one point, gassing thousands of Iranians and Kurds, but now the weapons are not there, and they went somewhere. All I can say Loomis is that it is disturbing to me too. Antandrus (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The destruction was verified by UNSCOM inspectors (as I wrote). Read that article. I feel sorry for you falling for government propaganda, but if you had cared to examine the issues deeper (wasn't it clear at least that there was a controversy between the UN inspectors and the US?), you could have known that it was propaganda. Never trust any government, and in particular not if they say: trust us.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lambiam, I did check out the article you referenced. I read through it, until afterwards realizing that I was reading an article published by the self proclaimed "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA". And you feel sorry for me falling for propaganda! Is an article by the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA" the very best there is out there? If so I thank you, as you've done a far better job than I ever could in proving my own point. I just hope nobody out there starts to suspect that "Lambiam" isn't anything more than a straw-man sockpuppet created by Loomis himself! :) Loomis 09:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the point is that I'm supposed to have helped you prove. The article I linked to, insofar as it is not clearly stating an opinion, is fully supported by verifiable references. The author, Larry Everest, is a well-respected writer, whose articles have appeared in the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the Oakland Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, New York Newsday, Z Magazine, and other publications. Because he writes for the Revolutionary Worker newspaper does not mean it is not true what he writes. I linked to that publication not to "prove" anything, but only because it answered the question you had posed, and I supposed you were looking for an answer. It may indeed be possible that the United States have reached a point where communist publications are left as "the very best there is out there" if you want to hear the truth. By the way, when I last wrote "Read that article", I meant our own article UNSCOM. The 90% estimate was given by Scott Ritter himself as a lower bound. But then of course, he was represented as having been bought by Iraqi money, after having been accused by Iraq of being an American spy. A constant web is being spun of propoganda and counterpropaganda, full of disinformation. In the end, you have to discern for yourself who and what you are going to believe, but the convenient truth is not always the best.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, once you put it that way, perhaps we don't disagree as much as would appear (except of course for the part about looking to "Revolutionary Communists" as any credible source of "truth" (or Правда/Pravda) as the Soviets referred to it). Indeed, Saddam created for himself and the world one hell of a mess of confusion and disinformation. The UN and the weapons inspectors themselves couldn't make head or tails of what was going on. Not that I'm any big fan of the UN, but just to show what was going through their minds, they passed UNSC 1441 unanimously, which, even in its mildest interpretation, was at the very least their expression that they were sick and tired of Saddam's games, and demanded that he quit with those games, and give them some real answers. Were they too just playing a game of propaganda, knowing full well that Iraq was disarmed? The only "truth" of the matter during that time is that no one really knew what was going on. All we had was the word of a brutal dictator who time and again thumbed his nose at the international community. On the other hand, somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the British and American people, in public opinion polls I referenced above, many of which were taken before Bush even began to speak publicly about the Iraq issue (with all the alleged "propaganda and lies"), apparently believed that Saddam did indeed have WMDs. I was one of those. Perhaps you were too. Perhaps not. I just wish more people would have the courage to come out and say that to the best of their abilities, given the information available at the time, that's what they believed as well, rather than to so disingenuously backtrack, claiming that they new the truth all along, and that it was all the fault of GWB, that big bad idiot-savante, who while barely being able to tie his own shoes, nonetheless had possessed the genius to convince Congress, and a few powerful allies to go to war. Loomis 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The question was what happened tot the WMD, the answer is most of them were destroyed long before the war started. Some were verified destroyed by the UN. Some just 'dissapeared' but still haven't been found. What is the confusion exactly.?87.102.4.89 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC) As to how they were destroyed - burnt, pored into pits, reacted with some chemical to reder them inactive perhaps?87.102.4.89 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The confusion is that I keep asking how they were destroyed, and all I get in response is that "they were "verified" as being destroyed". "Alright, assuming they were disposed of, once again, HOW were they disposed of?" "I don't see the mystery, UNSCOM says they were disposed of, and none were found, so they were disposed of. It's been "verified"". And around and around we go. Isn't anyone the least bit curious? What really gets me are these two sentences in particular, said practically in the same breath: "Some just 'dissapeared' but still haven't been found. What is the confusion exactly?" Well that's just it! Am I the only one confused and concerned when something as dangerous as a chemical weapon just 'disappears'? I seem to keep getting the same answer: "We're 100% sure, no doubt about it, that they were destroyed. As to who/what/where/when/how, we haven't a clue and we're really not all that curious about it". How can one be so certain that something was destroyed, yet not have one clue as to any single detail of its destruction? Loomis 21:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

William Rivers Pitt pubished a little book in 2002 called War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. It includes an extensive interview with Scott Ritter, who says that, through economic sanctions and UN inspections, "Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of those factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories... this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat. It doesn't even constitute a weapons program. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited." He talks about "eliminating" factories, but occasionally will say things like "once we blew it [a chemical weapons factory] up, the Iraqis no longer had the ability to produce new agent". Of the nerve gases the Iraqis had produced, he says "Sarin and Tabun have a shelf life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they're now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo."

This book came out before the war began. Tony Blair's "dodgy dossiers" were shown to be dodgy before the war started, as was the claim that Saddam was trying to buy Uranium from Niger. It had been obvious for some time that Blair had been trying to talk up WMD as a pretext for supporting a war that Bush was dead set on, and on close inspection it was utterly unconvincing. A lot of people, it is true, hadn't bothered doing the close inspection and were relying on the tabloids and TV news bulletins, neither of which go into anything in much depth, but most of those who marched against the war had. I don't know what the situation was in the States, but the UK there were a lot of us. We lost, but not because we were wrong.--Nicknack009 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you've got an interesting viewpoint Nicknack, and, of course, (unlike in Saddam's Iraq) you have every right to it. Unfortunately, even if Scott Ritter is to believed word-for-word (something I just can't accept, I've heard the guy speak many times, and unfortunately the guy just comes off as mentally imbalanced, to say the least. I'm afraid I just can't accept him as anything of a "credible witness". But all that's beside the point,) even if he's to be believed word-for-word, I'm really trying my best here to focus on one issue and one issue only. Whatever evidence there may or may not exist as to the motivations of Bush and Blair are also beside the point. I disagree with the allegations you presented, but those are the subject of an entirely different debate. In asking my very narrow, very specific question, I refuse to be distracted by entirely unrelated issues.

Once again, my question, very simply, is: What became of Saddam's chemical weapons? Despite our differences, I think we can both agree on two facts: 1)At one point they existed; and 2)despite exhaustive searches, after the war, no significant trace of them was found. Of all you wrote, the only parts that are even slightly apposite to my question are the following: "Of the nerve gases the Iraqis had produced, [Scott Ritter] says "Sarin and Tabun have a shelf life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they're now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo.""

Of course just before that he speaks of "eliminating" factories. But all he says about that is that in "eliminating" these factories, Iraq no longer had the capability to further produce chemical weapons. Unfortunately, my question has nothing to do with Iraq's capability to further produce weapons. My question is strictly concerned with the weapons already in existence. What happened to them? Apparently even Scott Ritter doesn't know. Once again: "Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they're now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo.". Ok, so what happened to all this "useless, harmless goo"? Was any "useless, harmless goo" ever found? Apparently not. Nothing was found. Nothing at all. That's what concerns me most of all.

Despite my views as to the lack of credibility of Scott Ritter as a witness (which, by the way, while many may consider it to have been some sort of ad hominem attack on the man, assessing the level of credibility of a particular witnesses is a cornerstone of the justice systems throughout both the Anglo-American Common Law as well as the Continental Civil Law traditions,) even he doesn't offer much to answer my question.

Anyway, it's becoming clear to me that no one seems to be able to offer any logical answer as to my very specific question: "What actually, really, happened to Saddam's chemical weapons?" I don't blame any of you, and I apprciate your contributions. Unfortunately, I'm no closer to any sort of answer as to what actually happened to Saddam's chemical weapons. Still, I thank you all for your input. Loomis 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit dumb - but do you mean the weapons that were destroyed, or unaccounted for weapons. If you want to know more about what happened to the weapons that were actually found I think we can help.. As to the rest I have no idea.04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll note in the passages I quote from Ritter that the items he says were "verifiably eliminated" includes "the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories". If you had read Ritter before the war and found him unconvincing that would be one thing, but he has been entirely vindicated by what was found after the war. Iraq was effectively disarmed by UNSCOM. --Nicknack009 09:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicknack, while the RefDesk is obviously meant for learning things, so many treat it as a battleground to "win" one argument and make the other "lose". I don't see it that way. I've said it so many times, but each time it seems to be met with cynicism, yet I'll say it one more time: I'M NOT HERE TO WIN, I'M HERE TO LEARN! When I thanked you for your input, that wasn't sarcasm, that was honesty. All I meant to say is that while I thank you for your input, I remain unconvinced as to your position. That's all. Yes, my rhetoric may be of the Socratic "confrontational" style, yet I truly try to learn as much as possible from anyone who has any capability of contributing to my knowlege. You certainly do. Basically, what I'm saying is that though I disagree with your positions concerning the war, please, PLEASE understand that when I tell you that I thank youfor your input, it isn't meant as a snide remark, it's said in complete honesty: I THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT. All the best, and I'm sure you'll agree with me on this one: May 2007 be a year of peace. Happy New Year. Loomis 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt your sincerity, and I never thought you were being snide. However, I thought it necessary to point out that Ritter referred to the "elimination" of actual weapons as well as factories, because your reply seemed to indicate you'd missed that. I'll second your wishes for peace in 2007. Happy new year to you too. --Nicknack009 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What is a dead Russian soldier doing in Chimay, Belgium?

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/40915186@N00/339643546/

how come he ended up there?

I really can't say with any precision. However, many thousands of captive Russian soldiers, unprotected by international conventions, were employed by the Nazis as slave labour. It may be one of those. Clio the Muse 14:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you take this picture yourself? There seem to be at least two of them so it's not just one freak-case. How are we so sure they are from the First World War? There isn't any date, the text just says "ici repose un ancien combattant russe". (here lies a Russian veteran)

The hammer and sickle suggests it is from the Second World War rather than the First. I think there may have been some Imperial combat units in France during the Great War, though I doubt either the Soviets or the Allies would have subsequently decorated their graves with Communist symbols. Clio the Muse 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Clio is right on this one. You shouldn't be seeing a hammer and sickle on a Great War burial, unless someone put it there later. If it's a WWII burial, I'm going to speculate that there were probably numerous cases of the Allies coming upon bodies of Russians who died working as slave labourers -- that was a common fate for Russian POWs. On the other hand, though, look at this [4] which has a mention of Russians used as forced labourers in WWI. Antandrus (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Austria, 1860s

A certain Simon Freiherr von Winterstein, buried in Vienna (probably in the Zentralfriedhof), had been a member or otherwise associated with the:

• Abgeordnetenhauses des Reichsrathes (1861 - 1869)
• Herrenhaus des Reichsrathes (1869)

What are these? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 13:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Old Austrian Parliament, prior to the enactment of the current constitution in 1920, I believe. The 'Herrenhaus' was the House of Lords, and the 'Abgeordnetenhauses' was the lower house. Reading that tells me he was first an MP and then a Lord. Natgoo 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Imperial Austrian assembly was divided, on the English model, between Lords and Commons. For Herr Winterstein to move from one to the other suggests that he succeeded to the family title from his father in or around 1869. Clio the Muse 14:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The compound noun Abgeordnetenhaus literally means "House of Deputies". The ending -es is the genitive ending, meaning "of", for example as in Mitglied des Abgeordnetenhauses: "Member of the House of Deputies". Likewise Reichsrathes is the genitive of Reichsrath (which literally means "Imperial Council", in an older spelling). The transformation of the Empire of Austria into the dual-monarchy Austria-Hungary took place right in this period, in 1867, but also after that, the Reichsrat only concerned the Austrian part; Hungary had its own government and parliament.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the above squares with my initial assessment (based on basic German and almost total ignorance of the history), and provides ample support for expanding upon the sketchy material I have. And may I note, dear RD staffers: even if I'd chosen the most likely topical Talk page to post this query, how likely is it I'd have gotten such speedy and comprehensive answers there, compared with yours here? -- with thanks, and kudos, Deborahjay 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Gift Card Fad

I mostly manage the 2000's fads page, and i think based on all the hype surrounding gift cards and their rise in popularity they are most likely a fad, but i have no idea when they were first released or whether they are a 2000's only fad? (also, would more further questions on fads go under the misc page?)--Technofreak90 14:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We had a recent question on gift cards. They aren't new at all, although they do seem to have become more of a "rip-off" recently, with short expiration dates, exclusions on usage, reduced value before their expiration date, and no discount on the purchase price. However, that discussion was on gift certificates, good for one retailer only. The more general temporary prepaid credit cards are newer, if that's what you mean by "gift cards". StuRat 15:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

California specifically forbids expiration dates on gift cards. Even if you have one with an expiration date, if you use it in California past that date, it is valid. However, on the news recently, there was a report that the state of Texas considers "unused gift cards" as abandoned property, and therefore property of the state. No indication in the report as to how long you can hold onto a card before it's considered abandoned. The article also said that the state of Nevada is considering similar legislation. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as the original question, there were paper "gift certificates" for years, with specific amounts printed or written on them. I can't say when gift cards came about, but they're just a computerized version of gift certificates, though sometimes you can recharge them (add more money to them). User:Zoe|(talk) 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic enclaves in the U.S.

Does anyone know of books that discuss and describe the various ethnic enclaves in the U.S. of today? Their culture, history, things like that. Jack Daw 14:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a list of such places. Perhaps some list some sources. See List of ethnic enclaves in North American cities. Rmhermen 15:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Paris employment statistics

Does anyone know any (or where I might get some) comparative employment statistics for the Paris suburbs for 2005 to 2006? My coursework kind of falls apart without such...

Thanks!

Farosdaughter 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

INSEE is a good source of stats for France - and they may have what you want, if you order and pay. See also these 2001 employment figures for the Arrondissements of Paris. Good luck! -HJMG 10:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance humanism and New Testament hard copies

In literature, Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) and Francesco Petrarch (1304–1374) are often considered the Fathers of the Renaissance. These figures as well as others like Poggio Bracciolini scoured the monastic libraries across Europe for lost ancient texts, especially classical Middle Ages Latin works (also ancient Greek works). However I can NOT find any reference to these well known figures (or others of similar notoriety) that they ACTUALLY "found" anything of the New Testament. Also in their writings I can NOT find where they even mention that they had physically in their hands an ACTUAL hard copy of anything of the Middle Ages from before the Fourteenth Century that they even read of books or Codexes of the New Testament. Where is there references that any of these 3 (or similar Renaissance humanism figures) actually had primary sources of the New Testament that were verified from them (saying something to the effect "it appeared" to them to be "hundreds of years old" as a physical hard copy, that they had in their hands they were reading from, of a hand written copy done by a copyist of the Middle Ages of BEFORE the year 1300)? Not speaking of any of the 39 books of the Old Testament texts, just any of the 27 books of the New Testament. --Doug 16:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Doug. I feel sure that your knowledge of Petrarch and Dante is considerably better than my own, but I'm finding it a little difficult to pinpoint a specific question here. However, I do not believe that either of these great authors was working from original texts, but simply interpreting what was part of the common knowledge of western Christendom. Clio the Muse 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug, Why are you so insistent that they MUST have had original copies? And why do you keep shouting at us? I doubt if I am the only one who finds all your CAPITALS and emphasis distracts me when I'm trying to read you. I don't know the answer to your question, but the parsimonious answer, in the absence of any direct evidence, is that they didn't mention having originals because they didn't have them. Also, I wonder whether they would have found the age and authenticity of the physical document as important as we do today? --ColinFine 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both for answering. I will restrict my use of capitals. I was just using them to show emphases, however I'll hold back on this usage. Also perhaps I should have made my question more clear. What I meant to say was that I am looking for where either Petrarch or Dante (or any others like them) say in any of their "works" or letters that they actually read any actual hard copies of the New Testament. I can not find any evidence of this. Now I also should have made clear (my fault) what I am looking for is not of an "Original" (of say from the first few centuries), however any hard copy done by a copyist off any of these supposed 'Originals' copied perhaps in the years say between 1000 - 1300. The Idea being NOT (sorry) of an 'Original' but of one done by a copyist off these supposed 'Originals' of any of the 27 books of the New Testament. I do NOT (sorry again) believe that it was a part of the common knowledge of western Christendom. Need an actual reference from one of these Renaissance people (a famous well known person of high reputation like Dante, Boccaccio, Petrarch, Da Vinci) that says they themselves actually had in their little paws some actual Copies off these "supposed" 'Originals' of any of these books of the New Testament. Perhaps I may sound a little skeptical, however let me make my viewpoint much more clear. I am VERY (really really I'm sorry) skeptical!! In other words, I do not believe you will ever find in any of their letters or works where they say they had a hard copy that they believed to be "several hundred years old" or some wording to this effect from THEM. Taking your word is not good enough. In other words, looking for a reference from them (a famous Renaissance person) that they had such NT books in their little o' paws. Now that should show up in at least some of their "works" or letters. Petrarch wrote over 500 letters alone, not counting the several hundred letters to all kinds of people (many high ranking like Popes and Kings) these others wrote to. However there is no evidence they even read from the New Testament (Latin or Greek), let alone collected any of these Codexes. None collected any of these ancient hard copy Codexes or manuscripts that were copies off the supposed Originals(or even read them). Why not??? There is no records or references of this at all. --Doug 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get where you're coming from. I suggested that if they didn't say they had any, then perhaps they didn't, and I think you're saying the same thing but with more emphasis (Sorry). What's the big deal?

I can't work out whether you're actually trying to prove they didn't have ancient copies, or that they did but conspired not to say so. What's wrong with my suggestion that they didn't have ancient copies and didn't regard this as an important issue? Or do you have some evidence to the contrary? --ColinFine 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not saying there was any conspiracy. Some of these Renaissance people I named were in different time periods (i.e. Petrarch and Da Vinci) so there could not be a conspiracy. The big deal is that there is no proof whats-so-ever that any of these Renaissance people ever had physically in there hands any of the pages (i.e. any of the Originals of say 100 A.D. - 900 A.D. or hand written copies by copyist of about 1000 A.D. - 1300 A.D.) of the New Testament. If these people (i.e Petrarch and Poggio Bracciolini) collected the classics of ancient Latin (and some Greek) texts then why didn't any of these Renaissance people collect any pages or books or manuscripts or Codexes (Middle Ages 1000 A.D. - 1300 A.D. hard copy thereof) since it would be quite valuable. They collected much other Latin classics, however NONE of the New Testament. There is absolutely no proof (references of their letters or their "works") of any of these Renaissance people collected any of these. Perhaps there was none? If no Renaissance people collected (or even read) any Middle Ages (i.e. 1000 - 1300) copies, then how do we know there is any? In fact I say there was no such Codexes of the New Testament for them to put in their little o' paws. That's why there is no records they collected any. If anyone knows of any references from any famous Renaissance person saying they collected or even read from any New Testament 'Originals' or even any copies (i.e. 1000 - 1300), please show me that reference. Must be something of their "works" or of one of their letters. Actual documentation of Renaissance references. --Doug 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug, I have to say that I completely agree with Colin on this issue: I do not think the antiquity of documents would be an issue of any fundamental importance to any Renaissance author, who may indeed have prized more recent hand-written copies, still enormously expensive for the time. To be honest, and please forgive me for being so direct, you give me the impression of being on some kind of crusade or personal quest, and I am not really sure that the Reference Desk is the place to be making these points at such length. Clio the Muse 01:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus (written in the 4th century) "has been housed in the Vatican Library (founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448) for as long as it has been known, appearing in its earliest catalog of 1475 and in the 1481 catalogue." Wareh 02:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the question correctly, Doug seems to be asking why, if the Renaissance Humanists were collectors of old Latin and Greek texts, they didn't collect old Biblical texts as well as Classical ones. My understanding of the answer is, the Renaissance was a time where neglected Classical Greek and Latin texts, i.e. texts that hadn't been extensively copied in the Middle Ages, and were thus not well known, were actively sought out and disseminated. It wasn't like collecting first editions. If you found a copy of the works of, say, Tacitus, you'd be discovering a work which had been virtually unknown and unread for centuries. The books of the New Testament, on the other hand, would have been among the most copied, disseminated and read texts in existence. Finding an old copy wouldn't mean gaining any new knowledge, so wouldn't have been a priority for the humanists. --Nicknack009 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the answers above. Fully understand them, especially that of Nicknack. Elaborating on Nicnack's answer, the question is (where I didn't made clear in the original question): how does one know that in fact the books of the New Testament were amoung the most copied IF there is no Renaissance Humanists saying in any of their works or letters that they actually read from such books of the New Testament, copied in Latin (I assume). Looking for documented proof (i.e. personal letter, diary, poem, book or "work" by a Renaissance Humanist) that says they themselves have actually read from the New Testament. Looking for something from the Renaissance Humanists that shows proof the New Testament was widely disseminated and read texts in existence. I am not talking of books of the Old Testament, however of the New Testament. On that of the Codex Vaticanus: agree totally with the quotation found by Wareh. However those dates do NOT show an indication of the New Testament in existence before the Fourteenth Century (my original question). It only shows an indication of the New Testament existence after the Fifteenth Century. The earliest date (per quotation) is 1475. The part of "(written in the 4th century)" is not part of the quotation and is just something someone injected to make it appear older than it really is. Looking for actual reference documentation that the New Testament existed before the Fourteenth Century. I have researched this question for over 2 years through several history books and many encyclopedias and can not find such documentation from a quote (for example) of a Renaissance Humanist giving an indication that they themselves had in hand physically an actual copy of the New Testament. Where is there such? --Doug 09:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For a Renaissance Humanist who can be unequivocally said to have read the New Testament, there's always Erasmus, who not only read it, but published a critical edition of the Greek and a new Latin translation in the early 16th century. For evidence of knowledge of the Latin Vulgate in pre-14th century Europe, see my answers to one of your other questions further down the page. --Nicknack009 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not heard that Dante spent time searching for old manuscripts. Petrarch as you know was ordained, so a bible was nothing new to him (remember at the time you read Vulgate or nothing, by church order). He could not hardly written to the pope to say he had just discovered the Vulgate. As you will know, he specifically lamented and searched for the Greek and Latin writings that had been neglected by the people of the age which he called the "dark ages." He had no reason to go looking for bibles; they, of all, had not been neglected, so they would not be his field of interest. Erasmus, as Nicknack noted, does not fit your hypothesis. The texts he used to make up the Textus Receptus were very much pre-renaissance. As for new discoveries and old texts, almost all the old NT texts and books from before 600AD have been discovered and dated during the past 200 years. If not writing about something is taken as evidence of it's non-existence, then the deduction you must make from Leonardo's notebook is that his writing is proof that there were no women in his time (or at least that they were not "widely disseminated"). Leonardo must be considered a more accurate observer than Petrarch, no? If two persons did not write about bibles in a century, that is absence of writing, and if you think that proof will be found in their writings (Why? This would require exceptionally strong justification), then that is absence of proof, not the other way round. It would be difficult to ignore the knowledge that paleography and textual criticism has given us about the existence, translation, and transcription of the NT long before the Renaissance. --Seejyb 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug, your last reply seems to me to confirm Clio's suggestion that you are on a personal quest, to prove something that your are not stating clearly. Specifically, your comments seem to be tending towards a proposition that the NT didn't exist before the fourteenth century, or perhaps that it was not read. Is that where you are heading? Or is it something else?

Proofs by absence of data are notoriously difficult. You say you're looking for "documented proof (i.e. personal letter, diary, poem, book or "work" by a Renaissance Humanist) that says they themselves have actually read from the New Testament." But might that not be a bit like looking for documented proof that a 21st century scholar watched the news?

Incidentally, my 'conspiracy' was a joke, not intended literally. --ColinFine 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! You got it!!! That is precisely what I am saying: that the NT didn't exist before the fourteenth century. Now since it didn't exist before the Fourteenth Century, then of course any scholar or humanist of the Renaissance humanism could not have read the New Testament. There is no letters or "works' from any of these humanist in the 14th Century that say they had any pages of the New Testament because it didn't exist before this time. There is a large list of these Humanists on this page, however none (zero) have any records or references to ever reading the New Testament. Many of these were very prolific in letter writing, so surely (I'm not calling you 'Shirley') there should be some mention in some letters or something that references them reading from the New Testament. However there is none! Now for the argument of: But might that not be a bit like looking for documented proof that a 21st century scholar watched the news? - not if that scholar was very prolific in letter writing. It certainly would show up similar to your quote. He/she probably would write to another younger scholar something like this: "Saw on CNN news this evening on television that they put the polar bear on the endangered species list because of global warming. As an Elder I have noticed this trend so you of the younger generations will have to reverse this before the humans are wiped out." Seems very plausible to me. --Doug 17:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Test your knowledge

Many of the lists listed at Lists of basic topics have gaps in them. If you are knowledgeable in a wide variety of subjects, or well versed in a single subject, please come and help. Simply browse one or more of the lists and fill in any holes that pop out at you. Some of the lists are "complete", but I bet you could find "fundamental" topics missing from those too.  The Transhumanist   16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

the difference (if any) between genocide and crimes against humanity

I tried looking up both definations of "Genocide" and "crimes against humanity", they were basically the same. When Sadam was recently hung they said it was for "crimes against humanity". That made me wonder why they used that term as opposed "Genocide". Any help you could give me would be appreciated. Thanks SusanMissprin 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They are, in all essential respects, the same thing. However, genocide, strictly speaking, refers to crimes agianst a specific race. Saddam's alleged crimes were, to be correct, sectarian rather than racial, insofar as they were directed against religious and ethnic communities, rather than races as such. Clio the Muse 17:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION, they are not "in all essential respects, the same thing".

Genocide is the killing of a 'race', compare patricide, matricide, fungicide etc.

Obviously genocide is a crime against humanity if it is committed against a human race.

But a 'crime against humanity' can include other things such as mass torture, slavery, mass rape etc. So genocide is just one example of a crime against humanity.87.102.14.212 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then there is another dimension, the UN is legally bound to intervene in genocide, so they simply redefine any genocide as "crimes against humanity", so they can just ignore it. StuRat 18:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

True, every genocity is, by definition, a crime against humanity. But not every crime against humanity has to be a genocide. Same as An apple is a fruit, but not every fruit has to be an apple :D Aetherfukz 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Genocide is a legal term that refers to the harm or desctruction of a specific group of people. They can be grouped together by race, gender, social status, political or religious beliefs, etc, and the methods to bring about their destruction can range from forced relocation (Armenian_Genocide) to the disruption of the family structure (Lost Boys of Sudan) to concentration camps (Auschwitz concentration camp). Crimes against humanity refer to crimes that transcend the concept that crimes are the concern of countries and its people and are instead crimes that all of humanity should be offended by and condemn. Labeling certain crimes "crimes against humanity" justifies the creation of International Criminal Tribunals (ICTR) and certaintly allows genocide to be punished. But they are not the same thing. One can commit a crime against humanity, such as torturing innocent citizens, without acting to destroy a certain group.

And, to clarify, acting to destroy a religious or ethnic community would STILL be considered genocide. As a reference: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Themodestmouse 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that the notions of "Genocide" and "Crimes Against Humanity", though obviously related, are quite separate and distinct. I'd put it best by placing the crime of "Genocide" as but one of several "Crimes Against Humanity". In other words, "Genocide" is a subset within the larger notion of "Crimes Against Humanity". I agree, more or less, with most of what Themodestmouse said, with one large exception. Though it can very much qualify as a Crime Against Humanity, I don't see how "forced relocation" can qualify as falling within the "Genocide" subset. The suffix "cide" is from the latin verb "to kill". The reason why the Armenian Genocide qualifies as a bona fide "Genocide" is due to the fact that it involved the mass killing of countless Armenians. Saddam could very well have been charged with "Genocide" just for his mass killings of Kurds, if not for a variety of other possibilities. In fact, Saddam wasn't charged with every possible crime he committed during hs reign, as a trial like that would involve thousands, if not millions of separate charges, and would no doubt last an eternity. So instead what the prosecutors did was the must "open and shut" charge available to them, which was, in their opinion apparently, a certain massacre of (I believe) some 140 individuals. After all, you can only hang a guy once. Loomis 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Holland and the Netherlands?

Is Holland the same as the Netherlands or are they two different countries?

If you had bothered yourself to read the article (Holland) you would have found it out without any help. Flamarande 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC) PS: Sign your statements!!!

Please don't bite the newbies. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In short : they are not the same! Holland refers to parts of the Netherlands. Holland is not a country, the Netherlands is a country. The inhabitants of the Netherlands speak Dutch, but they call it "Nederlands" in Dutch.Evilbu 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

However, it is traditional, although not technically correct, in English speaking countries to refer to the Netherlands as Holland. StuRat 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only in English-speaking countries, it's quite common internationally. 惑乱 分からん 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Flemings often refer to their northern Dutch neighbours as "Hollanders" even though they know it's not correct. But as far as I know, lots of Dutch people who are not a "Hollander" don't like to be called that way.

Oh, the whole country used to be the shortlived Kingdom of Holland, so for a brief moment, Holland was the entire country.Evilbu 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

NB "Holland" is a contraction of the Anglo term for The Netherlands, "Hollow Land". This is on account of the dykes. Vranak 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard the Netherlands were rather dyke-friendly, but the name Holland, afaik, is derived from Old/Middle Dutch "holt-land" wood-land, (derived from the same word as English "holt" and German "holz". 惑乱 分からん 00:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's technically not the same, but in everyday use it's close enough. It's about similar to saying British people are from England which happens far too much in The Netherlands. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, 'Holland' officially covers 27 of the 28 'cantons' (administrative regions) of The Netherlands. Vranak 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

YRI. According to our article Holland, the area is divided between two provinces of the Netherlands: North Holland (Noord-Holland) and South Holland (Zuid-Holland), while the article Netherlands tells us that the Netherlands is divided into twelve administrative regions, called provinces.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a packet of speculaas in my pantry. The writing on the packet is in 4 languages. The Dutch bit refers to the country of manufacture as "Holland". The word "Netherlands", or anything like it, appears nowhere on the packet. JackofOz 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly they were made in Holland rather than any other part of the Netherlands? I'm sure I've seen 'Made in Wales' on things, so similar things happen. Skittle 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wales is a country.172.159.156.28 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether Wales is a seperate nation depends on your definition. In many ways it's powers are similar to those of a US state or a Canadian province. StuRat 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But "Holland", except as a pars pro toto for the Netherlands or as a no longer existent historical entity, is not a country, state, province, canton, or other administrative division.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Percentage of population going to war (like in Germany)

Hello,

I heard that about 150,000 soldiers from the USA are now in the Middle East. That's quite a lot, about 0.05% of the entire population. But I would like to know how much it really is. So for instance :

1. How many people (percentage or absolute number) from Germany were actually enlisted in the army during the World Wars and were at least required to leave home for that. 2. How many of them actually left the homeland?

I know that my question is not that easy to answer, (especially because the population drops during a war, so that can have deceptive effects on percentages). I'm just curious, it seems to be unmanageable to have Germans in Belgium, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Russia, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Finland,....... Same question for Japan and USA.

If you have some sort of URL that is of relevance, I would be very happy as well.

Thank you very much,Evilbu 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject is mobilisation - but our article doesn't give details of percentages. However the article for Recruitment to the British Army during World War I says - By the end of World War I almost 1 in 4 of the total male population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had joined, over five million men. I don't think it was nearly as high in Britain for WWII but may have been in Germany. 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be a smaller percentage in WW2 ? That was the war which could have meant the end of the UK (and the world as we know it), had it been lost, after all. StuRat 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WWII had less of those idiotic trench charges. In WWI that's where the Brits and the Commonwealth suffered the majority of unneeded casualties. Think to La Somme and General Douglas Haig --The Dark Side 03:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To correct you Evilbu, 150 000 is only 0.0005% of the population of the US of A. 0.05% of 300 million is 15 million. But don't worry, it's only two zeroes. --The Dark Side 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dark Side's arithmetic is wrong and Evilbu's was correct. "But don't worry, it's only two zeroes." --Anon, Jan. 2, 07:12 (UTC).

One small observation, Dark Side, your estimation of Douglas Haig is no longer widely held, redolent, as it is, of the old-fashioned Oh, What a Lovely War viewpoint. War is a bloody business, especially when two evenly matched opponents confront one another, and you cannot defeat a powerful enemy without suffering terrible casualties. If you want Second World War examples you need to travel to all points east, to places like Stalingrad and Kursk. Clio the Muse 03:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed,. Recent scholarship suggests that Haig was hardly a thoughtless butcher, and that the casualties, while horrific and tragic, were perhaps not as avoidable as was once thought. Indeed, if you look to some (very) recent works by Hew Strachan, Jay Winter, Gary Sheffield and John Bourne, you will find that the "cutting edge" (as it were) of scholarship on this topic suggests that, once the trenches were established, astronomical casualties were quite possibly unavoidable - and indeed, only a handful of commanders on either side were able to conduct operations without significant casualties (Plumer comes to mind, but there are others). Sheffield and Bourne in particular paint a rather different picture of Haig that runs rather contrary to the received wisdom. Carom 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, most of the casualties could have been avoided, not by the generals, but by the politicians, by ending the war early. The old logic, that the costs of war would be less than the gains (for the victor, at least), clearly no longer applied in the era of trench warfare. Any territorial gains were not justified by the huge cost. Therefore, they should have agreed to an armistice, on approximately equal terms, as soon as this became apparent. StuRat 16:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To get back to the initial question, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on this subject, which is not exactly mobilization, but something known more precisely as the military participation ratio. You (Evilbu) will probably find the figures you want by doing a google search using that term. —Kevin 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it was I that missed the two zeroes. However, as for Haig, I don't think he purposely sent excessive men to their deaths because he was "callous and indifferent to the plight of the soldiers.” Rather, I think he just made some mistakes and refused to correct them until many lives were needlessly lost. I do recognize that people must die in war, but they shouldn't be lost through incompetence by superior officers. For the record I speak only of his participation during the battle of the Somme. --The Dark Side 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy: has it ever been of any practical concrete use?

By practical use I mean has it ever done anything concrete that you can actually touch, or made any money? (Ignoring the money made by people teaching it or selling boks about it etc). And I don't want to hear about the Philosopy Of Science - the science came first, then the philiosophy fitted itself around it rather than the other way around. 62.253.53.96 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think philosophy probably came first. As for your question though, I'm not sure. Sorry. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I rather think philosophy and sophistry mean roughly the same thing... 'doing wisdom': making money from 'doing' wisdom. See also the first quote on my user page: Vranak 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that philosophy has ever done anything concrete or made money, though neither of those is its goal. On the other hand, I do think that philosophy has made possible doing concrete things and making money. I once heard someone refer to philosophy as "mental hygiene". Philosophy provides tools that allow people to avoid mental traps or errors in thinking that can result in concrete things that fail to work, or efforts to make money that don't pan out. One of the most useful branches of philosophy is logic, which helps people to avoid fallacies, or faulty thinking. Beyond this, philosophy, or at least logic, have clear applications to the practice of law, which certainly has concrete results and makes money for its practitioners. Marco polo 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And a mental trap or error in thinking that results in concrete things that fail to work -- this would be a Bad Thing presumably. Vranak 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What we call natural science now once was the province of philosophy. Before it came to be a separate field, keeping a new breed of scientists busy, the notion of the scientific method had to be developed, which was done by... ?, guess... Right on! Philosophers! Very good. Likewise, logic, now usually considered an area of mathematics, grew out of...? When the answers to the hard questions in a sub-field of philosophy have reached consensus, it is spun off. What is left as being considered philosophy are the hard questions that haven't (yet) been answered. So while philosophy has not been, and never will be, of any "practical concrete use", as by definition the questions it addresses are unsolved, it has pioneered the approaches that have, ultimately, made computers possible.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have two brothers, both are philosophers. When I put this question to them, one said, "that is a good question, I must think about that." The other thought the question meaningless, and went about his work. I asked my second brother about the question, and he said "Can't you see I'm busy?" "But it's a question. Surely you don't ignore questions. What kind of a philosopher are you?" "I'm not ignoring the question." He told me. "I am answering it." DDB 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats very funny. --Judged 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us be clear about one thing at least: sophistry and philosophy do not mean the same thing, roughly or otherwise. Indeed, western philosophy, as we understand it today, might be said to have emerged in opposition to sophistry and other forms of insincere thought. Has philosophy ever had any practical use or concrete application? Is thought of any use? These are both huge questions which cannot be weighed by scales of utility. However, I will say that all aspects of human development, both good and bad, are inconceivable without the development in modes of thought, whether this be logic, epistemology, aesthetics or metaphysics. Just imagine, moreover, a world without ethics, without notions of good and bad conduct. Take away all of these things and ask if it is possible to conceive in any meaningful sense what it is to be human, what it is to exist, in other words, beyond the level of mere instinct. Has it ever done any good? I'm reminded of A Christmas Carol, and with every apology to Charles Dickens I will take some of his words slightly out of context: And, therefore...though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it! Clio the Muse 00:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice answer. I remember a loose definition of philosophy, I believe by Bertrand Russell (though I do not remember in which essay or book I encountered it, and I may be misquoting): "Philosophy is an unusually persistent attempt to think clearly." More or less. Looked at that way, it is of value immeasurable on any scale. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that philosophy has many ties to ideology, which has done a lot of "practical" things in the world, good and bad. Your life is more governed by some dead fellow's philosophy of freedom, of governance, etc., than you probably realize. --Fastfission 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of what I would say has already been said (especially regarding the historically inaccurate claim that science came first and philosophy of science came after it.) In addition to the above suggestions I have a few. Contemporary philosophy of science interacts with statistics. A causal search algorithm, known as TETRAD, was developed by philosophers at Carnegie-Mellon University. Similarly the uses of information criteria, like the akaike information criterion, have been explicated by philosophers (notably, Elliot Sober). There are currently two living members of the United States National Academy of Sciences who are philosophers, Brian Skyrms and Patrick Suppes (Willard Van Orman Quine was also one, but he is no longer alive.) In fact, Suppes was awarded the national medal of science. Of course, to be in the NAS, they must have made contributions to science. Work in contemporary logic is used substantially in computer science especially artificial intellegence. Work in decision theory is being applied to actual decision making, largely now by people in business schools. Most hospitals hire at least one person specializing in bioethics in order to inform their decisions. I know that contemporary usage, especially amongst "scientifically minded" people, treats "philosophy" as synonymous with "baseless speculation", but it is only the result baseless speculation by close minded people. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can bacteria think?

Is thought defined loosely enough that it can be claimed that bacteria, through to their internal chemical reactions, can think?

83.94.245.53 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No; they are quite litterally "mindless eating machines". :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the definitions found at thought, no not really. However they can respond to their environment but it is anthropomorphizing to call that thinking. —Dgies^t c 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In his Gödel, Escher, Bach, Doug Hofstadter presents some conversations with an ant hill, aptly named Aunt Hillary. The idea is that while individual ants are mindless machines, the society formed by the collectivity of ants – who, as we know, exchange signals with each other and can be considered to be the elements of a vast information-processing system – might possess intelligence, just like intelligence is an emergent property of the collectivity of mindless neurons forming the human brain. While an entertaining thought, the observed level of intelligence of ant societies – inasmuch as we can interpret it – is not very high. Like ants, bacteria display some social behaviour; they exchange signals and adapt their behaviour accordingly. Again, the collective intelligence displayed does not appear to rise to the level of what is commonly considered "thought". In my opinion this is more a matter of degree than of principle. Other people disagree and see an essential qualitative difference. Ultimately the issue is indeed one of definition. The problem is that when the concept of "thought" was formed, no-one considered the possibility that one day we might ask whether some non-human information processing system was capable of thought, so by default you should add "displayed by humans" to any definition given by someone who did not explicitly consider the possibility. Fish can swim; can submarines swim? If you define "to swim" like my dictionary does as: "to move in water by movements of the limbs, fins, tail, etc.", then is the screw of a sub covered by the "etc."? Not in the usual use of the verb "to swim". The same could have happened to "to fly"; the meaning could have been: ""to move in air by movements of the wings." Then we would have to concede that kites and airplanes can't fly. As it is, whatever some philosophers say, people appear to be quite happy to use "thought" for the computations leading to the behaviour of animals and computers alike. If the result of the information processing capabilities of a society of mindless elements becomes sufficiently complex, so that we can no longer grasp it as the combined result of very simple signalling and switching, then I'm sure we will likewise call it "thought". See also Turing test and Chinese room.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bacteria can be said to 'think' when they can exhibit a personality, exercising choice, not mere programmed activity. Recent research into spiders show that they have personality, some are aggressive, some are timid, some are lazy. Bacteria has only ever been observed acting as all other bacteria would. Human cells are not thinking creatures, but the collective that makes a person is. Individual ants have personality. Do trees make choices? I don't think so .. DDB 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ever met an Ent? Vranak

So we seem to have concluded that an individual bacterium certainly does not think, and it seems unlikely that a colony of bacterioa would exhibit any emergent behaviour that could be classified as thought. On the other hand, spiders probably do think. What about multi-cellular organisms that lack a brain or central nervous system - such as jellyfish - can they think ? Gandalf61 10:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I believe some form of central nervous system is required to think, so if jellies don't have one, I don't think they can think. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we therefore conclude that jellyfish do not think that you can think? Vranak 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

bacteria cannot think since it has no brainuser:ynj

Gee, that's a good answer! (Slaps forehead) That I did not think of that!  --Lambiam^Talk 18:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dioceses

How many Catholic dioceses are there in the world? --Lazar Taxon 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here in my town, I think there are 250+ (estimate, I only know for sure of about 20, from a relatively small portion of the city). | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood - there's only about 200 in the whole US. --Lazar Taxon 21:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought parishes. Then in that case, my town only has one. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is! I knew it had to be on Wikipedia. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If I counted correctly, that makes 488 dioceses.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are probably a few more too; the number is more likely closer to 500. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice that that list claims to be very incomplete: The article diocese gives "As of 2003, there are approximately 569 Roman Catholic archdioceses and 2014 dioceses." Rmhermen 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you counted the titular sees, it might even be higher. AnonMoos 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How long have accountants been known as accountants?

In Europe in the 1700s, say, were there accountants who, like now, kept offices where merchants etc came to manage their accounts? If so, were they called accountants? - if not, what? - bookkeepers? Ta - Adambrowne666 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Accountancy as an activity is probably as old as civilization itself, and I know of at least one literary reference to 'incorrect accounts' in The Clouds, a play by Aristophanes, written in the fifth centuary B.C. In the English speaking world I think those practicing accountancy were most commonly referred to as book-keepers, or perhaps clerks, comptrollers or auditors. I think the Scots were the first to give formal legal recognition to the profession of chartered accountant as such in 1854, an example followed in England some thirty years later. Clio the Muse 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

perfect! - thanks for yet another helpful answer, Clio. Adambrowne666 01:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary's first citation in this sense: "1539 Househ. Ord. in Thynne's Animadv. (1865) 33 And the said Books shall be examined with the Accomptants and particular Clerkes for the perfecting of the same." Wareh 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wareh; so it looks like 'accountant' came from 'accomptant'? Adambrowne666 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it came into English from French accomptant (the late Latin verb accomptare is derived from the prefix ad- + computare, to calculate). The p would never have been pronounced in English. Wareh 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

January 2

employment with US Park Systems

How does one apply for employment with the United States Park Systems? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karen Hawkins (talk • contribs) 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Try the top few links here. Wareh 02:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Try here. - Patricknoddy 8:25am, January 2, 2007 (EST)

John Smith

In the U.S., if John Smith, M.D. names his son John Smith, Jr., does he need to change his name to John Smith, Sr. to the government and the American Medical Association?

If his child hates the name and changed his name to Tom Smith, does his father need to change his name back? -- Toytoy 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No. "Sr." is only used by third parties in contexts where disambiguation is necessary. In the US, however, personal preference rules, so there are bound to be exceptions. --Wetman 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Sr." is generally not a legal part of a person's name. Nor is the "Jr." in any case that I can think of. If someone was really anal and they wanted the Sr. on their name, they would probably use "John Smith Sr., M.D." Though this might lead some people to think that the son is also a doctor. Dismas|^(talk) 05:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Julius Caesar

Hi there

I wonder if you could help my daughter who is 9 years old.

She was set a 100 question test from school for the Xmas period and we have managed to answer every question with 1 exception:

What unusual pet did the Roman, Julius Caesar, have?

Your help would be greatly appreciated

Many thanks

Elise

After searching Google for "pet of julius caesar", I found this. Apparently, Caesar liked gigantic pets. --Bowlhover 09:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. "The first giraffe exhibited was in Rome in 46 B.C. by Julius Caesar. It was thought to have a camel for a mother and a leopard of a father. The ancient Romans called it a "camel-leopard". (From this, its scientific name - camelopardalis)." The second exhibition of a giraffe to the Italians was by Lorenzo d'Medici, in a conscious echo of Caesar's exhibition. - Nunh-huh 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

music,piano playing glossary.

i was not able to find the above subject,as i did with violin & ballet.please help!thanks!

you want a glossary of terms relating to piano playing? --194.176.105.40 09:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

if so, and you don't need one that's too comprehensive, this should help: Piano Glossary --194.176.105.40 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

John Wycliffe English translation of New Testament

From John Wycliff comes the first translation of the New Testament off Latin into any language about 1382. The whole was revised by Wycliffe's younger contemporary John Purvey in 1388. The "Early Version" of the "Wycliffe Bible", hand-printed about 1382, can be found online here. About how long would it have taken Wycliffe and Purvey to have translated only the New Testament, which was hand-printed?

Probably a year or two. - Patricknoddy 8:26am, January 2, 2007 (EST)

That is almost impossible to estimate; all we can do is give somewhat plausible bounds. The New Testament contains roughly 200,000 words in translation. Just to write it down, hand-copying an existing text, might take about 200,000 seconds for a quick writer, or 7 days each of 8 hours continual labour – after which the copyist would have carpal tunnel syndrome :(. So it cannot have been faster than that. One order of magnitude more, say 3 months, would seem just feasible if no research of any kind is needed (for example to further the consistency of translation) and the translator does not particularly care whether the translation is clunky – Wycliffe's translation was a literal almost word-by-word translation of the Latin text, with little consideration for the differences between Latin and English grammar. But 4 to 6 months is more plausible as a lower bound. One could easily spend a year or two on the task, though, constantly and steadily working, without idling. What I don't know is to what extent he made use of extant partial translations, and whether this was all done single-handedly. Also, it is unlikely that Wycliffe did nothing else during the months or years he was working on the translation; he did possibly not devote more than half his time on the project, and then we get to 4 calendar years, say, or more. How long it took Purvey to produce his revision would mainly depend on how thorough and extensive the revision was, which I don't know. Assuming it was fairly thorough, though, it would have required a similar amount of time as a de novo translation. However, we know the revision was ready by 1388, and the article on John Purvey states: "He was probably in the midst of this undertaking when Wycliffe died in 1384." This would have started while he was at Lutterworth, which was since 1382. This suggests that, had his labour not been interrupted, it might have taken him a calendar time of about 4 years, which in actual life became more like 6 years.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding answers on this time. Lambiam: Appreciate the analysis. This helps me a lot..... --Doug 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lambiam: Is there a particular reason (could be a good reason, I just don't know) why this list is not run in reverse chronological order? It would seem to be easier IF the most current subjects were at the top first, then the ones that have been answered and old history and about to fall off the list, as the last on the list. This way then one would not have to go to the bottom of the list each time and go through the entire list to see the most current ones. Perhaps there is a way I can set up my browser to make it do this. Can you give me some help or an answer on this? Thanks again --Doug 16:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions about how to use Wikipedia are best asked at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Some keyboards have [Home] and [End] keys, which may transmit something like ESC [ 1 ~ and ESC [ 4 ~, and which some browsers (for example Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer) understand as "take me to the beginning or end of the <active area>". Otherwise keeping [Page Down] pressed may bring you there quickly. I don't know what keyboard, OS, and browser you use, and are in general as clueless about using computers as the next 68-year old person, so I may be unable to help you further here. Fortunately we also have Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, staffed with knowledgeable volunteers who are eager to help.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Middle English Bible translations

Looking under Middle English Bible translations it shows John Wycliff produced the first complete English language Bible in the late 1300s with the New Testament completed about 1380 (perhaps 1382). To translate the complete Bible how long would it have taken him (with associates)? Also I do NOT see any New Testament translations into any language before the Fourteenth Century (being Wyclif's Bible). Where is there a record or documentation of the Vulgate Latin translations of the New Testament hand copied (a.k.a. hand-printed) by a Copyist with a known name before the Fourteenth Century? Looking for good documented evidence that the New Testament (not the Old Testament) was in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century in any language (i.e. the Vulgate Latin, English, Italian, French, Greek). Have looked under the following Wikipedia titles with no luck: Bible, Renaissance, Italian Renaissance, Holy Roman Empire, Papal States, Holy See, Avignon Papacy, Early Christian church, Christianity, History of theology, Christian theology, Christianity in the British isles 410-1066, History of the Church of England, and World Council of Churches. Where is there such documented records that the New Testament itself (or in combination with the Old Testament as a complete Bible) was in wide spread circulation in Europe (or elsewhere) before the Fourteenth Century? --Doug 14:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Try Bible translations although it seems that you have already arrived at your own opinion and are seeking only to support it. Rmhermen 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have studied this much and came to this conclusion since I can not find good evidence that the New Testament was actually in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century. I can not find that it ever was in circulation at all before the Fourteenth Century. That's why I am asking a large audience that in hopes maybe someone out of these thousands should be able to show me of this supposed evidence this to be true. Its not in any of these Wikipedia articles. If you know, please show me. I would really appreciate it. Maybe others can also show me. Should be several places for excellent evidence of this. Could you show me a few? I'm asking for help. Thanks! --Doug 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The suppression of the New Testament wouldn't surprise me, as many of it's teachings were at odds with those of the Catholic Church of the time. For example, the New Testament emphasized that everyone should have a personal relationship with God, while the Church claimed that only the Pope and saints had a personal relationship with God. The Church was also far more into "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" than they were into "turn the other cheek". StuRat 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Right another conspiracy, well perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the ppl (perhaps 99%) during the Middle Ages was simply iliterate and that the bible was written in Latin. Doug asked for "good evidence that the New Testament was actually in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century". I have found the Book of Kells which has the 4 gospels of the New Testament. Written around 800 AD. Flamarande 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Book printing in Europe become possible only when paper became relatively easily available, around 1400. It took till around 1450 before so-called block-books, woodcut books with both text and images, appeared, at about the same time as Gutenberg's invention of moveable type. Before that, a copy of the New Testament would typically be a lavishly illustrated manuscript, painstakingly calligraphed by monks on fine vellum. In terms of current value, such a book might easily be worth more than $100,000, more than most people could scrape together in a lifetime. You bet they were not in "widespread circulation", at least not how I would understand and use that term. And, as pointed out by Flamarande, the overwhelming majority of people could not read and did not understand the language this was written in.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Copies of the Bible in Latin would have been in every monastery and major church even if every parish church or minor shrine/chapel didn't.have one. Recopying was a major effort of monks and wasn't confined to Biblical texts - some classical texts exist only because of monastic copying. Latin copies were so common, unknown priests could go mark up their copies in local dialects as shown in the interlineal glosses mentioned, for instance, in Old English Bible translations. Rmhermen 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Latin Vulgate Bible was translated by Jerome in the 5th century. Accordinging to this section of the article, it was copied so much that variants arose and attempts were made to re-standardise it in the 6th, 8th 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries by named individuals, which should give you some avenues for research. --Nicknack009 21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Carolingian Renaissance may also be of interest. Apparently in the 8th century there were plenty of Bibles, but not enough priests capable of reading them. --Nicknack009 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for the many answers. I have read them over and I am going to read them again to make sure I got all the information from all these great Wikipedia articles.
Nicknack: know you left multiple answers, got them all. Thanks. --Doug 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Capital crimes in Iraq before 2003 and in China today

What was the 114 capital crimes in Iraq under Saddam? What are capital crimes in the People's Repucblic of China today? --Vess 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq under Saddam didn't have the rule of law. If they decided to kill someone, they usually wouldn't bother with a trial. The majority of those killed by Saddam died because they were Kurds or Shia, not because they committed any crime. StuRat 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless 'being born' were one of the 114 capital crimes, which would be crazy. Vranak 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

'Being born' as kurds, an important distinction... @_@ 惑乱 分からん 18:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is so reasurring to see that things in Iraq haven't changed much then. Ppl still keep on being killed despite the new "rule of Law" and according to some are dying more these days.

Well, I guess they are being killed unlawfully... Must be soothing for the victims to ponder... 惑乱 分からん 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, really sothing. Whereas formely they were killed by the will of Sadam - "lawfully", today they are being killed unlawfully by their neighbours. That small detail really makes all the diffrence for the widows and orphans. Flamarande 19:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

About the capital crimes in China, I looked around and found out that around 68 types of crime recieve capital punishment there. Couldn't find a specific list of these crimes. Best I found was this [5]. Read point: "2.3 The number of capital crimes". Flamarande 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Capital punishment in China mentions a couple (but only more unusual ones - like killing a panda) Rmhermen 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

History of unanimity in juries

Hello all - I'm curious about the origin of two norms for juries (at least in the U.S.). When did it originate that juries had to reach a unanimous decision, rather than a simple majority (or anything else)? Have they always been this way? Was another way considered? Also, juries deliberate by discussing the case with each other, rather than each deliberating privately. Is there a story behind this norm as well? I have read jury and jury trial, but to no avail. Thanks in advance! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The notion of a jury of peers already occurs in early Germanic law; see for example Salic law. I don't know any details of Saxon law, but since it was issued by Charlemagne, it was at least partially based on Salic law, and quite likely to have involved juries. I do not know if unanimity was already required for a guilty verdict in the early Germanic days, but it seems a possibility. With the Conquest another wave of "Salicism" entered Anglo-Saxon law. However, by that time the jury system was no longer commonly operational in England, until reinstated by Henry II of England. Again, I don't know whether unanimity was required, but this seems like a good starting point to look at. --Lambiam^Talk 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Kevin. This is an interesting problem you have set, and as with all such matters there is no simple answer. To begin with, practices have varied quite widely throughout the English-speaking world, and while a unanimous verdict in jury trials was long established in English common law, in Scotland, which draws on a different set of legal traditions, majority verdicts were accepted, even in in capital crimes. The practice in England was changed in 1967 to allow a majority verdict, where at least ten of the jurors are in agreement. As far as I am aware the United States adopted most of the precedents set by the common law of England, including unanimous verdict in jury trails, though this has also been subject to change and amendment. On your second point, juries were selected as arbiters of fact, and as justice had not only to be done, but to be seen to be done, this would inevitably entail that decisions be reached in open discussion. There is also the requirement of speedy justice. Just imagine how much longer trials would take if each of the twelve jurors were allowed to weigh the evidence in isolation! There was a time when jurors were not allowed to leave their room-even for sleep-until such time as they reached a verdict. On this you might be intrested in the example set in early colonial Virginia: When a case was given to the jury, it was locked up without food or water until it reached a verdict. A juryman could not leave his fellows until a verdict was reached, which, as one writer noted, made prolonged disagreement practically unknown. ( Quotation in J. W. Glichrist, South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Bulletin, Winter, 1989). Now, that's the way to do it! Clio the Muse 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks to you both. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you concerned only with criminal trials? Loomis 03:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ciphers and Codes

In Cryptography ("study of secrets") I would like to know what below each would be called, a Cipher or Code?
1. When a set of words uses identically the same vowels and has the same number of letters total, i.e.:
"The Da Vinci Code" -vs- "I’m a movie critic"
Each of these both use only the vowels a, e, i, and o. They both have 14 letters.

2. These words start and end using the same letter.
"Universal Studios" -vs- "unilateral studies"

I don't think either of these would be considered a cipher or code. These terms are used for secret methods to hide messages, but in such a way that people who know those secret methods can reconstruct the original message from the coded form. Your Da Vinci Code examples leaves too many possibilities, like "I love pineapple", "You will eat meat", "Submarines come", etc. Same for number 2.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I can just about see these methods being used to select code words, which are then shared with everyone who needs to know them. However, this would make a more easily broken code than just selecting words than sound innocent ("The bananas are in the bowl"), and, given the possible solutions (as per Lambian), wouldn't be a lot of help to someone you want to know the code who has forgotten. If I said to you "Cabbages are green", using your second method, do I mean "Catch a goblin", "Creep away, gambling", "Catherine ate goose"...? Skittle 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. Let me see if I could refine further on "the Code" and answer these very good points. First, these two would be entirely two different examples, not to be mixed into each other. Now for Example 1 more refined: Lets now say that from "The Da Vinci Code" there are a finite number of word possibilities to selsect from so that it is not infinite. This finite group then being a set of preselected words (known only to both parties involved as a set of "keys) so that it turns out there can only be a possible few word group set that it could then be (i.e. 6 or less sets). One of these sets then making perfect sense between the two and the hidden message intended. This then I believe would make it more plausable.
Example 2 would also be only a few possible set of words to be able to select from make it also more plausable.
I understand your points and will think more about this. Otherwise then with these refinments would this then be a Code or a "cipher"? Thanks again......... --Doug 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Given, as I understand it, a cipher is when you swap symbols for letters, if anything it would be a code. That was roughly, according to my old books. But our article suggests that anything following an algorithm is a cipher, anything simply replacing the words is a code. So I suppose you're sort of setting up a cipher, although with the exchange of codebooks/lists it's also pretty much a flexible code. More than anything, it sounds to me like a word-puzzle that you would create for the fun of solving it more than its use. But I still don't see why you would do this, rather than just have the words/phrases mean set words/phrases, given you're already having to exchange lists of words. Your way still sounds like there could be potential ambiguity for the chosen translator, and it would take much longer for the coder and decoder while lowering the security of the code. Perhaps if your 'list' of possible words was very short, and the list of possible codewords was very long, then I can see it being useful (flexibility of plaintext meaning it could look less suspicious), but only once or twice. More than that and it's easily cracked with the short list of codewords. Skittle 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional ideas. Lets say I came across an acient manuscript (i.e. from the Middle Ages) and it used for example the word "Tarsus", which turned out to mean Taras, this then probably would be closer to the term "Code" (replacement of one word for another) than that of a cipher (anything following an algorithm). Now lets say this ancient manuscript was not intended to be for a particular person but for posterity instead. Now the way that one would know then that in this medieval manuscript it meant, by the usage of "the Code", the town of Taras and not actually Tarsus (city) is that there is also a reference to a Straight Street. In Tarsus (city) in Turkey there is no well known Straight Street, however in Taras there is. It is called the Appian Way. Now setting religion aside for the moment, this might be an example then of the usage of a Code (not a cipher), correct? --Doug 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a code to me, it sounds like a typo :-) But seriously, I don't see anything in that quote to suggest the street was a well-known street that was straight rather than 'the street called Straight'. Do you have real reason to believe that there was no street in Tarsus that was called 'Straight' (as a name) at the time? Onto this method of communicating: why would you use such a method of communicating with posterity rather than just writing what you meant? Or using a clearer code? If the aim is to disseminate the knowledge, what is gained by writing false things in the hope that people will work out what you mean? It doesn't really feel like a code, because you are not decoding the word 'Tarsus' and finding it to mean 'Taras', rather you are solving the geography puzzle to find a location. But what does my gut count on this? Skittle 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not a typo! It definitely sounds like a Code to me. It suggests that it is a well known street with the nick name of "Straight Street" called Appian Way because:
1. Appian Way went to Taras. This is modern day Taranto, Italy. The Greek colonists from Sparta called the city Taras.
2. All great Roman roads went as straight as possible, for fast movement of troops. Look at Map of Roman roads here.
3. The Appian Way was called the Queen of the Roman Roads. It could easily have been called a "Straight Straight".
4. There is no road now or in the last 2000 years that had notoriety of being called a Straight Street in or around Tarsus, Turkey.
5. Why not to posterity? Francesco Petrarch (famous scholar), Father of the Renaissance, wrote a Letter to Posterity, here. --Doug 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As all great Roman roads were straight, why would a road acquire the nickname 'Straight'? Secondly, notoriety does not seem to be involved anywhere in the quote; all that is required is that the street is called 'Straight'. Many street names have not survived the centuries. Thirdly, I did not suggest you would not want to communicate with posterity, but that if you did there would be no reason to encode your message, making it harder for posterity to understand it! On top of this, it doesn't sound like a code because you are not decoding words. Rather, you are solving a geographical puzzle. Skittle 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Biblical name meanings as codes

Does anyone know of an instance where Biblical name meanings were used as a type of a code? Perhaps this may have been used in the Middle Ages or in the Renaissance period. Today something like this would not be used, since it is not very sophiticated compared to computer software. However in a time period where few people could read or write (i.e. Renaissance) it could be useful. This way then the recipient would already have the "keys" to deciper the coded message. This being that, of course, this was prearranged ahead of time as the method used. Then if the message got intercepted, it would look like a jumbled set of words that didn't make much sense.--Doug 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but you could look at Atbash... AnonMoos 02:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Babylonian Captivity

Petrarch coined the phrase "Babylonian Captivity" as a reference to the moving of the papacy to Avignon. This expression can be found this way in usage in Wikipedia articles of Pope Clement V (the first Avignon pope), Avignon Papacy, and in Avignon. This I found by typing in "Babylonian Captivity Petrarch" in the search box. In these articles then it appears to be the same thing as "Captivity of Avignon", being a reference by Petrarch of the city's corruption. Under the article Avignon Papacy, in the Contents of "Schism: The War of the Eight Saints" under Criticism it says: The period has been called the "Babylonian captivity" of the popes, a term coined by Petrarch[1], an Italian who lamented the absence of the papacy from his native land. This nickname is polemical, in that it refers to the claim by critics that the prosperity of the church at this time was accompanied by a profound compromise of the Papacy's spiritual integrity, especially in the alleged subordination of the powers of the Church to the ambitions of the French kings. Coincidentally, the "captivity" of the popes at Avignon lasted around the same duration as the exile of the Jews in Babylon, making the analogy all the more convenient and rhetorically potent. For this reason, the Avignon papacy has been and is often today depicted as being totally dependent on the French kings, and sometimes as even being treacherous to its spiritual role and its heritage in Rome. Was this time period then somewhere around 70 years and when did this take place? The Jews in Babylon? Would this be correct usage then of term "Captivity of Avignon" since it is a reference to the temporary move ("captivity") to Avignon of the papacy? Wouldn't this then be similar to "Captivity of Babylon", being then the "Babylonian Captivity"? Don't 'Avignon' and 'Babylon' sound similar? --Doug 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you have read Babylonian captivity or Avignon papacy. Beyond the information in those articles, can you state more clearly what information you want? If the last question is your main question, I would say that "Avignon" and "Babylon" do not sound similar, although they rhyme in some languages. Marco polo 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The neutral term to use, one should emphasize, is "the Avignon papacy". --Wetman 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jews in Babylon reference is to the destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE and the subsequent forced migration of the bulk of the Jewish people to Babylon. In 516 BCE, (ie 70 years later) an edict by Cyrus allowed Jews to return to their homeland under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah, leading to the construction of the second Temple which was to stand until destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. --Dweller 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You all have answered my questions very good. This is basically what I was looking for. Now I understand that of the Jewish people and Babylon in the time of Cyrus. Now I can see the relationship meaning of the "70 years" connected to both. In the case of Babylon this time then being 586 BCE to 516 BCE ("70 years"). In the case of Avignon this is 1308 to 1378. Didn't Cyrus also make what is called the Cyrus Cylinder concerning this? It has the first set of Human Rights, written down on this clay cyclinder relating to this edict allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. Do I have this correct? Did this cylinder then have 40 lines of writing on it relating to this of allowing the Jews to return to their homeland?
I believe my main question would be more along the lines of would the term "Captivity of Babylon" be the same as (from Petrarch's viewpoint, whom coined it) "Babylonian Captivity"? They then would be the same to me, is that correct?--Doug 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that Petrarch didn't write in English, he would have called it neither the "Babylonian Captivity" nor the "Captivity of Babylon". Please see your talk page for a question about your user page, which is along a similar point. --Dweller 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The notion of "the Babylonian Captivity" was generally understood, well before Petrarch's time, to refer to the forced exile of Judah to Babylon. (Italian: Cattività babilonese; Latin: Captivitas Babylonica.) Given the right context you could just use "the Captivity", and people would still have understood you, just like "the Nativity" was the nativity of Christ. You can also say "the Captivity in Babylon" or "the Captivity of Babylon"; they all mean the same thing, just like "the American Senate" and "the Senate of the United States" mean the same thing. Petrarch chose this as a catchy metaphor for the "exile" of the papacy to Avignon. To distinguish this from the original Jewish exile, this became "the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon". People tired of repeating this long phrase shorten(ed) it to "the Captivity of Avignon". That's all.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great information on that of "the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon". Thanks again.... --Doug 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Desktop background

I'm looking for an image to set as my desktop background. One idea I had was beautiful Latin American cities at night. Does anyone have, or can anyone find, any such images? I know Google Images is my friend, but I haven't had much luck with it. Thanks, anon.

Try www.flickr.com or www.photobucket.com and search for the sort of image you require. To get to larger-versions of the image (in Flickr) click the photo you like and if the user has uploaded a larger version, you will be able to click 'see all sizes'. I often find my desktop backgrounds on there. ny156uk 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

When you search, type the name of a city you find beautiful, surrounded by quotation marks if the city's name has more than one word (e.g. "San Cristobal"), and type the word "night". You should get images of that city at night. You can do a search for each city you find beautiful. Marco polo 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

hairstyle

if your hair is gelled and spiked are the sides usually cut short(for guiys

Humanities sort of means history and literature. You'd do better putting this question on the Miscelaneous RD, but this also probably isn't as good a place to find out as, say, a google image search for "gelled hair" or something. I think yes, but I don't really know. Sashafklein 06:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually, yes. See pictures at Commons as well as Google. Dar-Ape 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

January 3

Local politics

This is a political question. Our town council is made up of mostly business men from rich families. They were heard talking in private about how some of the best land near downtown was owned by poor people and because most of it was very old and unpainted that they might be able to get it cheap by having code enforcement step up inspections, prosecutions and confiscations. After this suceeded they began to find other ways to keep poor people away from town. Since many poor people road bicycles or walked and carried backpacks they got some kids to go into stores, stuff their back packs full of goodies and then run out the door. After awhile the council was able to get merchants, including food stores, to require anyone with a backpack to leave it at the door. The backpacks would then be stolen while its owner was shopping in the store. Needless to say this stopped anyone with a backpack (mostly poor people and kids) from coming in their stores. My question is whether such stores can be required by a higher political authority (county, state or federal) to require local stores with such a policy to provide lockers that can be locked and the key kept by the user like some bus stations, swimming pools and schools have? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.6.152 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I would think so, sure. However, the loss of business is likely to cause the businesses to reverse their decision in time. Also, if this "secret conversation" was made public, I would expect most of the council to be recalled or voted out at the next election. StuRat 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately they were heard by people under them so it amounts to gossip as far as anyone else is concerned. The irony here is that since there is a lot of shoplifting from kids and transients the businesses that engage in this practice do so with the belief that they are exercising an effective form of loss prevention rather than loosing legitimate customers. People who have backpacks are being discriminated against for this reason as evidenced by the fact that the stores never check the record of whether the backpacker has ever stolen anything from them but instead just treat all backpackers as if they are thieves. 71.100.6.152 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If the businesses are right in that the backpackers represent more loss than profit, then their policy will pay off for them. If, however, the reverse is true, they will notice the drop in sales in short order, and reverse their policy. StuRat 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't happen to be Family Dollar and Big Lots would it? Barringa 10:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Vestries in England around 1800

Is there any reference or list of the names of Vestries listed from England around 1800? My great-great-great grandfather was either a Vestry in England or his name was actually Vestry Kee. In search of my genealogy I have decided to check the avenue that he may have been a Vestry and not named that. Is there any such resource to check?

Thank You Margaret Dawkins ^^^^ Oklahoma City, OK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.137.1.43 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

A vestry is not a single person, but a committee - a church council, if you will. I am not aware that "Vestry" was a particularly common given name, but it seems a more likely alternative. Carom 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A member of a vestry is a vestryman. Only knowing the town or city would make your search a possibility.--Wetman 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Margaret, what he may have been is a vestry clerk. You might try contacting the Church of England directly [6], though, to be prefectly honest with you, I think this is probably not going to be that productive, unless you can give them some more specific information on possible locations. For names the main source of information in England is the Family Records Centre [7] Good luck! Clio the Muse 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anal-Retentive

I was curious, so I read the article, which says that the current usage of Anal-retentive derives from a psychological term developed by Freud to explain childhood development. Personally, the idea of a stage of development in which the child is preoccupied with his his/her anus, as well as with the mouth and phallus, sounds a bit far-fetched -- not to mention Freud's idea that delays in this progression can somehow deeply affect the person's development and behavior. Has this theory been ratified by modern psychology? By empirical evidence? Is it still generally believed in? I don't really know whether this is a science or humanities question, so feel free to relocate it as you see fit. Thanks, Sashafklein 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Common use of this term by pseudo-intellectuals suggests what they mean by it is "full of crap." 71.100.6.152 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've encountered that as a "clever" non-scatological euphemism. The term is sometimes used in a casual reference to a person exhibiting signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder. -- Deborahjay 10:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

...or perhaps Constipation. Barringa 10:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots can be learned by studying Freud's jargon. Behavioural Science is a science, and the Janus pairing of Anal Retentive/Anal Explosive is an apt description which identifies behaviours and suggests interpretations.

Oral fixations are understandable for a child. The first breath after birth allows oxygen to gather in the bloodstream in sufficient quantity that it is probably the first time the infant is 'awake' too. Feeding is an oral experience that lights up lots of sensations, smell, taste, touch. Infants are quick to put things in their mouths.

It is an observable fact that some adults, under stress, copy behaviours of infants. Fetal positions. Thumb sucking and so on. If the behaviours are socially constructed, or innate behaviours giveing security in times of stress has been debated and studied. The expression applied being 'regression.'

The Janus pairing of Retentive/Explosive gives a description that can be applied to observed behaviours. Such descriptions tend to be holistic and beggar analysis (pun intended).

The developmental stage of anal discovery, where the infant goes beyond oral, and discovers voluntary control of their bowels is observable too.

I'm no qualified psychologist, however You might enjoy exploring the expression "Collective Unconscious"DDB 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware none of Freud's theories have stood up to verification by scientific methods, but I do not remember the sources. Personally I think they are still attractive to many people as, like semiology, you can use them to do a lot of important-sounding armchair speculation without being required to check the facts. Myself I find social psychology to be much more interesting.

Israel in American Politics

I was just struck by how completely the Bush administration, as well as most of the other recent ones (I'm youngish, so my political memory doesn't extend very long), has been in support of Israel. I will make no judgements on either side of the Israeli-Palestine issue, but it does seem to be much more two-sided than America's absolute support of Israel might lead an outsider to believe. Considering that the support of Palestinians, and through them much of the Islamic Middle East, is really crucial to the security of our future, it seems strange to me that we so unconditionally (within reasonable limits) support the other side. I understand this is partly because we felt we were in the same boat after 9/11, but we supported them before that too. I understand that Jews are probably a bigger voting block in America than Arabs, and that they also generally have more money to give to various political parties. I can see that our general revulsion of "terrorism" makes the Palestinians enemies to start with with some Americans, but then again, the Israelis are guilty of countless acts of terrorism--early on very similar to the stuff Al Quaeda and Hamas does. I just don't see how the group of, in my opinion, fairly minor factors can add up to produce such a powerfully pro-Israeli country. Even most "liberals" are strongly pro-Israel, and, most alarmingly, in my opinion, there seems to have never been much of a public debate in America about who is in the right in that corner of the world. It seems we've sort of transferred our general, oversimplified "they're terrorists; kill them and punish their families--no questions asked" policy to this terribly nuanced situation in Israel and Palestine. I can't see this being just a belief of Bush's, because he has no morals. And I think, in purely political terms, this goes strongly against our national interest. Humanitarian-ly, as well, it seems that Americans have a blind spot for every tank that rolls into Ramalla. There's rarely a discussion of the morality and political right of this, even on generally fair news show like The News Hour. Anybody have any ideas for why else this might be the case? Sashafklein 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The politicans reflect American popular opinion. The last poll I saw showed support for Israel somewhere around 60% and support for the Palestinian Authority around 30 percent. I forget the exact numbers. I guess Americans just simply have an easier time understanding Israel's point of view. Most nations are more sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view. It's just how it is.

The Bush administration supports a two-state solution, like most of the world, the Israelis, and most Palestinians. In fact, the administration seems to follow others on this issue. The Quartet decided to ban Hamas until the 3 conditions were accepted and Canada was the first to follow through.

I see plenty of debate in the mainstream media, especially in newsprint but also on TV. Some are more sympathetic with one side or the other but it's all there.

BTW, for someone lobbying for nuance your "Bush has no morals" spiel really hurts your case. It's difficult to take you seriously. - Pyro19 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Governments in general have no morality. To stay in power requires realpolitik, called realism by some. Morality only comes into play when an affectation of it furthers the purposes sought. The Prince is required reading here. US politicians who maintain a balanced position won't survive very long.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the public opinion thing, but that argument, I think, puts a bit too much of the blame, it there is to be any, on the general populace rather than on the government. Don't you think that that 60 or so % support is largely an effect of the government's prolongued stance? I suppose this could be a chicken-and-egg type scenario. I happen to be not old enough to remember, if it was ever clear, which came first.

And criticism taken, Pyro, although disagreed with. I was neither exactly making a case nor touting my own lack of bias. The issue is nuanced; you're being too generous to expect the same of my opinions. Sashafklein 08:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd need polling data that goes way back. I doubt that would be easy to find out.

Also, just to add to Lambiam's point, America's close relationship to Israel was born out of realpolitik. Up until 1967, both nations had practically no relationship to speak of. Only after Israel quickly defeated the Soviet Union's Arab allies in the six day war was there recognition of Israel's usefulness as an ally. Since then though, it has grown beyond that. The exact tempo in the relationship depends on the President himself, for example, Bush sr. was more skeptical about Israel than his son is. Bush sr. also happened to be more realpolitik than his son as well. - Pyro19 09:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the "recognition of Israel's usefulness" had a lot to do with the outburst of sympathy for Israel among the Jewish-American constituency, who thought that Israel had been attacked without provocation and had narrowly escaped annihilation.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What conflict are you referring to, Lambiam, when you speak of those Jews "who thought that Israel had been attacked without provocation and had narrowly escaped annihilation". When you use the word "thought", I can't help but take it that in your opinion, the "thought" was completely unfounded. As perhaps the best example, take a look at the Yom Kippur War. The possibility of Israel's annihilation in that conflict was no paranoid delusion. The War started off terribly for Israel. Were it not for a couple of lucky twists of fate, (plus of course some sheer genius "seat of the pants" tactical decisions,) Israel would have been annihilated then and there.

As for the influence of "Jewish-American" constituency, 2% of the American population is rather small, wouldn't you say? If any American consituency can be singled out as having the most pro-Israel influence, it would certainly be the far more numerous, staunchly pro-Israel Evangelical Christian "Bible Belt" American constituency, not American Jews. Just as an example, guys like Pat Robertson are so staunchly pro-Israel, that many American Jews actually have a tendency to cringe at some of his "over-the-top" pro-Israel remarks. Yes, the guy's sure one wacky old fool, but I'm certainly not complaining! Go Pat! Loomis 18:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a complex web of issues. Here's a few additional answers... I'm surprised none of the respondents has yet pointed out that Israel is a rare example of a Middle Eastern democracy and thus a natural US ally. It's also strategically very important, as its location is pretty much a gateway between continents (see its depiction in various Mappa Mundi for how medieval people saw it thematically) making it important to the USA to have a measure of influence or even control. Since 9/11, the USA has seen itself as a target for Islamic fundamentalism and this will have further bolstered support. --Dweller 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Palestinians were smart enough to engage in peaceful resistance, in the mode of Ghandi or Martin Luther King, instead of terrorism, I believe they would have garnered US support and would be in a far better position than they are now. However, in the current climate, it's impossible for most Americans to support Palestine when so many Palestinians support terrorist organizations, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. Also note the strategic importance of Israel is a result of their willingness to break all the rules, like when they bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, thus ending Saddam's nuclear program. The US may again need Israel to act against Iran's nuclear program. StuRat 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Political ignorance of the situation doesn't help. Interesting article by Brian Walden on the BBC website - [8] Jooler 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That article is mainly on Iraq. I think most Americans have a fair idea of what's going on in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, since it's gone on for generations now. StuRat 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another article that proves Stu's point so thoroughly and so convincingly, that after reading it, I can't see anyone possibly having any doubt in their mind whatsoever that he's 100% on the money: [9]. Seriously guys, read it, you'll be amazed at the extent it which it opens your eyes to the real, uncontrovertible TRUTH of the matter. :-) Loomis 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think there certainly is a debate on this issue in the U.S. If you read the op-ed pages of any American newspaper (save maybe The Washington Times), you will find both pro- and anti-Israel columns run on occasion. I also disagree with any British perspective that Americans are somehow uninformed or misinformed on the issue. If you compare the way the American media covers the Israeli-Palestinian issue to the way the British media does, you'll find the U.S. media is much fairer. For example, I saw the BBC News the day after Rachel Corrie died. Unlike the American media reports, the BBC report did not say why the Israelis were bulldozing houses. They made it seem like the Israelis were knocking down houses for fun. Similarly, Reuters always refers to Israeli settlements as "considered illegal under international law," even though some people (especially the Israelis) disagree. Reuters also used to refer to the so-called Al-Aqsa Intifada as an "uprising for independence," when it's clear that simple independence is not the goal of the terrorist organizations.

Of course, it is hard to think about this question without showing one's bias. I'm a supporter of Israel, so I think that the more-accurate media portrayal of Israel in the American media leads to more support for Israel in the U.S. than in other countries. Americans realize that although Israel is far from perfect, Arab terrorists attack Israel no matter what it does, and they will continue to do so until either the last Jew is driven from the Middle East or until the terrorists realize there is nothing to be gained from terrorism. Unfortunately, the more people terrorists kill, the more sympathy they get from some types of people -- especially outside of the U.S. -- Mwalcoff 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre statement - "Reuters always refers to Israeli settlements as "considered illegal under international law," well it's true isn't it? - The establishment of settlements were publically opposed by Johnson, Nixon, Ford and publically declared illegal by Carter. But Reagan changed the script. However even Bush called them "an obstacle to peace". Of course Israel doesn't agree. As for Rachel Corrie, she just happens to be the American who got bulldozed, the demolition of houses or destruction of other private property of individuals residing in occupied territories is explicitly forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 53), as is collective punishment (Article 33). Is this explained aswell? See also James Millerand Tom Hurndall. Jooler 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You may think the settlements are "illegal under international law," and so may Jimmy Carter. But not everyone does -- as our article on Israeli settlements makes clear. A responsible news service would not take sides in that manner. Similarly, you may disagree with the Israeli policies of bulldozing houses, but a responsible news organization would explain to its viewers why it's being done and let the viewers make up their own minds, rather than only tell one side of the story. -- Mwalcoff 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not what I think or what you think but what Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, says i.e. - "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" - As for the BBC nand Rachel Corrie - this report on here death seems to cover your concerns http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2856433.stm Jooler 16:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That article seems to say that Israel can't legally force anyone to move from Israel to Palestine, not that they must prevent everyone from doing so. In fact, I believe that preventing people from moving where they wish would itself be seen as a violation of human rights. I do agree, however, that the settlements are a very bad idea, since they are extremely difficult to defend against attacks. StuRat 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The legal status of the settlements is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be, as is clear from our articles on the subject. If you were to write "The settlements are illegal under international law" in a Wikipedia article, you would be called out for violating WP:NPOV. Apparently the standard of neutrality is higher at Wikipedia than it is at Reuters. -- Mwalcoff 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. As a Jew, and a Canadian but NOT an Israeli citizen, apparently I wouldn't be violating any "Geneva Convention", and would have just as easy a time applying for citizenship in a newly formed Palestinian State as a my good Tunisian-Canadian friend. Yeah right... Loomis 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea how this hypothetical situation relates to anything previously said here. Jooler 18:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok so I'll explain it, Jooler. As Jew, but not an Israeli citizen, I'm not a citizen of any occupying power in the West Bank. The above mentioned Geneva Convention wouldn't seem to apply to me. Yet if both myself and an Arab friend of mine were to ask for the PA's permission to live there, he would surely be far more welcome than I, despite the myth that "the Palestinians haven't got anything against Jews, only Israelis." Any clearer? Loomis 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh but they are illegal Mwalcoff! Haven't you heard? Apparently, Palestine is meant to be Jüdenrein ! How dare a Jew settle and make a home in "Palestinian" territory! (This discussion is just too silly, but gotta love a guy with a Jewish sounding name putting down Israel as a terrorist state akin to Hamas and Al Quaeda! Doesn't get any better than that, does it?) :-) Loomis 15:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the respondants have answered this question well, I still feel compelled to give my thoughts.

I'm a little uncomfortable with assumptions underlying the question. In fact, I feel that the Bush administration is being fair and balanced, not favouring Israel, nor Palestine. I believe there to be an anti Israeli bias among liberals.

I don't think an administration can support terrorists. The sad truth is that the conservative, centrist poly's of Palestine have been eliminated by their compatriots over the years. Both Fatah and Hamas are led by known terrorists. Israel is victim of propaganda and perception. The PLO have circulated on the internet erronius claims regarding massacres and rights which confound school students trying to learn about the issue. I have read one PLO sponsored report that suggests Jews don't exist anymore and Israeli Jews are not related to those of Judae at the time of Christ.

The fact is, Israeli peoples want to live in peace with Palestine. The UN has failed in its responsibility to give Palestine a state that is secure for its peoples and their neighbors. However, neither Fatah, nor Hamas are willing to guarentee Israeli security, and no Israeli government is going to surrender its security. DDB 10:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put, DDB. However, though I'll say it again that I'm clearly no fan of the UN, in all fairness, I don't think they should shoulder the blame for this one. (To be sure, in this respect, I'm confining by entire judgement to the actions it took in 1947, and NOT to its subsequent decay.) The UN proposed a two state solution way back in 1947. The Israelis accepted it, and the Palestinians rejected it. The UN may be a fundamentally flawed institution, yet in the spirit of intelectual honesty, I can't blame for for at least making a pretty decent effort back in '47 on the matter. Loomis 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

America's support for Israel stems as a result of the Cold War. Israel was a newly formed country, and the United States needed a strong ally in the Middle East in order to combat the Soviet Union's attempts to Communize the Middle East. Israel made perfect sense, since the Communists often demonized Jews in their propaganda. And of course, the Israeli lobby in the United States is not blameless either. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In the early days of the Israeli state, the USSR heavily courted Israel, believing that the Kibbutz movement and (at that time) strong socialist values of the Chalutzim made the country ripe for being a client state. They failed but had greater success with Arab clients. --Dweller 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Supporting Israel might have made strategic sense for the United States during the Cold War (though I doubt this), but I agree with the original poster that it does not make strategic sense for the United States to support a tiny state of 6 million people that is despised by hundreds of millions in the vast region surrounding Israel, which includes most of the world's oil reserves. Putting aside the moral issues for a moment to focus on the strategic ones, US support for Israel puts the United States at risk of numerous costly military interventions like that in Iraq in order to secure access to oil in a hostile region that would not be hostile were it not for US support of Israel. (Is the Middle East hostile to China, for example?) US support for Israel and general insensitivity to non-Israeli Middle Easterners also allows Middle Eastern opponents of Israel (Iran's theocracy, for example) to muster popular support by adopting a hostile attitude toward the United States. Arguably, US support for nuclear-armed Israel drove Iran to develop nuclear technology.

As for popular support for Israel in the United States, apart from some (not all) Jews and a conservative Christian minority who are attached to Israel for sentimental or religious reasons, public support for Israel is shallow and can be explained by a US news media that is almost without exception presents events as Israel's right wing would like them presented. Every killing of an Israeli civilian is of course wrong and tragic, but so is every killing of a Palestinian Arab civilian. Yet the US media lavishes attention on every killing of an Israeli civilian and ignores the deaths of many Palestinian civilians, even though those deaths outnumber Israeli civilian deaths by about 7 to 1. It also ignores the privileges that Jewish settlers enjoy in the West Bank and Gaza strip and the grating hardships and economic ruin caused by the Israeli occupation, the "defensive" wall cutting Palestinian towns off from their hinterlands, the checkpoints that cause people to die in ambulances because they are delayed in reaching hospitals, the confiscation of dwellings and land, etc., etc. Most Americans are completely unaware of the injustices suffered by Palestinians and inundated with images of Israeli suffering, so of course they are sympathetic to Israel.

Marco polo 16:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Americans who pay any attention to the news are at all unaware of Palestinian suffering. One of the top "World News" stories on Yahoo-AP right now is "4 Palestinians killed in Israeli raid." Do you think the AP would pay any attention to the death of four people in Sri Lanka or Tajikistan? Issues like checkpoints, the wall/fence/security barrier/whatever, the desperate poverty in Gaza, are all discussed in the American media. But most Americans believe those depravations are the result of Palestinian terrorism, not the Israeli occupation. If you go back to before the first intifada, there was relatively little restriction on movement within the West Bank and between the West Bank and Israel. Even after the first intifada, there was no security wall and no (as far as I remember) Israeli-only roads in the West Bank. Those security precautions were taken after the rise of Hamas and the beginning of the so-called Oslo War. Israel would much rather have not had to put up barriers in the West Bank, if for no other reasons than because they cost a lot of money, limit Israeli access to cheap Palestinian labor and inhibit Israelis from visiting places like Jericho, which used to attract Israeli tourists.

To go back to the main point of this discussion, I agree that U.S. support for Israel is not based on strategy. It's based on most Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, considering Israel to be mostly right and the Arabs to be mostly wrong. There is, fortunately, no major constituency for an anti-Israeli position, outside of some pockets of cities like Detroit. -- Mwalcoff 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The main reason they don't have a problem with China is that China hasn't had much interaction with Muslims until recently (one exception is conflicts with the Uyghurs, which are mostly suppressed by the Chinese gov). Many Muslims despise Russia, as a result of Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc., so it's unfair to say that the US withdrawing support for Israel would cause Muslims to love the US. The main reason al Queda and Iran chose the US as the "great Satan" is that it's the sole surviving superpower. I suppose, if the US became isolationist, then the Muslim terrorists would no longer focus on the US, but would instead focus on Chechnya, Somalia, etc., at least in the short term. StuRat 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I ought to announce that I have decided to drop all attempts at "balance." However, a few statements need to be addressed. Loomis's statement that as a Jew he'd have a difficult time going to live in Palestine is thoughtless. That's not to say it's untrue, but rather tremendously one-sided. What about the publicly acknowledged policy Israel has of discriminating towards Jews in its immigration policy? All Jews around the world are given free transportation for a single trip into Israel, a clear example of the favoritism you just attacked Palestine for. Moreover, what reason at all do most Jewish people have to live in Palestine? Many Arabs in the region, however, have much reason to live and work in Israel, where job quality and quantity, education, healthcare, security etc., is better.

And, DDB, how is there a liberal bias against Israel? Perhaps you are talking about the minute percentage of "liberals" (socialists) who live in NYC, but for the most part, liberals are fairly equally pro-Israel. Jews are by a large majority Democrats, and if you haven't noticed from this chat, they are also by-and-large pro-Israel. Moreover, to call it a "bias" among liberals is to reveal a major blind spot of yours. Why don't you feel that pro-Israel newscasters, or republicans, have a "bias towards Israel?" Because you yourself agree with them. If you felt otherwise, this "bias" against Israel amoung liberals would not be a bias at all in your mind, but rather just the right notion.

And does nobody else notice how, while a terrorist bombing which kills perhaps 30 people would get mainstream coverage for a week and perhaps even a name of its own (ie "The Cafe Massacre"), the invasion of Ramalla, which killed inumerably (literally, because they're not counted) more people and crippled an entire city for weeks, hardly got more than one or two serious days of coverage and then little references on how it was "ongoing" for a couple days to follow. The fact is, Israel kills many, many more people--with its strategic missle strikes and tank attacks--then the "terrorists" do, and most of those Israel is killing are citizens as well. And sure. From time to time Israel is reported on, but most people would never dream of calling the Israeli army a terrorist army, even though that's exactly what they're doing--terrorizing a population that they have no certainty is supporting the small numbers of attackers. And it's just peurile of Israel to believe that anything in this situation would be sudden. Palestinian terrorists aren't going to stop attacking the second Israelis let their guns down, because the terrorists hate the Israelis. If Israel would just sit tight and wait out for a substantial time without retaliating and pissing more people off, then they'd eventually have a chance of engendering friendship and peace. The ball is really in Israel's court, and I find it ridiculous that, apart from basic coverage, few in the media ever condemn Israel's actions. And a "neutral" stance towards the subject is simply a green light for Israel to continue invading its neighbor without any universal condemnation. I think you're all kidding yourselves in disagreeing with what Marco Polo said about a pro-Israel media slant. 70.108.219.115

I'd like to know what media you get your news from if you think no one in the media ever condemns Israel. Almost every U.S. newspaper I see occasionally has columns against Israeli policies and quotes both Israeli and Palestinian sources. Palestinian representatives like Saeb Erekat and Hanan Ashrawi appear on U.S. TV all the time. It's not that Americans aren't getting both sides. It's that they choose to believe that blowing up a family dinner on purpose is worse than unintentionally killing civilians in an attempt to prevent the first kind of attacks. And if you were to look at the media coverage I've been mentioning, you'd find that the most terrorist attacks came when Israel was easing up on the Palestinians, and that the level of attacks only diminished with the imposition of tough policies such as the construction of the wall/fence/security barrier/whatever. -- Mwalcoff 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Organizations like Hamas aren't dedicated to a two state solution, but are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. As such, they will engage in terrorism whenever the opportunity arises. They may very well blame each attack on the latest "provocation" they can find, but I would guess the absence of such events would only change the timing of the terrorist attacks. And, at this point, any concessions made to the Palestinians simply look like a reward for terrorism, and are likely to encourage even more. StuRat 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Descendents of British prostitutes

I’ve heard a story about a British preacher who gathered up a whole bunch of London prostitutes to start a new life in America and for awhile had established a settlement near Jacksonville or St. Augustine, Florida. But then some of the women grew tired of the settlement and departed for the Tampa, Florida area where they settled again in their old ways and where now their descendents are the main players in the illicit sex trade. Is this true and are their any records or history to back this up? 71.100.6.152 09:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to believe. This implies that prostitution is based on genetics, rather than economical plight. (Of course, poverty often is passed on to new generations, as well...) 惑乱 分からん 12:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This would only prove it was genetics if the daughters weren't raised by their mothers. If they were, it might be a simple case of emulating the behavior of their mothers, which is widely known to occur. StuRat 12:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Although there may or may not be a genetic predisposition it is common to find prostitute mothers teaching and accompanying there teenage and younger daughters on the job. Some "Johns" admit frequenting the area for no other reason than its high number of mother/daughter "teems." 71.100.10.48 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Especially if they are teeming with "teams". StuRat 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If prostititute mothers are teaching there, where are "their" real mothers? Loomis 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientific testing of Codex Vaticanus

Why isn't there good scientific testing of the Codex Vaticanus for determining its authenticity of dating? Or for that matter any other Codex, like Codex Sinaiticus, that is used as a basis that the New Testament text is some 2000 years old. What if scientific testing (i.e. radio carbon dating, Mass spectrometry), being mathematical and unbiased, proved these to be false and just another in the long line of Archaeological forgery? There are today less intrusive testing methods, like Mass spectrometry, that could prove this without destroying much material in the process. Since there is so much money (and other things) involved, then isn't there a very good chance of Archaeological forgery to gain the upper hand? Otherwise the "dating" of Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus is just some people's opinion; especially those that will greatly benefit personally (i.e. financially, power, prestige, social status, etc). What if this testing proved the Codex Vaticanus to be of a time period around the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Century? I think this is quite possible, especially since it was not discovered until a library was established at the Vatican. According to the Wikipedia article, then it was then put into their first catalogs of 1475 and 1481. So where did it come from? The article even says it is pure speculation of its dating: Its place of origin and the history of the manuscript is uncertain. It doesn't seem logical to me to be floating around in various people's hands for over a 1000 years, then conveniently shows up in the Vatican Library (just when they could use something of 'authority' to gain some power). They had no idea of its "Dating" and were just guessing at it. Of course, the older it "appears" then the more value ("power") it has.--Doug 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Although the Vatican did not have a catalogued library before the 15th century, it did possess a collection of manuscripts. As you can read in the article on the Vatican Library, Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions, among them manuscripts from the imperial library of Constantinople. In the 15th century prospective forgerers simply did not have the knowledge to produce a forged 4th century manuscript that would stand up for a second against present expertise in philology, ancient handwriting, and so on. And what would have been the point? The various extant Greek codices are in good agreement with the Septuagint and each other, so do you think they are all later forgeries?  --Lambiam^Talk 12:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is "just guessing," and the standard view of the date comes from the community of scholars, not from an interested party like the Vatican Library itself. Such scholars are careful to state that their conclusions are "uncertain," but these uncertainties are not as great as you assume, as much is known within a relatively narrow range (better than could be achieved by any presently available "scientific testing") and beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't think uninformed speculations or the WP Ref. Desk can substitute for a Ph.D. in paleography or papyrology, which would acquaint one with the basic knowledge and skills needed to make any credible criticism of well-accepted scholarly conclusions. Those with knowledge of these fields are not retailing "just some people's opinion" and are scholars who have not done anything to deserve your slur ("especially those that will greatly benefit personally"). Likewise, nothing about the state of papyrological studies or the evidence of the oldest witnesses to the text of the New Testament lends support to these conspiracy theories. Wareh 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an online popular introduction to get you started (with some further bibliography): Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts. Wareh 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming it came from the imperial library of Constantinople. I tend to think it came from Avignon when that library was moved to Rome around 1400 +/- 20 years. What if instead it was written up in the Fourteenth Century in Greek as a method to hide from the powers to be in Avignon (not designed intentionally a fake manuscript, as you are saying in the second part of your argument). Totally agree with you that Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions. His predecessors being the Popes in Avignon. I tend to think that it is an Archaeological forgery from the viewpoint that perhaps the Vatican would rather authenticate it themselves to be able to keep its value up; therefore "power" over the people. It has nothing to do with 15th century prospective forgerers of any forger person, but more of a political move on the part of the Vatican. So to settle the argument: Why isn't there good scientific testing of the Codex Vaticanus for determining its authenticity of dating? Otherwise we are still back to the fact "the dating" has been established by the powers that be since they (Vatican) are establishing where it came from. Scientific testing is mathematical and unbaised, where perhaps the Vatican could be biased (don't you think). --Doug 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit too much "what if". What if the popes are actually robots operated by the Illuminati, assisted by scientific knowledge provided by Greys, while Wikipedia was set up by them as a tool to deceive those who are about to find out the truth? If it was a forgery, that would have been discovered by now. As I wrote, prospective forgerers simply did not have the knowledge to produce a forged 4th century manuscript that would stand up for a second against present expertise. Also, several early codices, for example the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and the Codex Bezae, do not come from the Vatican collection. Others, like the Codex Amiatinus, ended up in the Vatican only centuries later. By the way, it may interest you that there is a 4th century translation of the Bible into the Gothic language; see Codex Argenteus.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good points, especially of the additional Codexes. However these are based on the field of paleography. Perhaps I just view the Vatican as having a motive for establishing the date as being from the first few centuries. If anything this would possibly be a remark against the Vatican. However I am sure they have had such remarks like this before (probably even worse). Let me say I really do appreciate the information and the websites you noted. It so happens that I am in communication with the Vatican Library, the British Library, the British Museum, and Chester Beatty Library. So I didn't just make these comments off the spur of the moment without thinking first. I didn' just come up with "what if's", but have been working on this problem for some 2 years now. Let me point out in this website that towards the bottom it says in reference to Codex Sinaiticus: In 1933 it was sold to the British Museum in London for a mere 100,000 pounds. That was a very large sum of money in the Great Depression. Now as far as I can see in the field of paleography one still has to establish some reference points to establish this "dating" of these manuscripts. In all my communications with these many large Libraries and Museums, so far nobody has been able to show me how they reference these manuscripts to some well known standard. Then how was this standard verified as to its date? Perhaps you have much better knowledge on this? Bottomline what is needed is a standard to reference the dating. Show me this standard that I have not been able to find. I really do appreciate your answers. I think this is a great argument, don't you think? --Doug 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you've glanced at the article I linked, but please read it with more care. You may disagree with the balanced presentation of established facts there, but the rest of us, faced with believing either that Peter van Minnen is misinformed or corrupt, or that your views are totally uninformed conspiracy theory, have a very easy choice indeed. Also, you are totally mistaken about the Vatican's involvement, for the simple reason that virtually all of the important work in this field has been done by scholars from outside the Vatican.

If you are sincere (which I find difficult to believe) in your desire to learn more about the standards by which scholars know about these things, you will need access to a good research library and can begin with the bibliographies here and here. Obviously, you will eventually need to learn Greek.

This is not a great argument, and I am exasperated by your deaf pursuit of fantasy & refusal to see that you are trying to build on no foundation at all. I will try to restrain myself from continuing my fruitless efforts to obtrude upon you a respect for people who have bothered to learn about ancient languages and documents. The only further question from you I can imagine relishing the chance to answer is "I am in location X, and have some time and money/no money on my hands. What is the best way to acquire a basic reading knowledge of ancient Greek (or some other branch of historical or linguistic science)?" Wareh 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But don't give up now; we are getting to the Nity-Gritty. Hear me through and I would like to get an answer from you or anyone that would like to answer this very important question.
1) I am very sincere on this question. It turns out I have already asked this very same thing to the top scholars (over 1000) in these fields and related fields. Their ultimate answer is basicaly the same as your answer (very similar wording). They give up and send me off in different directions (pretty much as you have). If you would like I would be glad to forward a few dozen such e-mails of my communication to you on this (kept them all). FYI I have asked this to 1000's of clergy of the Christian faith as well. They also did not have a good answer.
2) Instead of sending me off in different directions (need to learn Greek) why not furnish this standard you obviously already know about as the reference for establishing the dating of these various Codexes. That would be easier in the long run. So far out of all these scholars and large Libraries and large Museums (i.e. British Museum) nobody has done this yet. You apparently can not also (if you can, just go ahead and put it righ here). I am betting 2 years hard research you can not (zero, nada, zipo) show this standard that is used for dating the supposed ancient Codexes (i.e. Codex Vaticanus). Please prove me wrong. I welcome anybody to answer this point. You will be 1 in a 1000. A very high honor. Go ahead, show me. Otherwise it is a mere opinion of a person (well paid I must say). I have been sent to hundreds of such scholars that have "supposedly" established this dating, so he is not the first (and I suspect not the last). Even the scholar you are pointing out has to have the ultimate standard for establishing these dates. You must agree and can not argue this point whatsoever.
3)Since all these scholars have (as you say) established that of the dating to some standard then there should be hundreds of scholars that have this standard. Could I get the names of just a few of them. Don't say I will have to find on my own. I've already done this research, you have not. So if you know of such, now is the time.... --Doug 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Talk about time, follow this argument. Gather together a dozen or so people that have wrist watches. Ask them what time it is. You will come up with a dozen answers. Now ask them who's is the correct time? Of course there will be a few that will say there's is the absolute correct time. Between them, their times each will be different. Ask them why they feel theirs is the correct time and it will only be a personal opinion (i.e. mine is an expensive Timex watch, all expensive Timex watches are accurate). Now would you say just because it is a Timex watch it is correct? Of course not, because it is just a person's opinion. So bottomline, who's watch has the correct time? Answer: the one that is synced to WWV, a scientific standard. The only other time that would be more accurate (could only be read with a digital clock with many digits) would be the Atomic Clock, another scientific standard. --Doug

Doug, remarks like "you must agree with this and can not argue what so ever" is perhaps not a good way to get information from people. Lambiam especially has provided some very specialized responses to many of your questions. A little politeness/calmness wouldn't hurt. It's also not necessary to wikilink words like 'library', 'standard' 'reference' and '14th century'. Excessive blue links are unnecessary, especially on the Ref Desk. BenC7 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on that. Thanks for the advice. --Doug 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep totally agreeing with people, and then ignoring everything they say? --ColinFine 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Partially agree with you. I take the answers they provide and use that information, which is a good chunk. Not at all ignoring what they say. If you follow my remarks, usually I remark on what they have said in that I appreciate their answer and am working with the material; however many of the Nitty Gritty questions I haven't received answers on yet. Some of the really good ones are just dodged. I am trying to get good answers on them. Example: still looking for the "standards" for the reference points as to how it is established in palaeography the dating of ancient Codexes. Nobody knows the answer to this. I have research this for 2 years and asked over 1000 scholars; nobody knows. Then how does one know the dates (even approximately) of the Codex Vaticanus. Many believe it is from the first few centuries, however there is no reference for this. Looking for this standard. It you will notice I asked this very specific question early today, however of as now (being 1800 hours EST) this is the only question not answered. So while I am not at all ignoring what they have to say, in fact really appreciate it and work with it, I am still looking for the real Nitty Gritty answers. I do not believe the Codex Vaticanus is from the first few centuries, however from the Fourteenth Century. I have shown my proof with the chain of custody, still looking for their answer. --Doug 23:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The standard is very simple. Some manuscripts are dated by their scribes. Their context & content show that there is nothing controversial or controvertible about their dating, and, when you dig up a papyrus scrap of boring business receipts that happens to be dated by a ruler's year (have a look in Colin H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands, 350 B.C.-400 A.D., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), well, guess what, it was not planted in the ancient rubbish heap buried under the Egyptian desert by the Vatican! Only such dated manuscripts are used in the standard textbooks of paleography, like Ruth Barbour, Greek Literary Hands, A.D. 400-1600, (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 1981). With many years of study, in careful reliance upon the most securely dated evidence available, you develop an expert understanding of the development of Greek writing, and its characteristics in a given time and place. From this, you arrive at a date for an undated manuscript. If you are good enough at this, you can get it down pretty specifically. The people who are good at this are not Vatican operatives, they are boring scholars with no crazed agenda. If you want to understand it better, take a course in paleography. Otherwise, you're like someone who has an English vocabulary of 400 words but claims to detect stylistic aberrations in some of Shakespeare's comedies that prove they're by Queen Elizabeth. Or, to use a more precise analogy, like someone who can't do long division, but just starts by assuming that the textbooks in the library on differential geometry and abstract algebra may be full of malicious or hoodwinked lies! It should be obvious why such a person would never arrive at a well-informed understanding of the subject. The definition of a scholar (say, a Ph.D.) is someone who can create new knowledge (say, date a MS) on a firm methodological foundation that goes all the way back to first principles. A good grasp of first principles will also allow the community of scholars to weed out any BS, conspiracies, etc. You are not a scholar (which is 100% of the reason why you do not have access to "the standard," and not because anyone is stonewalling you), but the perplexing thing is that you don't seem to believe that scholars exist and do this kind of work.

I have now given you the standard. Please read the two books on Greek Literary Hands mentioned above. They contain some of the standard you seek, and are even in English! Please do not tell me you are still in the dark about the standard. You may not understand the standard presented in these manuals (that is why people study with teachers in Ph.D. programs—it's not child's play), but since pursuing systematic learning is "sending you off in different directions," I will instead just cherish the thought of you poring over Roberts and Barbour at the library. The bibliographies I linked before have ample further discussion about methods and will give you some idea about the issues involved. Some of these books have fun titles like The Papyrologist at Work and The New Papyrological Primer. Wareh 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do great "Ideas" come from?

Why is it that some people are very inspired (i.e. Da Vince, Einstein, Edison), while most of the world seems mostly uninspired? A formal education does not seem a basis to get these "inspirations". Many very famous successful people did not have a formal education. Likewise many with Degrees now-a-days have trouble with what I call the "basics" (i.e. using common sense to solve simple problems). Having a 4 year College Degree today doesn't mean all that much. Those with a High School education and those with a College Degree both basically start many jobs at "entry level". The one that can use common sense to come up with great "ideas" then seems to get ahead faster (which could just as easily be the High School "Grad"). So is there some sort of "Universal Source" out there someplace that has a stock pile of Ideas. How does one "connect" to this "Universal Source" of Ideas?
It's certainly not via cyberspace (however maybe it helps). Would I need some sort of super Cable Modem or can I just "dial up" Ideas? --Doug 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Creativity involves being able to combine different areas of expertise into a solution. The typical start of an invention is noticing something that doesn't work well. Next you need to come up with a solution, which may involve various technical fields of expertise, but not always. One of the simplest recent inventions was a paint filter, used to separate out clumps from paint powder. The old system used a horizontal filter, which would clogs with clumps of paint powder in short order. The invention was to put the filter at an angle so the clumps would roll off and the rest would continue to go through the filter. This didn't require much technical expertise. The final step is to figure out how to market an idea. In some cases it's best to patent it then sell it to a company, in others you may try to produce and sell the product yourself. Here is an observation I've made, which you're welcome to use to improve the product:

• The window shade mechanism doesn't work very well. They often go flying up when you try to pull them down. A version with a switch that only allows it to come down in one position and only go up in the other position might sell well. See if you can design a mechanism to do that. StuRat 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of common sense and informal education being better than all the university degrees in the world is one with great tradition. In reality common-sense has failing just like formalised education, not least because definining what is common-sense is particularly difficult. What makes someone an inventor or entrepreneur? Based on the rapid advancements made in the past 150 years...access to technology, education (though what level i'm not entirely sure), access to financial backing, a culture that promotes innovation would be a few. For all the great ideas in the world without access to the requirements to make it happen (or access to people who can) your creation is worthless. I would be weary of expecting too much of common-sense and too little of formal education. The innovators of history worked remarkably harder on inventions than many think: The light-bulb, the tv, the steam engine, the electronic chip. These things weren't developed at random they came about through use of formal (and i'm sure informal) knowledge. The Eureka moment, as they say, is really quite rare. ny156uk 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An excellently put point — much of the idea of "genius" is mythmaking, often perpetuated by the people who are themselves called the geniuses (Edison, it can be said, was a genius at self-promotion). The common stereotype of Edison as a lone worker who would hit upon brilliant ideas through sheer thought and elbow-grease alone is nonsense; he established a major research laboratory staffed with excellent scientists, devoted a huge amount of his time to maintaining a library of technical inventions which he might improve upon or combine in unique ways, and spent a lot of his time building upon ideas of others that seemed promising but not quite implemented yet. His genius with the light bulb was not the bulb itself but the creation of an electrification infrastructure — a social-governmental-economic innovation more than a technical one. One of the very difficult things in studying "creativity" and "genius" is that we wrap these terms up in a lot of mythmaking and moralizing; it is very hard to get at the base of it in practical terms, and why so many studies of it are shallow.

Einstein, by the way, fits into the above as well. He did not work in a totally isolated world, he was working on problems which were important in physics in his day, he drew heavily on the work of others. Many of the key theoretical "thought problems" he is so famous for (such as how to coordinate clocks using electrical signals) were actually important technical issues at the time he worked in the Swiss patent office (clock coordination was a major early 20th century technical difficulty). This is not to disparage Einstein's intelligence, for he was truly intelligent, but helps to re-frame the question a bit away from "how do these ideas come out of nowhere?", which is in almost all cases the product of a myth. The relation between an innovator, their context, and their work is a very complicated one. --140.247.242.85 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would call Einstein a genius, in that he was able to think about the world in completely novel ways (but only when young, in his later years he couldn't accept new concepts like quantum mechanics). Edison, on the other hand, was not a genius (he couldn't even grasp A/C electricity), but rather a "plugger". Everyone knew you could make a filament glow for a while by passing electricity through it, but he improved the design through trial and error until eventually it became a usable light bulb. StuRat 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Einstein's ways of thinking about the world were not "completely novel." If you get outside of the hagiography you will have a better idea of appreciating in what ways he was novel and in what ways he was not. Edison also utilized much more theoretical understanding and research than the mythical version of him holds. I hate to say it StuRat but I think you're caught within the myths here! In any case whether one calls someone a "genius" or not again depends on your definition of "genius" — it is a term which needs to be unpacked before it is useful. --24.147.86.187 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If we take the example of his choice of a light bulb filament, a theoretical physicist might have looked at the periodic table and decided that tungsten was likely to be the best choice, while Edison just tried every material he could think of until he found one that worked well. StuRat 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You should definately read Creativity In Science by D K Simonton - it answers all your questions and mentions the individuals above. One point for example is that it has been found that the chance of any scientific paper being a 'hit' is equal for any scientist, but the people regarded as geniuses were actually extremely prolific and hence had more 'hits' than other people.

That sounds extremely dubious to me. Robert K. Merton's work on the Matthew effect would seem to go against that sort of explanation. --24.147.86.187 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eistien worked at a patent office, thats where he got his ideas from. --Delma1 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Chickenflicker---♣ 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Many years ago, I was privaleged to study the 'history and philosophy of science' at university. It's a worthy question, regarding inspiration. However, a few observations: We live in the information age. Many people are trained academically than ever before. You might think that with more people better equipped to make discoveries that more people would. They do.

In the US, in 1970, some 1000 (different, distinct) books were published each day. 1970's space technology has been superceded. In 1980, my wife wore the net in her hair.

Worth noting, someone who is inspired may be wrong, too. Also worth noting that many discoveries are made simultaneously and independantly, suggesting a role modern technique has with inspiration, and tradition has in obfuscating and confounding discovery. DDB 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

GOWDA

pls tell me , if i 'll search our gowda community in north india , which caste this 'll be and what title (surname ) should be ??pls reply for both the question i.e. caste and surnames.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.195.14 (talk • contribs)

We have an article Gowda, but it is all about this name in Karnataka. Are you asking about people from Gowda communities who migrated from Karnataka to Northern India?  --Lambiam^Talk 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Streetcar Suburbs

It appears that in discussion of early 20th century U.S. suburbs developed primairly around streetcar lines they are most frequently called streetcar suburbs vs. the less frequently used term trolley suburb. Are there specific differences in these two terms or are they completely interchangeable?Shc100 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect they are interchangeable, and that usage may be based on geography. In the midwestern part of the United States, where I live, I think "streetcar" was more common, particularly in Saint Louis. I believe "trolley" was in greater usage on the west coast, but I am not certain. Carom 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

do inanimate objects 'know' they are being watched?

The scientists suggested I should ask this question over here instead, so: I am not mad, really. If I take two identical cups of boiling water, and sit and look at one of them for a few minutes it gets colder faster. I also tried this with identical plants, watching one and not the other, and the one I watched grew much fastr. Why would this happen?172.159.156.28 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is Confirmation bias. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell me exactly how that would work and I will try to disprove it.172.159.156.28 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Use the scientific method. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So if I could show you complete documentation of data and methodology, and repeat the experiments, you might believe me.172.159.156.28 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to be rather systematic and have a large sample size to have any great persuasive value here. You would also have to make sure that the experiment was planned correctly in the beginning — you would have to make sure you chose which plant you decided to watch at random, rather than perhaps allowing your subconscious mind to pick the most healthy looking one, for example. In any case it sounds ridiculous at this point, either an indication of bad methodology, bad measurement, or a bad grasp on reality. A better experiment with the water, for example, might involve more than two cups: pick six cups of boiling water, made of the same material and the same size. Number them, roll a die and use that to determine which one you "watch". Then systematically see if there are any statistically signficant changes in the cooling rate of that cup against the others. Then repeat the entire experiment six times to cancel out the possibility of it just being random luck. If, after all that, you still find signficant results, it would be still time to make sure that the methodology was air-tight. Only if there was no other explanation should one leap towards very strange ideas, such as the act of your eyes receiving photons from a cup somehow affects the rate at which the cup cools. It is fairly unlikely, to say the least, within any current physical or physiological theories, and is more likely a methodological error. --24.147.86.187 01:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only do inanimate objects not know they are being watched, they don't know they are inanimate or objects. I asked a cup of boiling water 20 questions, and it only got one right. That involved the right to remain silent. DDB 09:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually if one looks at the belief of animism, all things have a soul, wants needs feelings and emotions. I find that i get more emotional response from coins or metal objects than other substances. Also, it has been proven through scientific study that if one is to place two peti dishes of fungi next to each other and pray for one, the one prayed for will grow faster. As to WHY this is so is a matter of spectulation. Thanks.

post modern sublime

I want to know about post-modern sublime ( Kant), what is it , who wrote about it, and where i can find examples of it in literature and the media?

thank you

81.155.134.69 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you are asking for.. perhaps you could expand..

However Kant talks about the 'sublime' in Critique of Judgement.

As I understand it postmodernism is a modern idea.. I don't expect kant to touch on this but I don't know.

You could look at the linked articles to see if they're any help as well as checking your understanding of the term Sublime (philosophy) eg a sublime thing.

Apologies if I've just shown my ignorance.87.102.6.220 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, I'm fiding it a little difficult to determine just exactly what you are looking for, 81.155, especially with regard to your reference to the 'post-modern', which seems to be a very hazy concept here. However, since you mention Kant in relation to notions of the sublime I was immediately reminded of my reading of the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, who takes Kant as his point of departure. In the Critique of Judgement, Kant says that taste is not a cognitive but an aesthetic judgement, and therefore is subjective in nature. But for Schopenhauer aesthetic awareness does constitute a form of knowledge, giving insight into a reality beyond mere scientific inquiry. For him aesthetic consiousness possesses a special value, the highest expression of which is the notion of the sublime. Here is one of my favourite passages from volume two of The World as Will and Representation which touches on this very subject, and finds Schopenhauer at his most poetic: Why does the sight of the full moon have such a beneficient, soothing, and exalting effect? Because the moon is an object of perception...never of willing...Further, it is sublime, in other words, it induces in us a sublime mood, because without any reference to us, it moves along eternally foreign to earthly life and activity, and sees everything, but takes part in nothing. Therefore at the sight of it the will, with its constant care and sorrow, vanishes from consciousness. Possibly there is also mingled a feeling that we share this sight with millions whose individual differences are extinguished in it, so that in this perception they are one, and this likeness enhances the impression of the sublime. (Dover edition, p374) I'm not sure if this is of any use to you, but it is the best I can offer. I will say, though, as far as the contemporary mass-media is concerned, notions of the sublime have long given way to those of the ridiculous! Clio the Muse 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I should note that 'googling' "post modern sublime" turns up various papers/books that may or may not mention kant - but are any of these of interest?87.102.23.89 04:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Measuring the TEMPERATURES in middle-ages

I understand that the first 'version' of the THERMOMETER came around 1500-1600.

During the middle-ages, about 1000-1400, -and before that for that matter-, what did they use to measure temperatures then ? Did they have any methods of figuring how cold it was on a cold winter-day or how warm on a hot summer-day?? Did they have any way of telling "today it is 'THIS' cold/warm, and yesterday it was 'THAT' cold/warm" ?

You hardly saw an medieval-person say "Today it is -10 minus degrees" or "Three days ago, it was 30 degrees in the shade"

So you guys have any idea ?

Krikkert7 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Krikkert

tHe temperature is what it is, measuring it with a thermometer isn't going to cahnge that.172.159.156.28 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the Fahrenheit scale wasn't introduced until 1724 and Celsius until 1742, there is no reason to think of them saying "degrees" at all. What scales did earlier thermometers use? Rmhermen 19:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Straight Dope calls Ole Romer's 1692 scale among the earliest so degrees of temperature probably weren't in use much before that date.[10] Rmhermen 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine they used various cues from nature, like "cold enough to freeze ocean water", "cold enough to freeze lake water", "warm enough for insects", etc. StuRat 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Quantification, bringing with it the very concept of a "degree", is an essential part of the scientific method, which was developed in the seventeenth century. Students of the earlier history of climate use markers like the dates of grain or grape harvests to assess broad climate averages --Wetman 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The link to "quantification", by the way, does not go to where you think it does... --24.147.86.187 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Wetman meant quantization. --Kjoonlee 13:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Or possibly quantifiability? Chickenflicker---♣ 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The history of thermometry is actually quite interesting, getting aside the obvious periodization problems the questioner had. This book is quite good, for those who are interested. --24.147.86.187 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The modern fetish with temperature is related to the broad application of the 'scientific method.' It is similar in nature to the habit of measuring time. Town clocks came into Europe in the late middle ages, although China had working town clocks some thousand years earlier. There was no standard for time keeping. I understand 12pm was considered to start at dusk in some places, or dawn. Before Bacon's attempt to freeze poultry, the need to measure temperature wasn't substantial. Natural indicators sufficed for smelting and cooking. DDB 09:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vatican intelligence network?

Hi,

Does the the Vatican operate any sort of formal intelligence office or service? Obviously there is a constant stream of informal intelligence coming in from all over the world, but is it collated and distributed through a single office? Is this staffed by clergy?

Thanks!

65.25.116.29 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)MH

They certainly did at one point, when they were a military power. However, since they are now under the protection of the Italian government, any such activities these days would likely do them more public relations harm than any good. I can't definitively say they don't do this, though. StuRat 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there. I think you might find some of the answers you are looking for in David Alvarez's book Spies in the Vatican, which deals with the subject from the time of Napoleon until the Second World War. I do not know of any source that suggests that the Papacy ever operated a military intelligence branch. Clio the Muse 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Church maintained an arm called "The Inquisition." Pope Benedict was the last Cardinal in charge. DDB 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You disappoint me Stu! The Vatican surely doesn't need the protection of the Italian government when they have the massive force that is the Swiss Guard armed to the teeth protecting them! And certainly such a formidable fighting force as the Swiss Guard has its own extremely sophisticated intelligence agency. Please get yourself better informed by thoroughly reading the following two articles: [11]and[12] and perhaps next time you'll think twice before putting your foot in your mouth!

Seriously, I have a great deal of respect for The Vatican, especially under the papacy of the late John Paul II, who was possibly, without exaggeration, the greatest Pope in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. His reforms, his attempts at reconciliation with other Christian and even non-Christian religious earn him the deepest of respect in my heart. I truly mourn this great man.

Nonetheless, I can't help but mention that he never corrected one of the most awful relics of the darkest period of Roman Catholicism: The religious discrimination of its "Catholics Only Policy". I can only dream of a day when this last vestige of religious dicrimination is finally done away with, and when a Muslim or a Jew is finally elected Pope. But I may be just a dreamer. :-) Loomis 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see still vestiges of discrimination here: these are all religious designations. Support Richard Dawkins for Pope!  --Lambiam^Talk 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point Lambiam! Sorry for the oversight! Loomis 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right, the only qualification for high office in the Catholic Church should be a sincere desire to wear silly hats. StuRat 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again, 65.25. If you are still around, and if you are still interested in this matter, I thought it necessary to try and rescue your useful question from drowning in a bog of irrelevance by expanding on the brief answer I gave above. The Papal States first became interested in intelligence gathering, in the sense we understand it today, in the wake of the political and revolutionary upheavals that beset Europe, and the rest of the Catholic world, between 1789 and 1815. After the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Papal police service, based in Rome, set up an extensive network of spies and informants throughout their own territories, as well as elsewhere in Europe, prompted by fear of fresh revolutionary and nationalist movements, and by possible assassination plots against the Pope. The final loss of the Pope's remaining temporal power in 1870 effectively ended this formal security apparatus, and foreign intelligence gathering in general. In his book, Alvarez points out that few governments really understood the changing nature of the Vatican, believing that such a world-wide organization was also an important source for the collation of sensitive political and diplomatic information. In truth, the Popes were often more ignorant of temporal developments than even the least well-informed secular leaders. The church simply lacked the expertise and the desire to participate in any meaningful sense in clandestine operations. This did not stop the Vatican from becoming a centre of intrigue, especially during the Second World War. In addition to the book I have already mentioned you might also have a look at Nothing Sacred: Nazi Espionage against the Vatican, 1939-1945, Professor Alvarez's other important work touching on the subject. I hope this is all of some use; but please let me know if there is any further help I can give you. Clio the Muse 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The 3000 ducats in the Merchant of Venice

I was reading through the Merchant of Venice recently, and came across the "ducat". I am curious about the value of this monetary unit in comparison to today's currency; how much approximately can 3000 ducats be compared to? I appreciate any help in helping me bring this most excellent play into perspective. Thanks in advance Locofbo 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Locofbo, you will find most of the details on the page on the Ducat. It became part of the coinage of Venice in the thirteenth century, and continued in general circulation in Europe until the eve of the First World War. At that time a gold ducat was worth, in contemporary values, about one half of a pound sterling, or about two US dollars. A sum of 3000 ducats, in today's prices, would be enough for Antonio to mount a fresh merchant venture! Clio the Muse 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Using these three sites, I got the following:

1 Ducat = £1

3000 Ducat = £3000

£3000 in 1597 = £338,787.26 in 2005 (converter didn't accept 06 or 07)

£338,787.26 = $660,720.45 (USD)

Remember that these are rough conversions. The £ to $ conversion uses the latest exchange rate. --The Dark Side 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ducat to £ conversion rate is from the 17th century, but I figured that 1597 is close enough that I could use it. --The Dark Side 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• [After edit conflict]: Moelwen Merchant says: "A ducat (literally, a gold piece coined by a duke or doge) is a Venetian gold piece, Ducatus Venetorum. Coryat estimated in 1608 that it was worth 4s. 8d. and Cotgrave in 1632 that 'they hold a rate much about 5 or 6 shillings sterling the piece'. By any calculation of values, therefore, three thousand ducats was a very large (a prodigal) sum. The six to eight hundred pounds sterling to which it amounted must be multiplied by at least twenty-five to reach a comparable sum today (i.e. about £20,000)." Note that he wrote this in 1967, so you have to add another forty years' or so inflation onto his figures to get a modern amount. AndyJones 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

wikipeida & 911

how come wikipedia's articles on iran and iraq don't mention the involvement each had in the 911 attacks against America? --PoliPhiNotic 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there aren't any conclusive links between the two and 9/11? --The Dark Side 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea that they both were involved. You know, they were two countries which hated each others' guts, had totally different religious affiliations, and had been involved in horrible wars against each other, but once, just this once, they'd work together to get something done! --24.147.86.187 01:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Iraq is 60% Shi'ite Muslims and Iran is 90%. It's just that Saddam Hussein was a Sunni and he repressed the Shi'ites. --The Dark Side 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is an excellent resource with tremendous depth, however, it is not free from the politics of the day. It would seriously undermine US Democrat propaganda were allegations regarding Iranian activity and Iraqi activity made public in Wiki. There doesn't need to be collusion for these terrorist states to have been similar goals. DDB 08:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, not exactly. Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia articles. There is nothing to stop people making such allegations public on Wikipedia, but they would probably be removed fairly swiftly - not because there is a conspiracy, but because everything on Wikipedia needs to be neutral and verifiable. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this the modern form of revisionism?? How quickly people forget the facts in favour of allegations made by politicians with ulterior motives. Vespine 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Appian Way

Since the Appian Way is commonly said to be the queen of the long roads and one of the most important of the Roman roads, being built in a straight line, could it have been nicknamed or called by the name of the "Straight Street"? Doug 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the name Via Recta ("Straight Road") was applied to two roads, neither of them the Via Appia (Appian Way). One is in Damascus, and the other, in the Campus Martius, was originally called the Via Tecta ("Covered Road") but is now commonly known as the Via Recta because of a mistranscription.[13] Of course, some Romans no doubt used the words via recta to refer to the Via Appia, but only to describe it, not as a proper name. —Keenan Pepper 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'd love to read a more thorough answer. —Keenan Pepper 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This of describing the Appian Way of the words via recta (as a description) could then be like a nickname refering to that of a Straight Street or Straight Road? --Doug 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's exactly my point: via recta isn't a nickname for the via Appia, just ordinary Latin words that mean "straight street" or "straight road". It would be accurate to describe the via Appia as a via recta, because it was indeed straight, but no more so that most other Roman roads. On the other hand, via Recta was used as a nickname, not for the via Appia, but for this street in Damascus, which is even described in the Vulgate (Acts 9:11) as vicum qui vocatur Rectus ("street which is called Straight", using a different Latin word for street). —Keenan Pepper 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking up Acts 9:11 I see your point of the street which is called Straight. In these multiple translations most do call it that while one says "Straight Street". I see your point of the ordinary Latin words meaning: "straight street". Latin says this, then why didn't the Greek that this supposedly came from say this? It appears that only the Latin says this. Perhaps it was only written in Latin. It also speaks of Tarsus, which I find interesting because the Appian Way (via Appia or via recta of a vey famous Roman road) goes to Taras. Taras looks a lot like Tarsus to me. That then would be a double coincidence in the same scripture verse. Did this section come straight from Naples, where it previously came straight from Rome? --Doug 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

January 4

Palazzo Vecchio

The Palazzo Vecchio, constructed in 1299 to 1314, was the home of the Florentine guilds. I understand it had 5,000 guild members. Did it always have this number (or most of the time)? Dante was a member. Was Giovanni Boccaccio or Francesco Petrarch a member of this Florentine Guild of 5000? --Doug 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dante was a member of the guild of physicians and pharmacists, whereas both Boccaccio and Petrarch were members of the guild of notaries. I have no idea if guild membership was maintained at a constant rate. Clio the Muse 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whose Line Is It Anyway

This section was moved to the Entertainment desk .

F-22 Raptor Law

In article F-22 Raptor it states that export is prohibited to other countries? Does that mean if Canada had money it will not be able to buy it? And which law? --Jones2 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Canada a)does have money, but not nearly enough to but these planes and b)is a sovreign state, i.e. not part of the United States of Amerca, so the ban still applies. --The Dark Side 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The law in question was House Amendment 265, introduced by Rep. David Obey (D-WI), and attached to HR 2266, which was the Defense appropriations bill for the 1998 fiscal year. Carom 04:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think they would really need their own F-22s anyways, being part of NATO, an attack on Canada would be regarded as an attack on all NATO member nations, so they could very well have F-22s fighting on their behalf without the $120 million price tag. Cyraan 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Carom your first link doesn't work? --Jones2 07:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - you can stil get to the page. Open the second link, click on "Amendments" and scroll down to H Amdt 295. It's number eight on the list. Carom 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, those planes aren't cheap. :-O | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

But are the ammendments in the actual text of the legislation? Because if it is not, then it is of no effect? --Jones2 16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If a member of the House offers an amendment to a piece of legislation, the most likely course of action will be a voice vote, in which the members of the House either support or oppose the proposed amendment. If the amendment passes, then it becomes a part of the legislation, and, if the bill passes and becomes law, so does the amendment. Carom 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

President of USA

• Must the President of the United States be born in United States, if so which law states this?--Delma1 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well has there been a president who was born outside USA, to non american parents? --Delma1 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • It's in the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." Antandrus (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I heard that when Arnie became the govonator some group started to lobby to repeal that, don't know if it was just a rumour. Vespine 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The President must be a U.S. citizen when born, and being born in the United States is only one way of this happening. Someone born abroad to American parents would also be considered a "natural born citizen". - Nunh-huh 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is correct. There were also attempts to change the Constitution to allow Henry Kissinger to run for President. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not as clear-cut as that. See natural born citizen. JackofOz 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Now there's an article that's going too far in its attempt to be neutral. "There is currently debate" sounds as though there was some serious doubt; if there had been, it would have been a major issue when the candidates mentioned were running. --Anonymous, January 4, 2007, 07:18 (UTC).
  • Just a guess, George Washington? Whoops, wrong again... 惑乱 分からん 07:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Any presidential candidate whose eligibility was not 100% certain and who stood to win the presidency, would find their status being questioned by the opposing party, and determined by the Supreme Court. Since no person whose status has been in doubt has ever received a majority of electoral college votes, the court has never had to rule on the issue. IANAL, but I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court would ever devote time to determining whether a person who had not yet been elected president was constitutionally eligible. Do that for one person, and they'd have to do it for any other would-be president of doubtful citizenship history. They would prefer to wait till a real live case came along. That has never happened yet. JackofOz 08:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What is electoral college votes? --Delma1 08:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • United States Electoral College votes. Skarioffszky 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether the opposing party would try to challenge a candidate on these grounds would depend on a political calculation as well, because such an attempt could backfire in a big way. For example, if I were a candidate running against John McCain, I might decide it best not to try to have him disqualified for having been born in the Panama Canal Zone –- he might very well win the case and it would look pretty bad for me (and my party, who'll be facing another election in two years), attacking a man for being from a military family. So even then the question might remain open.--Rallette 11:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That may well be the way things go with McCain. In any event, the point is that the question is still open as to whether a person born outside the USA to American parents is constitutionally eligible to become US President. John McEnroe, for example, would be well advised to get very, very good advice before embarking on a presidential run. (I can see it now. The lawyers tell him that unfortunately he is barred from office, and he fumes "You cannot be serious!"). JackofOz 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Or you could be a citizen "at the time of the adoption of this constitution". That is, George Washington wasn't born in the states, because when he was born, the states didn't exist. But he was eligible because he lived there in 1789.martianlostinspace 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not too sure about that. Alexander Hamilton was considered ineligible because he was born in the Caribbean, even though he was a citizen "at the time of the adoption". User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And no, there will not be a constitutional amendment specifically to let Arnie run for President. The consitution is more or less impossible to amend. That happens when pigs fly.martianlostinspace 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So Arnie can't run for president because he was born outside USA, and to non American parents even though he has lived in USA for 14 years and is over 35?
  • That's correct. It's a moot point anyway, since nobody will vote for an actor for president. --Nelson Ricardo 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There have been a couple of cases in which the term "natural born citizen" has come up. The first case that I know of was George W. Romney, born in Mexico to US citizen parents (his son, Mitt Romney, is considering a bid in 2008). And look out for further discussion, and perhaps even a Constitutional challenge, if John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, since he was born in Panama. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

< -- Please put your responses after this line -- >

Robert De Niro

This section was moved to the Entertainment desk .

American Writer

I'm still searching for a young writer (i think he was american) who wrote a novel in the 1950s or 1960s, but couldn't find an publisher. He was so devastated, that he committed suicide. Later his mother send a copy of his novel to a famous american writer, who cognized the potential and it was published and a really success and won some prizes. What was the name of this unsuccessfull successfull author? --160.45.153.203 11:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The novel in question is A Confederacy of Dunces, by John Kennedy Toole, published in 1980, eleven years after his suicide. The title, sadly apt, is taken from a quotation from Jonathan Swift: When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, the dunces are all in confederacy against him. Toole's masterpiece won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1981, the year after its publication. Clio the Muse 12:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not say he commited suicide because he couldn't find a publisher. Kennedy Toole had a somewhat disturbed personlity. Mr.K. 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I'm sure, it was Tool!. --87.160.224.188 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

My understanding of the Cyrus Cylinder is that it was basically the first written down set of Human Rights. If I am correct, isn't this when Cyrus released the Jews to go back to their homeland? Is this then the reference to "Captivity of Babylon"? Also the reference to the "70 years"? Is it correct that there were 40 lines that went around it? --Doug 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This site suggests there are either 35 or 45 lines depending on how many parts are counted. The site also says that it does not talk about jewish lands and it also mentions the recent propaganda use it has been put to: as a human rights charter. Ancient people did not generally spend their time writing human rights works but they did often add details that can be interpreted that way to other texts, i.e. Code of Hammurabi and the peace treaty ending the Battle of Kadesh. meltBanana 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(I am trying really hard not to bite the newbie) The article explains that it is not a set of human rights but rather a list of merciful acts done by that king (ever heard of propaganda?). There is something called Google, I humbly suggest you try to use it before you ask questions. In this case try [14]. If you read the text you will see that Cyrus never talks of any rights. Flamarande 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Human rights is indeed a very modern concept. Throughout history kings were expected to be merciful as part of a general dispensation of justice; but it remained a strictly royal prerogative, dispensed and denied at will. Clio the Muse 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it that obvious that I am a newbie? Yiks!!!! I stand corrected: not a set of "Human Rights", however more like a list of merciful acts. Then am I correct in that this is a reference to "Captivity of Babylon" of the 6th Century BCE? Also the reference to the "70 years"? I want to make sure then these are one and the same. --Doug 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

SIGH. I seriously recommend you read the provided text. If I told you: "Yes, Cyrus is the king who liberated the Jews from the 70 years of Babylonian captivity. It is as written in the bible, Old Testament, etc... .It proves (again) that the bible is always right." Would you seriously believe me? Better you analyze the text yourself and reach your own conclusions. Always think for yourself, and analyze the evidence (story) as far you can, and never ever let other ppl think for you (for they might bull*hit you into submission and blessed ignorance). Flamarande 15:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you are right in thinking for yourself. In that process I have concluded that this of the phrase coined by Francesco Petrarch of the Babylonian Captivity is referenced as to that of the 'Captivity of Avignon' of the papacy. It turns out this Captivity also was for "70 years", being from 1308 to 1378. So I have concluded that whereever the phrase of the "Captivity of Babylon" is in the New Testament is really that of the 'Captivity of Avignon' or the Babylonian Captivity; meaning "Avignonian Captivity", same as 'Captivity of Avignon'. Thanks for help. --Doug 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The logical error in the above is contained in the word "So". --Wetman 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DOUBLE SIGH. Doug, AFAIK "Babylonian Captivity" does not appear in the New Testament at all. The Gospels where written down in the 1st century AD (perhaps even 2nd, I am not sure). The Popes liked to compare their "deportation" to Avignon (where they were under the thumb of the French king) with the Captivity of Babylon of the Old Testament. This comparison was done for all kinds of political reasons. 1st)it presents the Pope as a martyr, and as a prisoner of faith. 2nd) it presents the French king as a tyrant who does not even respect the "Holy Mother church". Either way any of this doesn't appear in the New Testament at all. Flamarande 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you that the words of "Babylonian Captivity" do not appear in the New Testament; however "Captivity of Babylon" does. I just do not happen to believe in a 'historical Jesus' (a person roaming the earth in the middle East some 2000 years ago), so do not believe the Gospels were written in the first few centuries (since these events didn't actually happen). I believe the Gospels were written in the Fourteenth Century, hence the reference to "Captivity of Babylon" meaning that of the "Captivity of Avignon". This phrase was coined by Petrarch. In historical records scholars agree that this reference by Petrarch has to do with Avignon. So "Babylonian Captivity" and "Captivity of Babylon" and "Captivity of Avignon" are all the same thing. This is referenced in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 1. This is sometimes refered to as the "genealogy of Jesus". Now since I do not believe in this historical Jesus then of course I do not believe this to be a genealogy (i.e. family history). I believe it relates to Avignon, being of course a self thinker. I have thought it through throughly and have concluded this of Matthew chapter 1 has everthing to do with the Avignon papacy of the Fourteenth Century. Remember you are the one that suggested: Always think for yourself. Now see what happens when one thinks for themselves. They come up with different answers than the typical Christian story line. Why it even says several times in this chapter "fourteen". What an excellent clue this has to do with the Fourteenth Century. I do believe (being a self thinker) that the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon happened in the Fourteenth Century. This is in agreement with your two reasons why the Popes of Avignon liked to compare this Avignon papacy with this of the Jews of Babylon of the 6th Century BCE; however I have thought it through to the next level figuring out that Matthew chapter 1 has to do with this "deportation" to Avignon (a.k.a. "exil to Babylon"). --Doug 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Palaeography

Would it be correct to say that in the field of paleography that there ultimately has to be a standard reference material to compare to? Logically wouldn't one compare handwriting from an unknown date manuscript to a known dated document to then determine its age? Then when there is several points of similarity, it could then be given a date. How was this original dated standard document established as being a true date in the first place? What was it compared to? Is this standard reference document then reverified for authenticity? Is the manuscript or document used as the standard reference point ever ultimately subjected to scientific testing (i.e. radio carbon dating)--Doug 12:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not usually a single, generally-agreed-upon standard example, following the analogy of a holotype in biology, but rather a range of dated material (a treaty, a contract, etc.) against which new, undated material is compared. Paleography is also concerned with placing the origin of the writer's hand: writers move from place to place, retaining the hand that they were originally taught. Particular scriptoria developed quirks that identify scribes originally taught in that scriptorium. --Wetman 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to provide another answer above, with specific references so you can see the dated examples Wetman mentions (see above, under your previous similar question). Wareh 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate both these excellent detailed answers. But being a self thinker I have taken this to the next level. I understand the logic of palaeography, however this still leaves too much to the imagination. For example in your statement: in careful reliance upon the most securely dated evidence available is subjective. In other words, what they think as a correct dated material is being used then as a standard. What scientific evidence is there then to back up this "supposed" date? There is none, only a person's opinion. Another example: new knowledge (say, date a MS) on a firm methodological foundation that goes all the way back to first principles then becomes; what is this first principle? back toBottomline you have not given me a standard, but only a direction of places where books are of the field of palaeography. Don't want to learn this field, however am looking for solid concrete physical manuscripts used as the standard as the reference for dating the Codex Vaticanus. I have already asked over 1000 scholars (in this field and related fields) that should have been easily able to furnish this, however to date none have. I have ever reason to believe the Codex Vaticanus is from the Fourteenth Century, not from any of the first few centuries (i.e. 1st - 6th). So I guess bottomline to solve this issue would be actual scientific testing of Codex Vaticanus (i.e. mass spectrometry) and not just someone's opinion of date. --Doug 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If a scientists determines the temperature by reading a thermometer, where is the standard that this thermometer is based on? If that is another thermometer, where is the "standard" IT is based on? And if the "scientist" compares the readings of the two thermometers, what scientific evidence is there to back up his "claim" that they show the "same" reading? It is all one person's opinion of reading. I have asked over 10,000 experts, and they ALL deny this is a problem. This shows conclusively that they are NOT! experts. There is NO "standard" for "scientific" measurements.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I like this question. I believe there are definite scientific standards] that references are made to. Here are a few and still some more and still even more. Here is a large category of standards. Mass spectrometry is referenced back to ISO standards. Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14. Both these have an accuracy within 1%. An atomic clock is a type of clock that uses an atomic resonance frequency standard to feed its counter. These clocks are accurate to the nanosecond because they have a definite standard as a reference. This also enters into the field of Metrology which is based on the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The entire scientific community measures temperature using the Celsius scale, and thermodynamic temperature using the Kelvin scale. These are based on definite standards established by the scientific community and international agreement. Based then on one of these standards (i.e. ISO) and a scientific method (i.e. mass spectrometry) the age of Codex Vaticanus could be determined within 1%. I say it will show a date of 1373. Then given a +/- 1% accuracy it will be then some date for sure between 1360 and 1386. This is 1000 years from when it "supposedly" was written up. Why don't we go ahead and test it to find out for sure. Deal? I'll bet the Vatican will object. I wonder why? mmmm --Doug 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Alpinism

I understand Francesco Petrarch is the Father of Alpinism. Apparently he did this trip when he was about the age of 30. I am confused on the issue, IF he actually made the trip to the top of Mont Ventoux or if he just wrote about making such a trip? I always thought that in fact (from his letters on this account) that he actually did climb to the top. --Doug 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Petrarch, together with his brother and two companions, climbed Mount Ventoux on April 26, 1336. His account of this venture was later described in a letter to his friend, Francesco Dionigi, perhaps with some metaphorical elaborations. In his classic work, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, Jacob Burkhardt, described this as the first time such an activity had been undertaken for its own sake. Clio the Muse 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. It looks like then I am correct in thinking the climb was an actual event. I will follow up on your great reference you gave me on this. I would be interested in what it says about this. Then Petrarch was 32, if my math is correct. --Doug 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Last Supper

Has it been determined which name belongs to which Apostle in the Last Supper? I understand John the Baptist is on the right of Jesus. --Doug 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I can say with some certainty is that John the Baptist is not considered as one of the Apostles. He was certainly not at the Last Supper. The John in question is the brother of James, sons of Zebedee. In Leonardo da Vinci's painting the sequence, looking from left to right, is Bartholomew, James the Lesser, Andrew, Judas, Peter, John, Jesus, Thomas, James the Greater, Philip, Matthew, Thaddeus and Simon. Clio the Muse 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See, now you understand why I am asking this question. I didn't know this was John the brother of James, sons of Zebedee. We are talking about two different "Johns". I've been confused on this issue. Thanks for naming them. What reference do you have on this as to these names? --Doug 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For Leonardo you will find the sequence here [15] and here [16] Clio the Muse 14:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion

What religion are most Azeris of Azerbaijan?207.250.204.185 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Shia Muslims, at least officially. See Islam in Azerbaijan and Religion in Azerbaijan. Clio the Muse 14:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Three monkeys

I have seen often a group of three monkeys, of which one holds its hands to its ears, another to its eyes, and the third to its mouth. this is some kind of moral tale, but where does it come from and what does it mean? Mr.K. 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Try the article Three wise monkeys. Flamarande 15:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) See the articles on Three wise monkeys and See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. It appears to have come to the west from Japan, but may have originated in China or India, and it seems to be an invocation to do no evil, with the implication that one will be spared evil in return. It is possibly related to the concept of karma. Carom 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Juliane Lorenz

Dear friends,

I am wondering if you can change an error which is noted in my name´s file: I am born on August 2, 1957. I would like it to be corrected. Thanks for your help, Juliane

• Which article would that be in? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is de:Juliane Lorenz, which in the meantime has already been changed by someone. But how do we know that the user requesting the change is the same person as is the topic of the article?  --Lambiam^Talk 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

First woman to preside over the US House of Representatives

According to Wikipedia: During her term [Alice] Robertson also became the first woman to preside over the House of Representatives, on July 20, 1921.

Who presides, if not the Speaker of the House? Nanci Pelosi is the first woman elected Speaker, but if the speaker can't attend, then does someone else "preside?" Ronbarton 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See United States House of Representatives#Officers. The Speaker generally doesn't preside over every session, he delegates to other Members. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He?  :-) --Nelson Ricardo 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm panting in anticipation to see if we skirt the issue of female forms of a dress. For example, is it proper to say "Speakeress of the House", or would that be considered to be a slip ? StuRat 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice edit. Chickenflicker---♣ 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's clear Nancy wears the pants in this house. (Reminds me of a former Australian TV identity whose first name was also Nancy. Her behind-the-scenes sexual antics were the subject of much gossip, and she was often referred to as "No-Pants Nance".) JackofOz 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephan Harper's french

Using the rating system found on Wikipedia (0-4), how would you rate it? --The Dark Side 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

C'est terrible (1). Vranak

Non, non...peut etre son accent est terrible, mais il parle tout a fait courrament. Anyway, I gave myself a 3, it should probably be a bit higher. Maybe 3.5, but definitely not 4. Although his accent is much poorer than mine, he's actually quite fluent, more than myself I'd say. If I give myself a 3.5, then he deserves at least that. Loomis 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mais oui. Vranak

Why is this person's French being discussed. Loomis, I think you have to write "peut-être". I was in doubt for a moment but [17] seems to back me up on this.:)Evilbu 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He's the Prime Minister of Canada. Due to our silly linguistic tensions, a politician as important as the PM is carefully scrutinized over his bilingualism.

I'm confused though about your question about my spelling. Are you talking about the absence of the "accent circonflexe" over the "e"? ("ê"). That was laziness on my part. I don't have a bilingual keyboard, and I don't even seem to see it among the characters below, so I'm forced to remember each and every ASCII code (Alt-136 in this case) if I have the patience to add the correct accent to each letter. I don't know about Europe, but it's very common for French speakers here to just not bother with the accents. Otherwise, was it the missing hyphen? Are you saying I should have written "peut-être" with a hyphen rather than "peut être" without one? You're really being picky! I have enough trouble making sure I'm using the proper word among "there/their/they're", "than/then", "its/it's", "who's/whose" "effect/affect" etc., and thats in my native English! I'm truly sorry if I missed an "accent circonflexe" or a hyphen in my French! :-) Loomis 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Buy an AZERTY and your problems will disappear.:) While I'm not really that keen to support Quebec's independence, I think that in a bilingual country, the prime minister does in fact have to speak both languages. I don't see why you call the tensions "silly", here that word is used by those who aren't being disadvantaged...Evilbu 11:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, but like I said, I don't see the accent thing as a problem at all, and neither do most people here (in Quebec). But I think you misunderstood me about the bilingualism thing. Of course Canada's PM should be bilingual. For example, when we have election debates, we always have them on two nights, once in English and once in French. In fact the silliest thing I've ever seen was back when Preston Manning was involved in one of those debates. The guy doesn't understand a word of French, and so during the French debate he basically wore one of those translator headsets like they use at the UN, and had a translator explain to him what everybody else was saying. When it came time for him to speak, he spoke in English. Now THAT little episode was the most embarrasing thing to watch. What I meant by silly was the fact that our standards for bilingualism are way too high. As the topic of this question implies, if, for example, an English speaking politician isn't absolutely, perfectly bilingual, and has pretty heavy English accent when speaking French, many French speakers actully get offended. The way I see it, as long as the guy has a pretty functional understanding of the second language, and genuinely tries his best, even if it comes off as souning pretty awful, he should be given credit for trying his best, rather than criticized for not being "perfectly bilingual". Loomis 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Who feeds the Iraq people?

Iraq is clearly in turmoil politically. But how much organization is there to provide food for the population? 25 plus million people need a lot of food. How much is grown in the country, what coomes in from outside? Is the Iraq government using food as a weapon? Is the US doing the same? How does all the food get distributed? When the military seals off a city, how do the inhabitants get food?Jack.ryan16 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of the agriculture in iraq will be centred on the tigris/euphrates river (as agriculture in egypt is centred on the nile) - tomatoes etc can be grown here. In the far north ('kurdistan') there is arable land (sheep). Most of the ingrediants of a kebab could be easily grown there.

See also Economy_of_Iraq#Agriculture

also see http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/iraq/iraq.asp "Rebuilding Agriculture and Food Security in Iraq".

A google search of 'iraq agriculture' gives many papers eg http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32093.pdf http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20050827&articleId=870 etc

It seems that presently iraq is reliant on imports for much of its food thoug. Hope this goes some way to answering your question.87.102.23.224 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Stuff does grow in Iraq, you know. Some will be edible. Even if it isn't, lower lifeforms like chickens and goats can find something to eat, and then the Iraqis can eat them. Circle of life. Vranak 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than the availability of food being a problem, I'd expect availability of money to buy the food to be the problem, especially with unemployment high. I suspect that each militia provides for it's own, even if they have to resort to kidnapping to do it. StuRat 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindu creationists

I am caught cross-wise in some cultural wars that I do not undestand. I have run across on the internet from time to time Hindu websites and books that claim Darwin and evolution were wrong because they contradict what is in the Vedas. I finally decided to write about it a bit here in Hindu creationism. Since I probably do not know what I am stepping in or who I am stepping on. two indian and presumably Hindu editors have indicated or hinted at various offenses I might be committing. What I find especially strange is that somehow I get the impression that saying "hindu creationist" is somehow a slur. These individuals are Hindu, and they are creationists and reject Darwin and evolution based on scriptural grounds, so they are creatioists. I do not find "christian fundamentalist" a slur because I am not one. People who are "christian fundamentalists" do not either because it is accurate. So ?? Can someone help me out here?--Filll 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Hindu religion the universe undergoes 'repeated cycles of destruction and recreation' there is no creation event. You are applying christian terminology to a non christian religion. That may be one source of offence.

eg it's a bit like naming the rabbi article jewish vicars!87.102.23.224 22:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no creation event in Hinduism as in the bible. You should not lump Hinduism with the 'Abrahamic' religions.87.102.23.224 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people can take offence at anything. It's a gift. It might not be religious at all, but cultural. If it is important to you, then you should ask them for specifics. Hindu peoples I know would not respect you if they felt you were being argumentative, and would leave you alone, but they would help you if they felt you were genuinely misled. DDB 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

From creationism "In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be most strongly associated with the brand of Christian fundamentalism in which the books of Genesis are held to provide absolute truths about the creation of kinds of life and often, in more literal faiths, the age of the universe and of the earth" - I think the association of Hindism and Christian fundamentalism is rather silly - Also note that the article creationism deals almost entirely with monotheistic religions.87.102.19.164 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop fumbling with the hot potato. Would someone find the correct term for Hindus who reject the currently accepted theory of evolution begun by Darwin on grounds that it contradicts their religious teachings (in other words the correct term for "Hindu creationism")? We need the correct term, and not a political correct one. Flamarande 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Christians reject evolution as an explanation for the origin of species because they take Genesis literally and believe that God created, on the sixth day of creation, "the beasts of the earth according to their kinds." This is why they are called creationists. If followers of some religion believe that species arise by spontaneous generation from miasmata, maybe we'd call them miasmatists, in any case not "creationists". What do your Hindu friends believe to be the origin of species?

May I further caution you for the sin of original research, for which there is no forgiveness. If what you write is based on published sources, you can just use the terms they use.  --Lambiam^Talk 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Very true brother Lambian, for the cardinal sin of original research there can be no forgiveness at all. It is a grevious sin brother Filll and you will condemned to a fiery hell without WIKIPEDIA. REPENT, brother Filll, REPENT your sins before it is too late! You must confess your sins to nearest Administrator-priest asap and pray a hundered "Hail Jimbos" at the very least. (It's a joke, nothing but a joke :) Flamarande 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

January 5

Miguel Barnet's inspiration to write _Autobiography of a Runaway Slave_

Dear Wikipedia,

I was looking for more information about the two newspaper articles that led Miguel Barnet to interview Esteban Montejo. I have searched for the articles--or a more detailed description of them--in all archives that are available to me, but I have only found information on Wikipedia. The following description, from Wikipedia's article, made me wonder if I might learn more about these two articles, or possibly read the articles themselves:

"In 1963, Barnet was intrigued by two newspaper articles reporting on Cuban citizens who had lived for more than a century. One article described an ex-slave and santera. The other pertained to Esteban Montejo, a 105-year-old Cuban man of African descent who had lived as a slave in captivity, a fugitive slave in the Las Villas wilderness (el monte), and a soldier in the Cuban War for Independence. A series of interviews with Montejo at the Veteran’s Home followed..."

Can someone give me more information about these articles or a citation so that I might research further? Thank you so much for your help,

140.247.43.92 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Kimberly

"Lorem Ipsum"

What does "lorem ipsum" mean? Loomis 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. See the page you've linked to. --ColinFine 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't what? Loomis 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lorem Ipsum" has no real meaning, it's just a filler. The article gives a pretty good explanation, including where the original text of the "Lorem Ipsum" filler came from. It also claims that "Lorem Ipsum" is sometimes used to indicate something that is just taking up space, but I must confess that I'm not familiar with this usage. Carom 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, it's from the term "dolorem ipsem," which means "pain itself." So you could say "lorem ipsum" means "ain itself." -- Mwalcoff 03:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Egypt today

Do Egyptians still believe in the afterlife and the like?

If you mean the like in the days of the Pharao then no. According to our Religion in Egypt article, 90% of Egyptians today are Muslim. Vespine 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to ancient Egyptians or the Egyptians of today? If the former, then, well, being "ancient", they're all dead. As for the Egyptians of today, see Vespine's answer above. Loomis 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Added Holiday

I would like to ask if National Stepfamily Day be added to your calendar of Holidays. (http://stepfamilyday.tripod.com/) September 16th is Stepfamily Day. This year marks Stepfamily Day’s 10th year anniversary. Stepfamily Day is supported by National Stepfamily Resource Center (NSRC) of Auburn University. Here is a copy of the Stepfamily Day 2007 Proclamation.

Stepfamily Day 2007

Whereas, Stepfamily Day is enhanced by our strong commitment to support the stepfamilies of our nation in their mission to raise their children, create strong family structures to support the individual members of the family, instill in them a sense of responsibility to all extended family members.

Whereas, Approximately half of all Americans are currently involved in some form of stepfamily relationship and it is the vision of Founder Christy Borgeld and the National Stepfamily Resource Center (NSRC) of Auburn University. that all stepfamilies in the United States be accepted, supported and seccessful.

Whereas, Our nation has been blessed by thousands upon thousands of loving stepparents and stepchildren who are daily reminders of the joy, trials, and triumphs of the stepfamily experience and of the boundless love contained in the bond between all types of parents and children.

Whereas, Stepfamily Day is a day to celebrate the many invaluable contributions stepfamilies have made to enriching the lives and life experience of the children and parents of America and to strengthening the fabric of American families and society.

Christy Borgeld Stepfamily Day Founder EST. 1997

http://stepfamilyday.tripod.com/

If you have any questions, please feel free to email @ nationalstepfamilyday@yahoo.com

Does Wikipedia have an article on the subject of politicians and special-interest groups proclaiming special commorative days (and weeks and months) that nobody else cares about except for the people with that special interest? Does this go on as much in other places as it does in the US and Canada? --Anonymous, January 5, 2007, 01:54 (UTC).

If the holiday is documented, you can make a new page for it on Wikipedia and add it yourself :) Russia Moore 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WHEREAS Wikipedia is not currently under the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America (something that might change really soon). Therefore all your national arguments are probably misleading. To be really blunt: all your arguments that it should be (or allready is?) a national holiday in the US of A doesn't make it mandatory for Wikipedia, who by its very nature is a supra-national (international) entity open for ppl of every nation of this planet. Flamarande 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I say let's add it, but rename it to "Mommy Married a Stupid Dork / Daddy Married a Dumb Bimbo Day" --Nelson Ricardo 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should widen the holiday to include all those from central Asia, by calling it National Steppe Family day ? StuRat 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Arabs in Toronto

In Toronto, which country do these Arabs represents and what is the reason why they migrated to Toronto, Canada?

Toronto is possibly the most multicultural city in the world. I do believe that every Arabic country has representation there. As for why they migrated, I can only guess that they were looking for free health care. --The Dark Side 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many good reasons why Arabi peoples would travel the world to find a second home. Sydney too, is touted as the worlds most multicultural city. I think your question is poorly phrased. Arabs are not necessarily Islamic and are as diverse a people as to be found anywhere on Earth. I imagine that Toronto has many economic refugees. Compare GNP of any Middle Eastern nation with Canada and you will see a compelling argument for migration. DDB 08:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver is massively-multicultural, too. The largest subset of Vancouver proper's population is Sino-Canadian. Vranak

Information Regarding Cummings v. Richmond County Board of Education

I searched but to no avail for further information on this court case. Am especially looking for a summary which could be comprehended by schoolchildren.

Try [18], [19], [20]. Anchoress 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE :

" In accordance with that decision, the Superior Court upon the return of the cause from the Supreme Court of the State, refused the relief asked by the plaintiffs and dismissed their petition. Thereafter, the plaintiffs appealed that order to the United States Supreme Court as being in derogation of their rights under the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court affirmed." From the wiki entry.

So, essentially, since their petition for review was denied by the court, this was in violation of their rights and they took the case to the supreme court?

"my view is different from others"

I do my work with dedication but it differ from all age of my friends. I do study and all activity with something will known, but all my friends take easy they not take stress more but do well, but me work hard I also do same things. In my point of view I do somethings useful for me and someone what I can do? how I can improve knowledge ?

Is this what you meant to say ? "I try very hard in school but don't do as well as many of my friends, some of whom are slackers. What can I do to improve my study methods ?". StuRat 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If so, you may have a learning disability, like ADD, ADHD, or dyslexia, or you may just need to find a learning method that works for you, like doing an activity instead of reading about it, for example. StuRat 06:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of good reasons why you might not achieve as well as others, yet work hard and have unique views in subject areas. Despite education propaganda, your teachers are not looking for unique views from you. Your teachers want you to show them that you have understood, and can critically evaluate the knowledge they have given you.

Question is vaguer than that, and I am not so sure it is about grades. About all we can surmise is that questioner doesnt feel he "does as well" as his less earnest or less striving friends. What age? School or work or life in general? He may be noticing that effort brings some kinds of success but not others, or that no matter how hard you work there will be someone who seems to get rewarded for less effort or that there are types of "doing well" that do not depend on exerted effort. This is especially true of situations that involve social selection. Some of our social capital is earned and can be worked for but much is just imputed to us based on a hundred things we have less or little control over (height, weight, ethnic group, class, manners, speech, attractiveness, athletic talent, personality, awareness of others' cues, empathy, age, social confidence, etc). It is possible that disadvantages in these latter areas are the source of his frustration. alteripse 11:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disposition of a squirrel

I’ve had to remove a squirrel’s nest (along with the material they put in the area where they choose to urinate and defecate inside) three times from my car port turned garage. They do not seem to be getting the message so I finally had to use a trap. Someone suggested I find a good recipe but I just can’t seem to bring myself to eat a former house guest. What is the minimum distance I would have to relocate the little guy or girl since he or she will not take no for an answer? (Thank goodness there are no children evolved! …either the squirrel’s or mine!) -- Barringa 09:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, squirrels that have evolved into children would be a bit scary, LOL. But seriously, why not let them live in your yard, since you seem to be a humanitarian. You could build them a squirrel house something like a large bird house, nailed to the side of a tree. Also, you need to seal whatever holes there are in your garage or else other squirrels and animals will continue to live in there, even if you get rid of this squirrel. A place protected from the environment to which animals have access is just too irresistible to animals. StuRat 12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This link suggests they have a homing instinct of "several miles". Our squirrel article suggests they can be put off by the scent of cat or dog fur. Also you can buy deterrent sprays (mine is called "Squirrel Stop") at garden stores.--Shantavira 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When I had a squirrel/raccoon problem, I think that I usually deported the squirrels to the next county (about ten miles). I never found a spray that really worked, but this was a couple years ago, so I can't really speak for any of the products on the maket now. Carom 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd let the little fella make a nest in my home. The day I wake up with a squirrel biting my face, though, I'd reconsider. Vranak

Youngest congressman

Who is the current youngest member of the US House of Representavies? And who is the all-time youngest? Catchpole 10:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently the youngest is Patrick McHenry from North Carolina, born in 1975. Historically, anyone?Wolfgangus 12:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

William C.C. Claiborne was the youngest ever -- actually, unconstitutionally young, having been elected when he was 22. Harold Ford, Jr. was the youngest of legal age. How did that Claiborne thing happen? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trafalgar Square

I wrote asking for help in dating a postcard of Trafalgar Square in December 2006. Thank you everyone for your assistance. I apologise for not answering sooner, but my computer has been down for some time. I do not know the sites to scan my postcard into so that you can see it. Am I able to scan into this site? If so, how do I do that? Thank you again. 60.246.249.109 11:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)fayekj

Do you have a home page you can scan it into ? That would be best, if it's not something that belongs in Wikipedia permanently. If not, you can scan it into Wikipedia temporarily and then have it deleted. You can upload a file to Wikipedia here: Special:Upload. StuRat 12:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Easier still is to upload it to a free image hosting site like this one, then post the link to it here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Anglican Baptism

I was "baptised" or "christened" as a child, into the Anglican church (Church of England). Is it possible to reverse this process somehow, so that I would be recognised as a non-christened person in the eyes of the church? Thanks, jamesgibbon 13:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can be "un-baptized". In addition to welcoming a child into the church, baptism is also seen to remove the guilt of Original Sin from the new-born. I don't see how forgiveness, once given, can be revoked. That said, if what you want is to stop being seen as a Christian or an Anglican, it shouldn't be that hard. A simple renunciation of your faith would probably do it, making you apostate. If you were Roman Catholic, I'd suggest trying to get yourself excommunicated. You could always try to commit some act of heresy - that would probably work too. - Eron ^Talk 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a little bit about the C of E within the excommunication article, but basically the Church does not make provision for this sort of thing. Several friends of mine have looked for such a procedure upon becoming Buddhists, without success. Some of them ended up writing a formal letter of resignation, but I don't know whether these letters were ever acknowledged. I suppose you could write your own ritual of declaration of your beliefs (perhaps including a bit of blasphemy) and see if it works on a subjective level.--Shantavira 14:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial representative offices?

Are there other countries except for the UK and USA where states operate unofficial representative offices like those of the TRNC?

The wikipedia link on the TRNC unnoficial representative office is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TRNC_Representative_Office_to_the_United_States&oldid=83581783

Thanks Ashwin

I don't know about the TRNC, but Taiwan runs unofficial representatives (usually called a Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office) in countries like Canada. - Eron ^Talk 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge buffs needed

Users knowledgeable in various subject areas are needed to add missing links to the basic topic lists (they are listed at Lists of basic topics).

How many missing basic topics can you spot?

Suggestions and critiques are also welcome!

 The Transhumanist   14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

German bomings of London

German's dropped incinerary bombs on London there is a famous photograph of an evening raid with most of London in flames except St. Paul's Cathedral. It is untouched (it seems). I've been told there were many citizens on the grounds of St. Paul's tha night (as well as other nights) running to put out the fires! Do you have an image of this picture?Arbonnebcf 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• This one? Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do women prefer men who are soft or do they prefer men who are hard while sex

While having sex, do women prefer a man who would have soft, gentle and slow sex or do women prefer a man who is fast, furious and hard hitting? We all see movies which show men hitting/torturing and having sex as if there is no tomorrow. Thats why I am asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.114.92 (talk • contribs)

Short answer: Different strokes for different folks

Long Answer: I tend to see slow passionate love making in movies, maybe i'm watching too much You've Got Mail and too little action movies? There seems to be an underlying theme that sex is portrayed towards women as deep and meaningful, love making and towards men it is portrayed as passion-filled, on the counter-top, vigorous activity. Both are perfectly good forms if you ask me, but you should probably try to do what works best for the enjoyment of you and your partner. Disclaimer...i'm a male, maybe a female wikipedian might be provide more valuable insight...ny156uk 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the woman, and the body part... =S 惑乱 分からん 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that most women prefer lovers who are a) clear about what they want and willing to communicate their wishes; b) interested enough in what their lover wants to ask her; and c) willing and able to strike a balance between the two. In between foot rubs and taking out the garbage. ;-) Anchoress 18:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)