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 Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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 20

Real Estate & Software Industry

Hi I see a peculiar trend in India recently: Land prices in small cities where Software Parks are proposed to come has increased 10-20 times in the last one year, and almost by 30 times in the last 5 years.... (surprising but true: In 2005 - Rs 20,000.. 2006 Rs. 200,000) Reason: 1. Software professionals earn huge salaries (3x times than the average salary; in many places, children aged 25 earn more than their parents) 2. Scarcity of Land, Middlemen 3. Bachelors share the apartment, hence rent also has increased.... 4. Software salary increases by 10-15% each year...

All on SOFTWARE.. but less than 0.1% are in software industry....

If this trend continues: 1. What will happen to the average middle class? 2. Where will this rise stop? 3. Who really gets benefited? 4. What will happen to Software Industry

Has this happened, or happening in other parts of the world?

I have great regards for the people here in wikipedia.. I would request people to discuss this issue. (btw, I could not purchase a property.. it keeps on rising) Slmking 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is in fact a global phenomenon, though the rate of increase in most places has not been quite as rapid as the rates you are citing. See our article Real estate bubble. The causes for the rise in real estate prices in many countries around the world are disputed, but many commentators believe that it is connected to historically very low interest rates around the world, in many cases lower than the rate of inflation, which make it easier to borrow and to bid up prices. In countries other than India, the rise in real estate prices has not been limited to areas where software is developed. However, in the United States, some of the most dramatic price rises and the highest average real estate prices occur in Silicon Valley and other parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, which are centers of software development.

It is impossible to offer a sure answer to most of your questions, which involve predicting the future. This is beyond the ability of even the most accomplished Wikipedians. It is possible to answer question #3 with some assurance: Existing owners of property benefit, as do real estate agents. Marco polo 02:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple supply and demand - fifth grade level economics. A company moves to an area that has employees. Those employees want to live near where they work. The people currently living there don't really want to leave. So, you have at least two people interested in the property, the current owner and the incoming employee (there are likely many more people interested in the property). Demand just went up. Since supply cannot increase without someone adding folding the space-time continuum and increasing the amount of land around the company, price goes up. Why does it happen before the company moves in? People want to jump in early and make the first buck. It is happening where I live right now because Google said there is a slim chance they will move out here in a few years. --Kainaw ^(talk) 07:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

Why is not shown that Fidel Castro was born in Honduras?

Do you have any evidence for this? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Fidel Castro is not shown that he was born in Honduras?

Because he wasn't born in Honduras. He was born on a sugar plantation in what is now the Holguín Province of Cuba. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, he was born on August 13 1926, on a sugar plantation in Birán, near Mayari in Holguín, then part of Oriente province. What on earth gave you the idea he was born in Honduras? Are you perhaps confusing this with Holguin? Clio the Muse 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

¿Why is not shown that Fidel was a baseball pitcher? (El Mundo, November 28, 1946. University of Havana. Pitcher: F. Castro) If his fastball and curveball had been better would he have played for the Yankees or Senators? Edison 07:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Castro wasn't a great baseball player. He was a decent school player and a big fan of the sport. But most of the rumours of his prowess are based on an urban myth which has him trying out for New York Yankees. [1] As for him being born in Honduras.... what?--Zleitzen 10:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was the Washington Senators. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cincinnati Reds would have made more sense. Although actually in the 1950s the Reds briefly changed their name to the Redlegs to avoid being confused with those other Reds... Herostratus 06:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he was holding out for the team to change its name to the "Cincinnati Agrarian Reformers." Edison 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Czech Republic- Interesting Facts

What are some interesting facts about the Czech Republic? Does anyone know something really interesting that they could go in depth about? It could be about anything unusual or interesting, doesn't matter. Thanks!

This is homework, right? Why don't you just read Czech Republic and find something there? Bhumiya (said/done) 06:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pilsner beer, the beer style that is the most popular in the USA, was invented there. It was invented in the town of Pilsen, hence the Pilsner name. Czech people drink more beer per capita than any other country in the world. Zeno333 07:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are so many interesting things that it is difficult to know what to single out for particular mention. What about a surprising piece of trivia? Joseph Goebbles, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, once attempted suicide for the love of a Czech woman, in defiance of all Nazi race theories. Her name was Lida Baarova, a one-time actress, who died in 2000. When Goebbles' wife, Magda, learned of the affair she complained to Hitler. Goebbles, rather than give up Baarova, offered to resign; and when Hitler refused to accept this, the love-struck minister attempted to kill himself in October 1938. On Hitler's express orders Baarova was then ejected from Germany. Clio the Muse 08:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Were Czech really such untermensch? Wouldn't they, as slavs, be on a higher racial hierachical level than, for instance Jews and non-Europeans? (The artcile claims that they were, though.) 惑乱 分からん 14:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Wakuran. I'm not sure if this is really the place to go into the niceties-and contradications-of Nazi race theory, but try to imagine, if you will, a pyramid, with the Germans at the peak and the Jews at the base. Slavs, which includes the Czechs, were certainly above the Jews, though still not that far removed from the base. Though even here generalisations are difficult, with pyramids within pyramids. The 'lowest' of all the slav groups, in the Nazi scheme of things, were undeniably the Poles and the Russians. Clio the Muse 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

see Budweiser Budvar. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• One study concluded that (presumably young) Czech men are on average the tallest in the world, at 6'2.
• The Czech Republic took the gold at the 1998 Nagano Winter Olympics, in men's ice hockey, in the first time that NHL players were allowed to compete. This was a huge boost to Czech national morale, and it severely injured Canada's national pride. Vranak

• Which study? I heard that the tallest men were Montenegrins, Dutch and Scandinavian. See Body height. 惑乱 分からん 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I read it in the Miscellania section of The Globe and Mail last year, I believe. And yes, our article on body height does suggest otherwise. Vranak

And I heard the tallest people in the world were Scots. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One interesting thing about the Czech Republic is that they don't use personal checks there, which is ironic, I suppose. Also, few Czechs have ever used toaster ovens or tumble driers, preferring to let their clothes dry on a rack and use slice toasters. At Christmas-time, they buy carp from big vats on street corners, and if you ask, the vendor will bop on the head for you so you don't have to keep it in the bathtub until you want to eat it. The word "dollar" comes from the German name of a place where silver was mined. There is a sizable Vietnamese population due to friendly relations between Vietnam and Czechoslovakia during the Communist era. If you go to Příbor, birthplace of Sigmund Freud, you can stay at the Freud Hotel off Freud Square and try not to giggle. There's a restaurant in Zbraslav that was the home of the guy who wrote the "Beer Barrel Polka;" it's now a museum that plays that song day in and day out. In Prague, you can stand at the corner of Wilsonova and Washingtonova -- two streets named after American presidents. The National Monument has the largest equestrian statue in the world (of Jan Žižka). Vinohradská Street in Prague has had at least six different names in its history, including Stalin Street during the Stalinist era and Schwerin Street during the Nazi occupation. -- Mwalcoff 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The most interesting thing (to me) about the Czech Republic is that the English name of the country (and of the language) does not use Czech orthographical conventions, but Polish. There is no "cz" in the Czech language (or if there is, it isn't pronounced "ch"). That's a Polish thing. The haček (eg. Č) is what the Czechs use for this sound. This was discussed here in some detail. JackofOz 02:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Logical contradiction...?

Doesn't such a law "insulting Turkishness" inflict upon the Turkish people the very denegration the authorities wish to prevent? -- 71.100.10.48 08:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Article 301 is certainly a matter of some controversy in Turkey itself, though there has long been a deep sensitivity in the country about aspects of its national identity, made, it would seem, even more acute by the present application to join the European Union. Clio the Muse 09:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it denigrates the Turkish people. t h b 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Title of a divorced wife of a younger son of a duke or marquess

Hello,

In styles in the UK it does not say what the title of a divorced wife of the younger son of a duke/marquess is.

If Lord William Hope marries Jane Smith she becomes Lady William Hope

If she divorces him, what is her style and title then? Thank you 88.105.107.157 19:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A long time ago, I read a mid-20th-century British manual of styles, which contained advice on that very point. From what I remember of what it said, it seems that according to a strict interpretation, a divorced women is not entitled to retain aristocratic honorific styles to which she was only entitled through marriage -- but at that time, there was in fact relatively little real-world social opposition to a divorced woman continuing to refer to herself with such honorifics (without the accompanying formal precedence, of course), as long as she hadn't yet remarried. But there's an additional complication in the particular case that you asked about, in that a divorced woman was usually considered entitled by etiquette to still call herself "Mrs. Smith" or "Mrs. Mary Smith", but no longer to call herself "Mrs. John Smith" (with her ex-husband's first name). According to that general rule of thumb, the ex-wife of an aristocrat couldn't still call herself "Lady William Hope", and it would have been very incorrect to shorten to "Lady Hope", since that would have a completely different meaning. (see [ http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/honrific.html]) I'm not sure what the solution to this dilemma would have been, or whether there was even a good solution... Churchh 20:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to raise this on the talk page of Styles in the United Kingdom or Forms of address in the United Kingdom—if anyone's going to know, it's the editors on those pages, and if there's an agreed-upon answer, it should be written into the article. Newyorkbrad 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand these matters title would be awarded as follows, as long as the lady in question remains unmarried, though she would lose all precedence gained by her former marriage:

The former wife of a Peer- Jane, Viscountess Hope.

The former wife of a Baronet or Knight- Jane, Lady Hope.

The former wife of an 'Honorable'- The Hon. Mrs. William Hope.

The former wife of a younger son of a Duke or a Marquis- Lady William Hope. Clio the Muse 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If a divorced commoner woman keeps her ex-husband's surname - which is not a question of entitlement but social convention - the former "Mrs William Hope" would become "Mrs Jane Hope". (This is true of widows too). However the divorced wife of the younger son of a duke or marquess could not become "Lady Jane Hope", nor could she remain "Lady William Hope". The title "Lord William Hope" is itself merely a courtesy title, since the younger sons of a duke or marquess are not peers. Any ex-wife of such a person who seeks to still use her ex-husband's title is holding on to gossamer-thin trappings. JackofOz 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

January 21

Happiness

On a scale of 0 - 10, how happy is the universe in general. Or if thats too hard, how happy is our world>

There is no answer to that. Happiness is subjective. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The universe is very happy. Let's leave it at that. --The Dark Side 01:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The best description of universe's mood I've heard is 'benevolently indifferent'. So I guess that's a 5. Vranak

• 4.2(hotclaws**== 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, more accurately, $4.{\overline {2}}$. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Happiness is only a brief moment of life when your expectations coincide with reality... Or even better, your perception of it. — Kieff 06:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading an account of the Greeks, hoping to find the happiest man that ever lived. It was conceded that for a man to be worthy, they would have to have died. One did not want to give the label to a happy man, only to find they lose their smile. I think it is in Herodotus's History.

Transferring the Greek argument to analysing the universe, we won't really know until it ends. However, I observe that whenever my political enemies open their mouths, as they often do, the universe seems to laugh. DDB 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Compared to what?≠Bumblefart 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is happiness?

Longest formal title

Does anyone know what the longest formal title is or has been? I found the Russian one for Nicholas II of Russia at Nicholas_II_of_Russia#_note-title. That one is the longest I've ever seen. Read out aloud from the beginning, and don't look at the end until you get there... So are there any longer than that? Carcharoth 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I found Style of the British Sovereign, and the table here shows that Mary and Philip had quite a long style: "By the grace of God, King and Queen of England, France, Naples, Jerusalem, Chile and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Princes of Spain and Sicily, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Milan, Burgundy and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tyrol". Carcharoth 01:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will be really hard pressed to find a formal title longer than that accorded to Nicholas II by the Russian Constitution of April 1906. Clio the Muse 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I may have found one: Zengi The emir, the general, the great, the just, the aid of God, the triumphant, the unique, the pillar of religion, the cornerstone of Islam, ornament of Islam, protector of God's creatures, associate of the dynasty, auxiliary of doctrine, grandeur of the nation, honour of kings, supporter of sultans, victor over the infidels, rebels, and atheists, commander of the Muslim armies, the victorious king, the king of princes, the sun of the deserving, emir of the two Iraqs and Syria, conqueror of Iran, Bahlawan, Jihan Alp Inassaj Kotlogh Toghrulbeg atabeg Abu Sa'id Zangi Ibn Aq Sunqur, protector of the prince of the faithful. Flamarande 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to invoke a word count? :-)

"We, Nicholas the Second, by the grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, King of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauric Chersonesos, Tsar of Georgia, Lord of Pskov, and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigalia, Samogitia, Białystok, Karelia, Tver, Yugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgaria, and other territories; Lord and Grand Duke of Nizhny Novgorod, Chernigov; Ruler of Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Beloozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislav, and all northern territories ; Ruler of Iveria, Kartalinia, and the Kabardinian lands and Armenian territories - hereditary Ruler and Lord of the Cherkess and Mountain Princes and others; Lord of Turkestan, Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, Oldenburg, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth."

Nope. We, Nicholas comes out on top! :-) Carcharoth 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bahh, not fair, Nic had a bigger title because the Russian empire was simply bigger, letting him to claim more "place/territory names" like King of Poland etc. Hmm I noticed that there is no Protector of the Faith in his titles Flamarande 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Protector of the Faith? He is now, in the eyes of the Russian Orthodox Church, also Saint Nicholas the Passion Bearer. Clio the Muse 03:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Philosopher George Berkeley wrote an essay that is commonly known by its short title "The Analyst". It's full title is this however...

THE ANALYST; OR, A DISCOURSE Addressed to an Infidel MATHEMATICIAN. WHEREIN It is examined whether the Object, Principles, and Inferences of the modern Analysis are more distinctly conceived, or more evidently deduced, than Religious Mysteries and Points of Faith." Zeno333 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then there's the title of a Fiona Apple album that is generally shortened to just When the Pawn. The full title is...

When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight And He'll Win the Whole Thing 'Fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might So When You Go Solo, You Hold Your Own Hand And Remember That Depth Is the Greatest of Heights And If You Know Where You Stand, Then You Know Where to Land And If You Fall It Won't Matter, Cuz You'll Know That You're Right Dismas|^(talk) 09:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus's Age at time of Death

I would like to know scriptures that help support what I've been hearing concerning the Savior's age when he was crucified. Was Jesus 33 1/2 years old?```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whitrd777 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

There is no universal agreement on Jesus' age when he was crucified. See Chronology of Jesus. BenC7 03:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For a good book on the entire chronology of Jesus read Ernest Martin's book "The Star That Astonished the World". Copyright 1991 ISBN 0-945657-88-9 It demonstrates what the Star of Bethlehem really was, and shows exactly when Jesus was born using historical and astronomical data. The book shows that Jesus was born September 11th, 3 BC. The book concludes that Jesus died in the year 30 AD. With that in mind Jesus would have been 31 years old at his death, since he would have died in the first part of the year 30. Keep in mind that there is no year "0". Zeno333 05:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want the age in earthly or heavenly terms? t h b 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

When has anybody trusted scriptures for historical context?

Turkey

Isn't Article 301 basically a step toward fascism? And won't it be a major hurdle in Turkey's admission to the EU? Being a U.S. citizen, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea of Article 301 being a good idea since I can't think of an example of it in U.S. law. Dismas|^(talk) 07:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article here on Wikipedia and it is terrible. Until it contains a section explaining why Article 301 was created and why it passed, there is nothing in the article worth reading. Sure, it may be a bad law, but without knowing the origin of the law, you are basing your opinion of the law on your experience, not the Turkish experience. --Kainaw ^(talk) 07:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... Okay... So, could you explain it to me better than the article does? Dismas|^(talk) 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't live in Turkey. I live in the United States where the mass media only talks about other countries if we are bombing them or some Hollywood idiot is adopting another child from there. So, I have no idea what prompted the passage of Article 301. However, I can explain further why I do not like our article here. What if our article on the Patriot Act only said: "The Patriot Act makes it a crime to do anything that the government may think is linked to terrorism." No mention of 9/11. No mention of the "War on Terror". It doesn't matter if the article is truthful or not. If it doesn't include the reason for the law, it is a terrible article. I believe it was third grade that they taught the 5 W's: Who What Where When Why. Our article on Article 301 covers Who (Turkey), What (Article 301), Where (Turkey), When (Recently), Why... Who knows? --Kainaw ^(talk) 11:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've read the Amnesty International article on it, I have a much better understanding. Turkey wants to join the EU. However, they had laws that kept them from doing so. One of them was that it was a crime to criticize the government or Turkey in general. That was changed from "criticize" to "denigrate". Of course, they actually changed Turkish words that we translate into those English words, but that's not the point. It appears that the law writers thought they made it good enough for the EU. However, the concept of denigration is open for debate and has caused a lot of problems. So, did the law writers purposely use a vague term so they could harass the media with the law or did they honestly think it was good enough? --Kainaw ^(talk) 11:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The page on Article 301 is descriptive, informative and reasonably detached in tone, and thus far from 'terrible' by any objective reckoning. It is, I would however agree, somewhat lacking in political background and a general explanatory context. I think it is important to avoid the use of politically loaded terms like 'fascism.' As I have already said, there is a high degree of sensitivity in Turkey about aspects of the country's national identity and historical experience, reflected most acutely in issues over the Armenian question. Application for membership of the EU is clearly drawing out some of the deeply rooted conflicts and divisions in Turkish national consciousness; between, if you like, Turkey-in-Asia and Turkey-in-Europe. Look in detail at 301 itself, where you will find no better expression of these contradictions. Can you imagine a true 'fascist' law which, on the one hand, threatened preceived insults against the state and nation while, on the other, specifically exempted expressions of thought intended to criticize? Clio the Muse 09:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article 301 is not incommensurate with laws in liberal western democracies. In Australia, in NSW, the Teachers Code of Conduct (2004) allows the Department of Education to do as it pleases if it disagrees with any public statement by an employee. A teacher can sacked, or even declared invalid with no substantive cause other than to name themselves on a blog.

In the UK, a new law, Civil Contingencies Act 2004, allows crown ministers to modify legislation without reference to parlaiment.

Such laws are resisted by civic rights activists. However, experience suggests that liberal democracies feel these laws are adequate. DDB 12:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

DDB, could you please provide the proper links for the laws you just mentioned? Flamarande 13:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kainaw. Not only writings but many persons uphold their positons as authoritative without an inkling of the past or care to. Barringa 12:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In the US, the Alien and Sedition Acts (specifically "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States") may be the best example of an attempt to stifle criticism of the government. StuRat 07:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

NSW Teachers Code of Conduct 2004, Fundamental Laws of England, last paragraph before list, and last paragraph shows the extraordinary powers of an English Parlaimentary Minister.

I'm afraid my teachers code of conduct link might not work for you, but there is not much discussion on it. It was introduced to make it easier to dismiss non functioning teachers. The government and union being friendly (politically aligned), for the moment DDB 08:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

In what book of histories Herodotusaffirmed that in thew battle of Thermopylae the persians casualties were 20,000 dead? --Vess 10:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vess, you will find the figures for the Persian dead at Thermopylae in Book Eight, section 24 of The Histories, where Herodotus writes: Now, Xerxes, had made some prior arrangement as regards the bodies of the men of his army who had died at Thermopylae. About twenty thousand men had fallen there, but he left about a thousand of the corpses and buried the rest in mass graves, which he covered in earth and leaves to to disguise them from the fleet. Clio the Muse 14:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Any relation...?

Is there any relation between September 11, 2001, the date of the World Trade Center attack and September 11th, 3 BC, the accepted date (according to Ernest Martin's book "The Star That Astonished the World". Copyright 1991 ISBN 0-945657-88-9) of the birth of Jesus Christ? -- Barringa 12:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an 'accepted date' for the birth of Christ, whatever Ernest Martin may say. There are many suggestions, depending on how people work it out. The most reasonable suggestions I've seen only narrow it down to a season or month in a year, not a day. Skittle 12:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This may be true for believers but what about non-believers and not only non-believers but anti-Christians as well? Barringa 13:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about my reply was based on faith either way. Some believers think 4BC, some think other dates. In fact, some types of believer are far more likely to believe a specific date than that the date is unknown. Whatever an 'anti-christian' is, I don't see why they would disagree with the rest of scholarly debate. Skittle 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC) I strongly recommend you look at Chronology of Jesus, specifically Chronology of Jesus#Birth. The closest date to yours they offer is 17th November, and that is based on symbolic religious reasons. Skittle 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The relation between them is simply that they happened, or might have happened, on September 11, as did lots of other things. See September 11 for a list of lots of other things that happened on various September 11ths. However, it sounds as though you may be more interested in reading 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Shantavira 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are both the eleventh day of the ninth month. Of course, they used different calendars back then. t h b 23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind, the choice of 9/11 by Al Quaeda was probably arbitrary, and the relationship to the emergency number a mere convenience. I'm sure they would have been 'happy' with remembrance day, New Years day or any of many others. The reality is, Al Quaeda are not a religious organisation (well, no more than KKK) and Christ's birthday would have little meaning to their leadership.DDB 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the shift from Julian to Gregorian calendars, one of them wasn't September 11th. Also, religious Muslims wouldn't use either dating system. --Dweller 16:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read that all three (9/11/01, 9/11/3 and Ernest Martin's book - already cited in other queries here today!) were predicted by Nostradamus and the Bible Code. Mighty Antar 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A more interesting coincidence is that it is the date that Henry Hudson first landed on Manhattan. JChap2007 04:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Danish attitude to Nelson after the Battle of Copenhagen

The Battle of Copenhagen was 'pell mell' with twice as many Danes killed or wounded as Brits. Yet a great deal of respect was accorded Horatio Nelson after he had committed what in today's terms would be atrocities. Is that because the Danes were sympathetic to Brit religion, and had no time for Russian Orthodox? What were the factors at play? DDB 12:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Atrocity, in the modern understanding, is the killing of unarmed civilians, wounded and/or surrendering soldiers, needless destruction on a massive scale, etc. Reading the article you will notice that none of these happened at the Battle of Copenhagen. It was a relativly clean battle and the casualities were not that high (More or less 2000 dead in a battle at that time? Peanuts). As for the religious aspect, you will realize that, most of the time, religion plays second fiddle for (inter)national interrests and politics. Flamarande 13:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The task before Nelson and Parker was to break the Armed Neutrality of the North before the Russian fleet could be released from port by the thaw of the spring ice; and because of Nelson's initiative the Royal Navy succeeded brilliantly at Copenhagen. It was a legitimate military act, and I find the suggestion of 'atrocity' quite perplexing, unless one happens to view war itself in such terms. Clio the Muse 14:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The question of what is or is not an atrocity aside, I don't think we've answered the question here. The Armed Neutrality may have been neutrality in name only, but it still might be possible to see Britain as the aggressor. Copenhagen was not bombed, but bombing was threatened. There was a threat to burn ships which may or may not have hauled their colors. One point in answer could be that the Danes did not then see Nelson's actions as a ruse de guerre but were of the opinion, as the adjutant sent with a reply to Nelson expressed: "Your Lordship's motives for sending a flag of truce to our Government can never be misconstrued, and your subsequent conduct has sufficiently shown that humanity is always the companion of true valour." Also, were the Danes really enthusiastic about about fighting for the tyrant, or were their sympathies more with Britain?—eric 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not phrasing the question well. Atrocity is the wrong word. I think the replies show that the question is understood. Denmark and Russia, as allies, might not have had low brow support. England and Denmark both being protestant. It might have been thought, by the low brow, that it was good to not have to support Russia. I certainly don't think there was some great clerical conspiracy. I'm puzzled as to why the Danes seemed to bear the situation so equanamonously. DDB 07:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, DDB. I think, Eric is right: you do deserve a fuller answer to your questions. I was slightly thrown off balance by your use of the 'a' word, losing sight, perhaps, of the bigger picture. Anyway, here we go. The most important thing is to understand the strategic situation at the time, with Britain fighting a war without any Continental allies. The Royal Navy was the only effective fighting force it possessed, and British ship-building depended on the continuing supply of wood, pitch and rigging hemp from the Baltic. It also had to prevent war materials reaching the French. The Armed Neutrality of the North, engineered by the eccentric Tsar Paul, in the huff with the British over the occupation of Malta, threatened to cut off the Baltic altogether. Just imagine a situation in 1940 where Spain and Portugal combined to cut off access to the Mediterranean to the British, then you will see the real dangers of 1800. More than that, the combination of Russia, Prussia, Sweden and Denmark-Norway (then combined in one kingdom) threatened the Royal Navy with a force of some fifty ships of the line, at a time when it was already facing the Armed Aggression of the South. And it wasn't just a case of these nations wishing to prevent interference with legitimate trade: Tsar Paul was insisting that he had every right to send military supplies also to France, and had impounded British shipping to exert additional pressure. The task before the British was to prevent any link-up between the 'Neutrality' navies before that Baltic ice finally thawed. This was to be achieved by forcing open the gate, so to speak, by removing Denmark-Norway from this dangerous equation. Parker was sent on a mission of 'armed diplomacy', rather than aggression as such. It was only when this failed did Nelson launch his attack, and under the most difficult of circumstances (some of his ships running aground) and under fire from shore batteries as well as Danish naval forces. Copenhagen was a hard fought contest, and in some respects a close run thing. Although the Danes lost some 2000 killed, Nelson did not get off lightly, losing 1000 or so of his own men. The Danes may have been left aggrieved, but they still put up a good fight, and they appear to have shown some admiration for Nelson and his single-minded courage. But in any event, they were no longer able to resist in the face of a possible full-scale bombardment of their capital. The victory, as I have already said, achieved the objective intended. With reference to the religious dimension you have highlighted, as Flamarande has said, this was of little or no importance in international diplomacy at the time. Britain was later allied with Orthodox Russia, Lutheran Prussia and Catholic Austria against Napoleonic France. Clio the Muse 09:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you Clio. Very much appreciated DDB 11:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Clio the Muse 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

accurate wine map of france

where can i get an accurate map of france , showing the wine producing regions ,http://www.winebow.com/france/france.html is the map on this site accurate?212.72.15.225 15:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The map is accurate, though somewhat difficult to read and interpret. Here is a slightly better one [2]. Clio the Muse 15:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

beneficiary term for the yet to be born children of my beneficaries

When a beneficiary is designated there is a legal term that indicates, in the case of a minor child beneficiary, what that childs' children would be called.

Thank you.

JohnLimburger 15:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The beneficiary's children? t h b 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing is probably "the issue of my son/daughter, the beneficiary." Keep in mind that we do not provide legal advice (see disclaimer). Neutrality^talk 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

gnome

I wish to construct a gnome killing facility or otherwise rid the village I live in of gnomes. I would appreciate any workable methods to drive off gnomes for ever.87.102.44.44 16:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a gnomophobe! 惑乱 分からん 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I imagine a sturdy hammer is sufficient to deal with most examples of garden gnomes. However, destroying other people's gnomes will be considered criminal damage in most jurisdictions, so I strongly advise against this course of action. Gandalf61 16:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not garden gnomes - I wan't rid of gnomic things - you could describe it as a plague. Some sort of gnome repellent would be good.87.102.44.44 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no place like Nome. There's nothing like gnomes. Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore. Clarityfiend 17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gnomic truth coming from a native of the City of Gnomes with gnomoid relatives: Beyond magic, there's no way of getting rid of them. ---Sluzzelin 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we start the Human Gnome Project immediately! Interbreed and destroy the purity of their bloodlines for victory! --Kurt Shaped Box 18:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy! t h b 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Such destruction might be considered ignomious.Edison 04:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And remember: "Gnome-man is an island". StuRat 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• According to the Harry Potter Lexicon: "Every so often, a garden must be "de-gnomed," which involves grasping the gnomes by the ankles, swinging them around a few times to disorient them, then tossing them out of the garden. Gnomes are rather dim, so when they realize a de-gnoming is going on, they all come rushing up out of their holes to see what's going on, making them a lot easier to catch." If they are really as dim as the page states, any killing facility would do, but making your home/garden/village unattractive to gnomes would be far more effective and less cruel/bloody. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gnomes are attracted to certain garden features. By eliminating them, gnomes will gnot be encouraged. Well-gnown gnome attractors include: hanging Aeolian chimes, rustic seats, sundials with mottoes, witches' balls, crazy paving, and Bible-theme or Shakespeare-theme gardens. --Wetman 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Witches ? Wouldn't that be warlocks ? StuRat 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hang on here -- if all the GNOMEs were eliminated, wouldn't we all have to switch to KDE or something? --Anon, January 22, 2007, 21:12 (UTC).

He must live in Redmond, Washington. Is that you Bill? Clarityfiend 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong OS. Try again. --Anon, Jan. 23, 21:27 (UTC).

Oh, so Microsoft doesn't want to stamp out free software? Is black white now too? Clarityfiend 01:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dragonball Z question

Moved to entertainment

Reichstag building

What borough of Berlin is the Reichstag (building) located in? - Patricknoddy 2:35pm, January 21, 2007

The Stadtbezirk (district or borough) is Mitte. The Ortsteil (quarter?) within Mitte is Berlin-Tiergarten. ---Sluzzelin 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghana opinion on Israel/Palestine conflict

What is Ghana's opinion on the Israel/Palestine conflict?

-I choose to remain Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.134.73.15 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Please, anyone?

Just to let you know that you are not being ignored, and I tried to trace sources of information on the subject, with not a great deal of success, I'm sorry to say. The Wikipedia page on the Foreign relations of Ghana is, to say the least, not very helpful, and a google search has turned up little of positive value. There is a paper by Zach Levy, entitled The Rise and Decline of a Special Relationship: Israel and Ghana, 1957-1966 published in the African Studies Review for April 2003, which might provide you with some useful background information, though it says little about contemporary attitudes. Do you have a Ghanaian embassy or high commission near where you live? If so, their press office may be able to assist. Sorry not to have been of greater help. Clio the Muse 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to Ghana's embassy in Israel, which provides a brief history of Ghana-Israeli relations. Here is a speech from 2000 by Ghana's ambassador to the United Nations. About midway through the speech, the ambassador addresses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His language is very diplomatic, but he clearly indicates that Ghana supports a peaceful solution to the conflict. Both this statement and the history presented on the website of Ghana's embassy in Israel suggest that Ghana aims for an evenhanded approach, although the website of the embassy in Israel refers to Israel's "seizure" of Arab lands, a word that implies some criticism. Marco polo 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Don't know about Ghana specfically, but during the late 1950s and early 1960s, Israel provided training, infrastructure work, and low-level development aid to several African countries, in accordance with Ben Gurion's vision of breaking out of Israel's regional isolation by forming contacts with a range of countries beyond the Arab world. After the 6-day war of 1967, the Arabs devoted a great deal of diplomatic effort to persuading sub-Saharan African nations to break off relations with Israel (on the grounds that Israel was "occupying the territory of an African state", Egypt, though none of the territory was actually in Africa); and in the late 1960's and the 1970's the OAU spent an enormous amount of time and energy dealing with political minutiae of the Arab-Israeli conflict (I think that some sub-Saharan African governments ultimately came to see this as a distraction from issues more important to them...). AnonMoos 10:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to see this story on BBC online from the 2006 FIFA World Cup, when a John Paintsil, a Ghanaian player who played club football for Hapoel Tel Aviv scored a goal, and caused controversy by celebrating by waving the Israeli flag. --Dweller 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

British Peerage system

If I'm reading the page on Barons correctly, the noble title of Baron is not hereditary, at least not anymore; rather, the Queen can, through a Letter patent or the writ, make virtually anyone a Baron ... is this right? Wolfgangus 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Wolfgangus. Yes, the meaning and significance of the title has changed in England over time. From the great feudal landlords of the early Norman period, by the fourteenth century barons could be created by letters patent issued by the crown, thus beginning the break between title and landed power. By the eighteenth century this mode of creation had become the dominant way of elevating an individual to the rank of baron. In essence it has become a means of creating civil honours, awarded by the monarch, but acting upon the advice of the prime minister of the day. Clio the Muse 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a very good reason why I have a reference desk crush on you, Clio the Muse; your answers are consistently clear and complete - examples for us all to follow. Thank you for the verification. Wolfgangus 21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, kind Sir! You make me blush. Clio the Muse 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite true that the title of baron is no longer hereditary. No hereditary barons (or any hereditary peers) have been created for a good few years, but those baronies that were created as hereditary titles still exist as hereditary titles (and there are far more of them than any other grade of the peerage), and there's no reason that more hereditary barons could not be created. All life peers have been barons, although there's not strictly any reason why higher life titles could not be given. -- Necrothesp 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing except (a) the Life Peerages Act 1958, which would need to be amended to allow people to be appointed to higher ranks, and (b) modern political realities, which would probably preclude the creation of different classes of life peer. This is on 2 grounds: (i) the trend is away from class divisions and towards egalitaranism (although I admit the continued existence of a partly hereditary chamber in a supposedly egalitarian state is anomalous); and (ii) there is simply no necessity, but more importantly, no point. All peers have only one vote each, regardless of their personal rank. The point of being appointed a peer these days is to give the government an advantage in the upper house, and that advantage comes from numbers alone, not from the rank of any particular individual. JackofOz 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, not strictly true. Crossbench (non-party political) life peers are created (e.g. retiring service chiefs, senior civil servants and diplomats, plus a few others) - it is still sometimes used as an honour instead of a political tool, although Tony Blair has certainly made it ever more political (as with everything else he does). In principle, a peerage is still an honour and not a way to pack the house. -- Necrothesp 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not true to say that the Peerage has become more political. It's actually become substantially less political. No more life peerages are given out in the regular honours lists at New Year and the Queen's Birthday. In the first few years of the government, a large number of new peerages were created, of which Labour nominees made up the majority, but that was in order that Labour could "catch up" to where the Conservatives were in terms of total voting strength in the House of Lords. Since 2001, the 'Working Peers' Honours lists have become much rarer. Meanwhile the Peerages given out in honours lists have been replaced by Peerages given out by the House of Lords Appoinments commission (so-called "People's Peers"): Unlike the previous system, they are awarded only to non-partisan appointees. Sam Blacketer 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have amended my post above to say what I was trying to say. JackofOz 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusingly, historians (particularly those of W. European history) often use the term "barons" (lower case B) to mean the titled classes, many of whom were not Barons. --Dweller 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

LOUISIANA HISTORY

WHO WAS WILLIAM C.C. CLAIBORNE? WHO WAS HENRY SHREVE? WHO WAS HUEY P. LONG? WHO WAS P.B.S. PINCHBACK? WHO WERE THE EXPLORERS IBERVILLE AND BIENVILE? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.83.160.10 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay slow down and don't SHOUT! :) Actually I think that there is an article on each one of your "bio questions". Just search them in the searchbox. And it would be rather difficult for anyone of us to just answer such a difficult and long subject. Arjun 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville was one of the most important people of early French Louisiana, whose untimely death may have saved South Carolina its very existence. Definitely someone worth learning more about. Pfly 09:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Grange Movement

How did the Grange Movement in the early 1900s benifit farmers?

See Grange movement. Marco polo 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Three-striped flags

Why do so many national flags consist of three stripes? --Carnildo 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there are so many more easily-distinguished three-color combinations than two-color combinations. t h b 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

However, many flags consisting of 3 stripes have only 2 colours. JackofOz 23:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

...Maybe ... Lack of creativity? *covers* — Kieff 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of two colors with three stripes makes even more combinations possible than using only three colors. t h b 02:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

True. It's also true that a 5-striped flag (and there are some) allows far more possibilities again. I think the answer is that a 3-striped flag is aesthetically pleasing, and for the general populace is the easiest to remember and reproduce. No intricate coats of arms or maps or stylised writing to bother about. Just simple colours, and rectangular shapes. JackofOz 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed 30% of all national flags are designed this way, according to the article on triband. Apart from THB's disarmingly logical answer(s), it also would be interesting to hear what studies on visual perception have to say on the topic. There seems to be something aesthetically satisfying about things to behold being divided into three parts. The triptych was a popular form of visual art for centuries - its usage also reflected trinity, of course, which is just one example of the magical power of three in belief systems from taoism to ancient greek mythology, from Wiccans to Christians. Surpassing the more banal duality of things, it's the next step of complexity. It allows for grayer paths out of false dichotomies. Three points define an area, not just a stretch. Good and bad things come in threes. Three stripes on a flag can also come to be seen as symbolizing tripartite mottos such as Liberté, egalité, fraternité. ---Sluzzelin 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oo! Oo! Don't forget Rule of three (writing) in your links to "three" articles. ou la mort... Skittle 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Three shall be the number thou shalt use, and the number of the usage shall be three. Four shalt thou not use, neither employ thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three." If it was good enough for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, it's good enough for flags. Clarityfiend 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See Tricolour - a tricolour generally represents a republic. Jooler 13:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How many "tricolor" were designed before and after the French flag was designed? It would be interesting to see because I heard a theory that practically all of them try to imitate the French flag.Evilbu 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

January 22

Time

I wasn't sure if this is a philosophical question or a science one, so I assumed it's more about philosophy of science. The way I see it, nature is a series of cycles, but that would mean that 'time' was created by us for our own reasoning. So is time natural, or was it created by humans? SolidNatrix 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The concept of time is part of the universe - it's the fourth dimension in spacetime. The 'direction' of time comes from entropy - time is merely the direction in which the entropy of the universe increases. Read more at Arrow of time and Entropy (arrow of time).

This, of course, if from my perspective, that of a physicist. If you read the opening paragrpah of Time, you will see that others subscribe to a view similar to yours - that time is simly a mental device for assigning sequence and duration to events. There's plenty to read on this at Time and Philosophy of space and time. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

An idealist might argue that time is a concept that does not exist independently of our minds. However, the idealist also denies that there is any objective reality independent of our minds. It is difficult or impossible to prove or disprove idealism because it proceeds from premises that are difficult or impossible to falsify. However, to the extent that we accept the existence of any objective reality, it seems to me difficult to see time as anything but a dimension of the physical world that exists independently of human thought. For example, there is considerable empirical evidence for the speed at which light travels, and for the distance between our planet and a given known star, which can be measured in light-years, or the time that it takes light to travel from that star. Radiometric dating can provide strong evidence that a given rock has existed for a definite length of time. There are numerous other examples from science. Marco polo 01:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There are philosophical/mathematical aspects to our experience of time. Just as the universe is continuous in length measures, vis, there are an infinite number of points on the straight line interval between any two distinct points. There is an infinite number of time events between any two time events. This is corollary to the solution to Zeno's Paradox.

The concept of time has cultural elements. The number of hours in a day, and when those hours started for the day was not decided in Europe before the renaiscance saw the town clocks usurped by smaller time pieces. Some towns had the day begin at dawn, some at 12pm. However, time has been measured throughout recorded history. Robert Graves had an interesting theory regarding the thirteenth moon and the ancient Greek custom of 'King for a Year.' In the past, time was important for knowledge of seasons. Nowadays, time is rather important for work .. not so different DDB 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In physics, time as a dimension certainly has an objective existence. An event has a co-ordinate in time, just as it has space co-ordinates (or, more precisely, an event has spacetime co-ordinates in a Minkowski space, one of which can be distinguished as a time co-ordinate). As Einstein (or possibly Woody Allen) may have said: Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once. However, the notion that we are moving "through" time from "past" to "future" is an illusion, caused by the fact that we can only remember or record events in one direction along the time axis, which we call the "past". This asymmetry or anisotropy in the time dimension is due a combination of the very special non-equilibrium conditions that existed at the Big Bang, and the second law of thermodynamics. Gandalf61 14:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay Men in Ancient Sparta?

The encyclopedia information on ancient Spart refers only to females being bi-sexual, nothing re. males. My husband says that he learned in high school that the males in ancient Sparta were generally homosexual and that heterosexual sex was mostly just to procreate for the preservation of the society. To whaat degree is this true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyeasley (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Have a look at Sparta, particularly the section on "Education". It is certainly not correct to refer to people in any ancient society as "gay", since this cultural category did not exist until very recent times. While Spartan men did typically engage in what we might call homosexual behavior, it was behavior of a certain sort: relations, very carefully defined, between mature men and adolescent boys. Sexual relations between two mature men met cultural disapproval. At the same time, adult men were expected to marry and to procreate. However, I don't think that there is evidence that they were discouraged from taking pleasure in heterosexual relations. Marco polo 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You should also look at Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece, where Philip II of Macedon-recorded by Plutarch- is quoted as saying that such forms of love are only found among the most warlike races, including the Spartans. It would hardly be surprising in the Spartan case, considering males had to live together for prolonged periods without female company. But, as always, it is best to treat such generalisations with a degree of caution. Xenophon, one of the best sources on ancient Sparta, specifically denies the existence of widspread homosexuality; and Aristotle noted that the power of women in Sparta was typical of militaristic societies without a strong emphasis on male homosexuality. In addition to this, the first recorded heterosexual love poem was written by a Spartan, expressing his admiration for Spartan girls. And what girls they were! Clio the Muse 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well were there homosexual love poems before? (recorded) X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Was Sappho perhaps later? I also heard of some old Middle Eastern stuff. 惑乱 分からん 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not know of any Spartan poetry with a homoerotic theme, though this is not to say that such verses do not exist. But what I do know, if this is any help, is that there was no pottery with such themes, though there is plenty for Athens, Corinth and other Greek cities. Clio the Muse 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In my third year of secondary high school, my history teacher was unusually explicit about that : "Of course there werelots of homosexuals among those Greeks! Why do you think they ran around in (almost) nothing!"Evilbu 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on Ponce De Leon

The Wikipedia section under Ponce De Leon notes that "The popular story that Ponce de León was searching for the Fountain of Youth when he discovered Florida is misconceived. He was seeking a spiritual rebirth with new glory, honor, and personal enrichment, not a biological rebirth through the waters of the Fountain of Youth. The Tainos had told the Spanish of a large, rich island to the north named Bimini, and Ponce de Leon was searching for gold, slaves and lands to claim and govern for Spain, all of which he hoped to find at Bimini and other islands."

Is there supporting evidence for asserting that the popular connection of Ponce and the Fountain of Youth is misconceived?

My son has been asked to write a report for his 5th grade teacher on Ponce De Leon. I sent him to Wikipedia but his teacher has told him that Wikipedia may not be used as a source since it could contain inaccurate information. I encourage him to get an overview from Wikipedia and then other find supporting sources, thinking that on this subject there would be many. I've joined his search and we've found many internet sites either quoting Wikipedia or propagating the Ponce de Leon as a Fountain of Youth seeker (including several encyclopedias) but only one stating Ponce De Leon was not a fountain seeker. Given the preponderance of citations available for Ponce as Fountain seeker, are there some strong sources rebuking this commonly held perception? This is all we found: http://www.floridahistory.org/floridians/conquis.htm

Thank you, Welin grossman 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Welin, if you look at these issues in strict historiographical terms it is important to try to trace a source of any given statement about a particular individual as close to their lives as possible. Is there any contemporary evidence to suggest that Ponce de Leon was in search of a Fountain of Youth? It would seem not. He died in 1521, and the first accounts of his alleged search appear, according to the Wikipedia article, some forty years later in the Memoir of Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas. This in itself, with no further evidence, would be enough to raise suspicions in the mind of any serious historian. If you consider, moreover, that Ponce de Leon financed his own expedition it would seem likely that he was looking for much more earthly returns than some nebulous source of eternal youth and earthly ruin. In your son's position I would be inclined to give an account of De Leon's alleged search, and then follow this up by saying, in true scholarly fashion, that there is no reliable source written during the explorer's lifetime to give this tale credence. That alone should be worth some merit! Clio the Muse 10:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A misconceived rebirth? It is also a particularly rotten mixed metaphor. meltBanana 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I hate mixed metaphors; who let that smoking skeleton out of the closet ? Oh well, I guess I'll burn that bridge when I get to it. StuRat 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

British Honours System ... redux

In the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, I've failed to find any sort of concrete criteria that seperates an individual from being honored with any one of the ranks. While the ranks lose some exclusivity on the way down, is there a published or acknowledged set of criteria? For what it's worth, it's currently 845 AM GMT (245 AM Central) and I'm facing a 2 PM (8 AM) deadline. Thanks for any help. Wolfgangus 08:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out the fourth question down in this FAQ. Have a look around the rest of this site as well, there may be other information of use to you. Cheers. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an outstanding source; concise and ideal for my purpose. Thanks very, very much. Wolfgangus 10:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious unknown 1930s photographer(s): "The 3"

I am looking for information on who "The 3" was or were. Here is what I know: "The 3" were photographer(s), who's work was highly published in Condé Nast's Vogue and House & Garden from 1932-33. They shot mostly still life (i.e. furniture, plants, etc.). Can you tell me anything else about them? Were they men or women? Who were they? Where did they come from? Why did they call themselves "The 3?" Any biographical and career information or source suggestions would be extremely appreciated!

An example of their work: [[3]]

--69.2.124.11 16:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Going into journalism.

I thought this might be a good place to ask about this. What is the best route to go into journalism? What sort of degree would be beneficial? (I'm from Scotland if that affects anything - I'm not planning on leaving the country to go to university) I'm considering doing a joint degree of English and French, but is there anything better I should know about? If you're a journalist any ideas would be much appreciated! --Bearbear 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Having worked for several Dutch newspapers, my impression is that most journalists here focused in their studies on things that are not really closely related to journalism (e.g. History, Literature), so English and French seem decent choices. But you could also think about going to a school for journalism, for example Napier University in Edinburgh. Anyway, the best preparation would certainly be to start doing what you want to do right away, by writing a lot, for example for a student paper. Skarioffszky 18:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There are also degrees in journalism: [4]. Tell it like it is. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a degree is necessarily a prerequisite for a career in journalism. As Skarioffsky says above, it might be advantageous in that you can get experience in writing for a student paper. On the other hand, you might find yourself to be three years behind the other guy. I'm not trying to dissuade you from going to university, far from it - best years of my life blah blah. But you can enjoy your favourite subject for its own sake without worrying too much about whether it will equip you for a career in journalism. The other advice is that you should try and get some work experience with a local paper or radio station. It'll probably be unpaid, but you'll be getting experience and a foot in the door. Good luck. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Coptic bookbinding??

Did ancient Copts invent this ancient (4th century?) technology for bookbinding? Were these people living in Ethiopia? Or Egypt? Or who were the inventors of this bookbinding exactly? African Christians? What's the best way to describe the inventors of this bookbinding method?--Sonjaaa 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This method was invented by the Copts. Marco polo 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some information about the switch from the scroll to the codex in the article codex. Wareh 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Iran Invasion

Do you think Bush will invade Iran, And if so do you also think he will use the pretext that Iran is supplying weapons to elements Of the Shia insurgency(Sadr's militia whom we indirectly support by supporting maliki)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smedley2 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

No way no how. You simply don't mess with Iran. Vranak

It is possible that Bush will bomb Iran - because of their alleged nuclear weapons program - but I think it is extremely unlikely that there will be an invasion. There are not even enough US troops in the Middle East to secure Baghdad, so occupying another country would be very unwise. As-Sadr, by the way, is not the Iraqi Shia leader with the strongest ties to Tehran; that would be Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Skarioffszky 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that Iran is far enough along in their nuclear weapons program that the US government couldn't risk bombing them. Consider how wrong US intelligence was on Iraq's nonexistant weapons cache. Iran's leader warned the US about this some years ago, and it didn't come off bluster, it sounded deadly serious.Vranak

I disagree, they only restarted their efforts recently, they couldn't have a nuclear bomb yet. StuRat 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no references to support this, but I heard a radio report the other night in which the correspondent was reading from an oil industry projection which contended that oil analysts expect an Israeli attack on Iran by the end of February. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is possibly more likely than any type of U.S. action against Iran because there is the precedent of the Israeli bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. There is also some indication that current U.S. efforts against Iran are producing results. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bush would have to be a total idiot, completely out of touch with reality, to do it. The army is stretched to the limit already. Oh, wait... Clarityfiend 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is straying from the confines of the Reference Desk a bit, but... does anyone else get the feeling that the world isn't taking the Iranian threat seriously enough? I mean, even if you don't care about Israel or the Middle East, imagine the chaos if Iran sent a nuclear warhead at Tel-Aviv or somewhere. Israel would respond in kind and all hell would break loose. Even if Iran refrains from using any nuclear weapons it develops, its weapons would encourage countries like Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia to develop their own nuclear weapons. I don't blame people for not trusting Bush considering his track record; perhaps the worst thing about his presidency is how he's damaged the country's credibility just when it needs international consensus on Iran and North Korea. I wonder about the people who are demanding a stop to the war on Iran before it even begins -- do they not believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons, or do they just not care? -- Mwalcoff 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well said, Mwalcoff. Whatever one's personal opinion on the guy, GWB has squandered every ounce of credibility. Personally I feel it's undeserved, and Bush is being scapegoated for a mission gone wrong. After all, both Houses of Congress approved the war in Iraq. Now they're backtracking and blaming it all on George. Anyway, I'd best get away from that issue as despite how firm my position is, it's obviously unwinnable at this point.

Much more importantly, this is how it's gonna go down in Iran: After days and weeks and months of useless diplomacy, Israel will finally realize that such diplomacy is going nowhere, and the IAF will simply take the matter into its own hands. Some time soon we'll wake up one morning and read a headline in our local Newspaper: "Israeli Air Force Executes Surgical Raid Eliminating Iranian Nuclear Capabilities: UN Outraged". Oh well. Bring on the outrage. Loomis 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The "UN" isn't a world goverment, it is a speaking platform of every country. Of course many countries will publicly protest and pretend to be outraged. Privatly they (and more Muslims that we would ever know) will cheer and breath with relief; alas that's politics. Flamarande 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside the anti Bush rhetoric, I think the Iran issue needs to be examined. It isn't the Iranian peoples that are a headache for world peace, but Iranian administration. Politics is everything, and no Iranian administration is going to back down on a face off with what they have for decades described as 'the evil West.' If Iranian leaders do that, they will be committing political suicide. They have qualified support of oil addicts, like Russia and China.

However, it is clear, also, that Iran is behind much of what is troubling Iraq (and Israel). The problems in Iraq do not suit the US administration, although the US opposition seem to be making hay. Israel is facing more than Iranian rhetoric. What is new to the equation is the new Secretary General of the UN. DDB 02:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is allready in the pocket of the USA. Beside that he is hasn't any real power to speak off. Flamarande 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, I am only speaking for myself and I going to really honest here. Yes, I believe that Iran is building Nuclear weapons and yes, that notion scares me a lot as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be as intelligent as George W. Bush (ohh major insult here). But Iran is simply too big to be invaded quickly and the current number of available US troops is simply too low to invade Iran as Iraq seems to show. Nato is divided and many European nations are not keen at all to join the USA in another foolhardy invasion. You can thank the American dream admistration and its elected (and retarded) politicians, with all their screaming of "Freedom fries", "Old Europe", "New Europe", etc: they managed to pis* of two of their strongest allies (France and Germany). And for what? For all the "mighty forces of New Europe" who are leaving them (or already left) them in Iraq? And this is even forgeting the certainty that anyone with a grudge towards the West (how many in that particular region? Eeks) would certainly join the Iranians (and I am not speaking of national armies, I am speaking of simple individuals joining in droves). Read also a little about the Iran-Iraq War to see how Iranians fight. They fight like Lions (or desperate madmen). So a pointless invasion (which could easily escalate) is out, agreed?

That leaves only an air-raid; by Israel or the USA. Let's begin with the obvious: both just might pull it off if the Iranians are focusing their efforts upon a single or upon a very small number of facilities. Their planes would have to re-supplied along the way, but either the Israelis or the Americans would do it (if Israel did it the US would strongly deny being involved but you can bet anything you want that they would help in every concivable way they could). But for what? I mean (unless they are completly stupid and I don't think they are) the Iranians are more than capable enough to have more than one facility involved in the Nuclear endavour. I mean everybody with half a brain learned that it is a very stupid thing to have all the eggs in one basket after Operation Opera. A big single vital facility = major target, ergo: many smaller facilities (better to hide, protect, and most importantly: to keep their locations secret). If you are really cautious you have more than one facility making the same product. Even if you destroy some Iranian facilities (and that's assuming the vital ones aren't located in really secure locations like subterrean facilities or whatever), other facilities will simply continue the work. I also think that all the vital info was copied and guarded by the Iranian goverment in more than one secure location (at least that is what I would do). Iran would be delayed for a couple of years (if that at all) but would probably just continue. You would gain absoutly nothing but anger the Iranians further (I can see their propaganda using the collateral victims of raid allready). Therefore I (and I think many countries) am simply against any air-raid.

The only cautious alternatives the US has these days is to wait and see, (re)gain new (old) allies, preferably with a competent, fresh, and untarnished administration (because the current one has no credibility whatsover these days), and to impose the best possible sanctions upon Iran. If at all possible, sabotage the nuclear facilities blaming everything upon the Iranian goverment/scientists/tecnicans incompetence. As soon as Iran proudly proclaims that it has a Nuclear weapon, make a public statement: Any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran will be considered a attack upon the USA and will sufer the full retaliation of the Nuclear arsenal of the USA FULLSTOP. Simply turn Iran into another North Korea. They have guns, an enormous army, and they are afraid/hate the USA. Their economy is in shambles and they are starving. YES, I know that Iran has lots of oil and that ensures that someone will buy it. But don't forget that Iraq also had oil, and was in shambles after 10 years of sanctions. These facts also disencourage many countries to develop Nuclear Weapons. Learn something from History for a change: MAD worked, works, and will work in the foreseable future. Make two new Cold Wars with Iran and North Korea and hope for the best. The chances are high that they also don't want die in a full-scale Nuclear War and that eventually a moderate leader reaches power (like Gorbachev) or that the ppl revolt, like the GDR. Either way (and yes, even with an eventual civil war) beats the probable results of a major war with Iran or North Korea. If Iran or North Korea use the N-bombs they will be obliterated from the face of the earth by the imediate retaliation. Flamarande 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bush will not invade Iran but Israel will bomb the !#!$^W*(&^ out of parts of it. t h b 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a good-looking guy. Good-looking guys are not crazy. Only a crazy person would allow their well-developed country, with a great deal to lose, to enter into a war with the Western powers. Ergo, Iran will not be involved in any wars. Vranak

'Loomis' has you on the right track. May I also suggest you entertain the idea that if it all goes to hell in Iraq, that the Shia in that unfortunate country, with the backing of Iran, will prevail over the Sunni. Which brings us back to Loomis's Israeli factor. °Bumblefart 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone mentioning the standard path: Complain to the UN that Iran is doing something wrong. Get sanctions against Iran. Iran threatens to starve innocent women and children if the sanctions aren't lifted. An oil-for-food program is created. A bunch of people take huge kick-backs in the program and get even richer than they already are. Iran continues doing whatever they want to do. The US continues to complain to the UN that nothing is getting done. Then, when it is politically viable, the US attacks. That will take us at least until the 2012 elections. --Kainaw ^(talk) 07:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Iran threatens to starve innocent women and children – you know, Iran is made up of people, just like the United States. Regarding your perceived adversaries as monsters is not really very fair or helpful. Vranak

He's talking about what Saddam did under the oil-for-food program. He made sure that children and the poor didn't get medicine and food, so they would suffer and die, even though he had plenty of resources to care for them. This allowed him to claim the deaths and suffering were all a result of UN sanctions and US oppression. This is one of the real reasons for the second Iraq war (as opposed to the fake reasons used by the Bush administration). StuRat 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely that Iran will be deterred any time soon from developing a nuclear arsenal. They just saw Iraq plunged into the seventh ring of hell by the US army. A nuclear arsenal is the only weapon capable of stopping a Western invasion, the Cold War is proof. The choice is logical to build an arsenal. I think any power hungry politician would do the same to keep his position from being obliterated. As Flamarande said the US/Israel could stop them for one or ten years but not forever. I also think that even if Iran acquires nuclear capabilities it can't use them because of MAD, for every one they acquire the US already has 50 which can be put to use if need be. SvenGodo 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If the program is only pushed back a few years, that's better than nothing. In a few years Iran may have a government that decides to cooperate with the UN and/or the US may have enough troops free to do a more thorough job in Iran. Perhaps an invasion of Iran could then take place, but without the occupation afterwards. The US could go in, destroy all the nuclear facilities, take all the nuclear scientists and enemy politicians as POWs, then withdraw, leaving Iran to decide it's own fate. StuRat 11:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But I am in favour (believe it or not) of an air-raid but only if all vital facilities are completly destroyed forcing the Iranian goverment to restart from scratch. But to attack redundant facilities to simply delay for a few years is simply foolish. In a few years Iran may have a government that decides to cooperate with the UN and/or the US may have enough troops free to do a more thorough job in Iran. OR an outraged Iranian ppl (manipulated by the press always showing the collateral victims) may vote and support a (more?) radical goverment. OR the USA may be led by a (more?) incompetent President who is unable to withrdraw enough troops to do any invasion if Iran (big country). OR the US may take a hell of a beating and suffer a defeat. OR... Flamarande 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the US forces are likely to be increased by 92,000 (this is one of the few proposals in Bush's State of the Union address which is likely to actually pass), and the troops in Iraq are going to be reduced by the end of this year, after a brief "surge", no matter what Bush wants, as any Congressman voting otherwise would be unlikely to be re-elected in 2008. Don't make the mistake of thinking Iran is a democracy, the real power is with the religious authorities. What the public thinks doesn't matter there. I have a hard time imagining a President any more incompetent than the current Bush. So, chances are that the US will be in a better position to deal with Iran in a few years. StuRat 22:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, better yet, we might not be using oil by then. Iran will have almost no income. They won't be able to afford to be a real threat to anyone. When will people learn that we need to start driving bigger and bigger cars to burn through all the oil as fast as we possibly can! --Kainaw ^(talk) 11:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As much of a threat the Soviets were, they weren't insane. They feared death just like the rest of us. Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD, guarantees death and devastation on both sides. The Soviets had no interest in suicide. On the other hand, there's no shortage of Shahids. Martyrdom among Islamists is unfortunately far from a rarity. We see it pretty much on a daily basis. "Nuke the Zionists and who cares if they Nuke us back? We'll all go to heaven and they'll go to hell". Now that's scary. Crazy as it may seem, for Islamists, even MAD is useless as a deterrent.

Are you telling me that a whole ppl, like the Iranian ppl, isn't afraid to die in a Nuclear holocaust? Even Islamist leaders don't seem to very keen to die, being rather content to send young fanatics to die in their place. If you threaten an entire nation with a Nuclear retaliation the goverment of that country will pause and look around. Flamarande 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

One would hope so, Flamarande. Of course you're assuming that the Iran is some sort of democracy and the Iranian people have some sort of rein on their insane leadership. Indeed, Iran's youth, a rather liberal and educated bunch, are strongly opposed to its theocratic leadership. Another option I failed to mention is a popular revolution in Iran toppling their insane leadership and replacing it with a moderate, pacifist regime truly representative of the majority of the Iranian people. Unfortuntately, time is of the essence, and if such a revolution does not emerge some time in the IMMEDIATE future, the only other option will be a military strike. But you're right on one aspect. Even if nuclear war were to break out, Iran's cowadly Islamist leaders would likely find some means of escaping any nuclear holocaust they would bring upon their people, such as, perhaps, an extremely deep and far more sophisticatedly protected version of the "spider hole" Saddam was ultimately found hiding in. In fact, the parallel is quite eerie when you think about it. Despite the death of his two sons, a fact that would emotionally destroy any caring father, Saddam was still looking out for himself and himself alone. I wouldn't expect anything different from Iran's selfish and cowardly leadership. Loomis 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What must be done is that Iran must be disarmed immediately, and believe me, put the Mossad and the IAF together and it's doable, very doable. As for the UN, I never said the UN was a world government of any sort (thank God!).

So sure you are. Well perhaps they are waiting for the last possible moment to bomb (or to sabotage) the facilities, like they did in Osirak (and trying to ensure the USA helps them - which would preferably be after a American withdrawl in Iraq). That would be cunning and tricky (I like this "devious" plot a lot :), but I fear only the very top commanders of the IAF, some members of the Israeli Gov, and even fewer (perhaps none) members of USA gov know the truth in this matter. Flamarande 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as in 1981, when Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear capabilities at Osirak, and just as the United Nations Security Council unanimously expressed its outrage over it in its Resolution 487: "strongly condem[ing] the attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norm of international conduct", by such champions of international law as the USSR, China, East Germany, Niger, Panama, The Phillipines, Uganda, Tunisia, as well as Spain, France, the UK and yes, even the United States, to be honest, I couldn't give a rat's ass if today's Security Council, consisting of such beacons of goodness, human rights and democracy as China, Russia, The Republic of Congo, Ghana, Indonesia and Qatar, amongst others, and even, as in 1981, without a US veto were to expess similar outrage. What in God's name do I care about the "outrage" of, for example, the President-for-life Denis Sassou-Nguesso of The Republic of Congo, or the most recent Chairman of the People's Dictatorship of China? And that's the UNSC! I won't even mention the farce that is the General Assembly! All I meant to say is that Israel/the US has my full support, despite the hypocricy of the UN and the world community's inevitable "outrage" over whatever ridiculous "violation of international law" required to accomplish that most vital of missions. Loomis 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Its "outrage" was for the press and certain muslim countries, and the commemorating party was simply behind closed doors. BUT you really should be concerned with the Chairman of the People's Republic of China (all regimes who aren't Monarchies are Republics) because that guy is the leader of one of the most powerful nations on Earth. China could be a hell of an ally, or a most dreaded foe (China seems content to buy lots of oil though, just as anybody else). The UNSC is the gathering of the powerful and not of the (many times, self-) rightous. The General Assembly is the gathering of all nations of the planet (with a few exceptions), so that all nations can speak and defend their POV. Most of the nations of this planet aren't liberal democracies. Thats politics and diplomacy: you talk and trie to manipulate the powerful so that they help you when you need it. You seem to be seeing this in a white-black, good-evil perspective; please open your eyes: the vast majority of human endavours is grey. Every nation breaks international law when it suits its national interrest. Israel has WOMD's, are you perhaps in favour of invading it, or bombing the Negev Nuclear Research Center? I think not (and I'm not also). There is no "international cop" who will arrest the law-breaking leaders of a country (NO, USA is not an international cop, just a big bully who likes to use that excuse when it suits it and ignores the same rules when it wants). Flamarande 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, much of your argument is based on a rather disappointing misconception: "all regimes who aren't Monarchies are Republics". WRONG. A Republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress the importance of the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic. Don't be fooled by titles. Just as "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (North Korea) is neither a democracy nor a republic, neither is the The People's Republic of China any sort of true republic. Nor is it a monarchy for that matter. It's a dictatorship, pure and simple.

You accused me of looking at certain things in a "white-black", "good-evil" perspective. I plead guilty as charged. Dictatorships are evil. As such, they have no legitimate say in the affairs of those countries who at the very least strive, in the utmost of good faith, albeit not always successfuly, to be true democracies. Loomis 08:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To be true that honest mistake isn't the basis of my arguments at all. You are focussing upon the (relativly minor) mistake avoiding all the arguments. If you truly are "guilty as charged" you are unable to understand the many nuances of ancient and modern politics. "Right-Wrong", "Good-Evil", Human politics and history are much more nuanced and fascinating than that. Everything has a good side and everything has a bad side, its all a matter of perspective and most importantly POV. "You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view" (where truer words ever spoken? :). Flamarande 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't all cops ignore the rules whenever it suits them ? StuRat 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I truly hope not, and even if that were true it wouldn't make it right; and a bully isn't a cop. Flamarande 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad that there are 7½ declared nuclear powers (US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel -- I'm not counting North Korea). However, we can take heart that none of those countries is likely to use the weapons in a first strike and none of them wants to wipe out other countries. Even Mainland China doesn't want to kill people on Taiwan. The threat from Iran (and North Korea) is that of a regime willing to launch a potentially self-destructive total war. The world can't risk states like those getting nuclear weapons. -- Mwalcoff 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to what Loomis had prviously stated if I saw the world in black/ white good/ evil terms I wouldn't be proud of it with that kind of attitude you might as well throwin with the jihadis and fundamentalists Christian and Muslim. Regimes may be wrong headed ,evil,greedy etc.but should their populations have to bear the cost of a regimes incompetence.There are plenty in the middle east who see the west as the embodiment of evil and as long as thats going on we had better start de-escalating these conflicts rather than inflaming them Smedley2

Had you read my post carefully enough, you'd have noticed that my position is that certain things can be categorized as good or evil, not everything. If your favourite colour is mauve, there's nothing good or evil about it; it's simply a matter of taste. Similarly, if you're a Democrat, or a Republican, a Tory or a Labour supporter, there's nothing "good or evil" about any of these positions. However with regard to certain issues, at least from my perspective, the "good vs. evil" dichotomy does apply. There's no middle ground. Dictatorships are evil. Period. Terrorism is evil. Period. Hitler was an evil man. Period. The president of Iran is an evil man. Period. Notice I've said little aout the actual people of the middle east. In fact I have a great deal of admiration for the people of Iran. If only they would rid themselves of their evil leadership, my hope is that they ca re-establish themselves as the great nation they deserve to be regarded as. Loomis 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

torture Of St Vincent

what is the "gridiron"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.134.123.4 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

See Gridiron. Large versions were used in the martyrdom of saints, St. Laurence amongst others. Clio the Muse 20:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cook a side of beef one day, a Saint the next day. Gridiron also refers to the markings on the field where American football is played. Edison 16:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And, therefore, has come to be a sobriquet for the sport itself. --Dweller 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bradley Pharmaceuticals

Why is the religion of the owner included? 71.106.207.23 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. That irrelevancy has been removed. For the record, I have also PRODded the article, since there are no sources, no claims of notability, and it hasn't had any edits in weeks. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tax deductible charities

I need to know if the National Arbor Day Foundation is a tax deductible charity? 4.154.6.251 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it might have been faster to call their donation line and ask! I downloaded [5] their 04-05 annual report and went to the financial statements where the auditors have said that the foundation is incorporated under the Nebraska Nonprofit Corporation act, is exempt from Federal Income Tax under s501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and qualifies for the charitable contribution deduction under s170(b)(1)(A). This would have gone a lot faster if they hadn't been paranoid and disabled copying and pasting from the PDF of their report!!--inks^T 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick question for the philosophers here

Why do we? --84.71.105.35 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick answer - Why not?--inks^T 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So that one day a boy may be born who can communicate with the seagulls on their level? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we? (Obvious response: Why, we do! ;)) 惑乱 分からん 23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take a doctorate in philosophy to tell you that isn't a complete question. Why do we do what? Live? If we didn't live, there'd be no one to ask why we live. Vranak

and, of course, some of us don't. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, because we do with the flow, viewing the indubitable doability of it all... We do and we doo-doo, we dada and we do doodad til the day we've did it done... 惑乱 分からん 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the bladder tells you to. Keria 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I can hear the anguish and regret behind the question. I thought about this, discussed it with my family, and my boss. Then, I watched tv for cultural references. I think that most of it is accidental, and that people don't intend to, but they just do. Then there are unpopular people who seem to all the time, and nobody really worries, so long as it is legal. I don't think it appropriate with the young, pets or rubber bands South of the Mason Dixon line.I was very impressed when the space walker did it and I hope that helps with the research.

More seriously, I feel the question akin to initiative. The joke about why does 'man' initiate when other creatures, some with surface similarities, do not build cities and tell stories. Within the brain of every living person is a type of neuron that reflects observation. So if you see someone smile, you feel an urge to do the same. That alone does not define or distinguish humanity, and other creatures possess similar attributes, but it is one of the distinguishing marks that allows humanity to 'do'. DDB 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Teachers don't. Only those who can, do. --Dweller 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• 42hotclaws**== 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a troll to me... | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How about feeding trolls food for thought? =S 惑乱 分からん 23:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Assassination of the Pope

I was reading somewhere about Christian radicals when this question popped up in my head. What would happen if a country, that was predominantly non-Christian, successfully commissioned an assassination of the Pope (a Patriarch would do also) for religious reasons (rather then political). Other then condemning the attack, would the world and the Christian community (of the deceased leader) respond in any other way to the offending nation? --The Dark Side 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, how can an entire country be held responsible for murdering someone? A murder is the work of one person or a relatively small group of people. How would the world know such a group was behind the killing? Would the killers be proclaiming their complicity in the streets? If evidence was uncovered that certain individuals were responsible, diplomatic action might be taken to have them extradited for indictment and trial. If their country's government refused to allow such an extradition, and their fellow citizens were generally seen to be supportive of the government's position, then the Christian world might be justified in condemning the entire country. JackofOz 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The question doesn't seem to make much sense in terms of world realities, but the questioner may be trying to vaguely retrieve a hazy memory of Papal interdict... AnonMoos 17:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone stands to benefit from the Pope's death. Vranak 05:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an assumption here that nations act to a purpose. Not even democracies work on collective will. If collective will ran nations, Miss Universe would be President of China and the middle east would be a smoking ruin. I accept Hu Jin Tao is attractive, but not President.

There is a mistake, often made, to believe that the expressions of leaders is descriptive of constituents. In the case of Al Quaeda, there is an appearance of uniformity of purpose. However, such groupings are quite small, and yet purpose is verifiably not uniform. So that Osama Bin Ladin claims to want to destroy the western world, but David Hicks just wants to live a simple life. In large groupings, like the US, there is formalised dichotomy of political expression, and options for not following either. So no nation would ever will to 'kill the Pope.' Similarly, the Christian world does not rest on the fate of the Pope.

Insane groupings, like Al Quaeda, have a sexy media image. However, they aren't uniform of purpose. Are not closely aligned with anyone and do not possess constructive ability required for a cohesive society. DDB 11:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Osama wants to destroy the Western world? Come on. He held up Sweden as an example of a country he didn't mind, in late 2004. I don't think he's that extreme. And Al Qaeda may not make much sense to us Westerners, but if it were outright insane it wouldn't have so many members. Vranak

You're asking us to speculate on something, which isn't really what the Ref Desk is for. However, I suppose you could assume the response would be unlikely to go as far as a declaration of war. i would guess that if a country was clearly the sponsor of the attack on the Pope, there would be an international outcry from all responsible governments, and most of the irresponsible ones too. I'd expect embargoes and boycotts, leaving the responsible government a pariah. Depending on how strong the regime is, the actions would achieve little or much.

Moving on to more comfortable ground for this board and citing historical precedents, it also depends on how clever a political game the regime can play. The Libyans did very well to reduce the heat from the Yvonne Fletcher and Pan_Am_Flight_103 outrages. But it took them a while.

Now, contrast that with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, an act that could hardly be described as sponsored by a state and it reveals that the true answer might be that such incidents could be regarded merely as catalysts or excuses. --Dweller 16:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dweller, might I suggest that you look a little more deeply into the events leading up to the murder of Franz Ferdinand, with particular reference to the role of the security agencies within the Serb state, and their links to the Black Hand organization. Did you know, for example, that the leader of the group, Dragutin Dimitrijevic, was also chief of the Intelligence Department of the Serbian General Staff, and that it was under his auspices that Princip and his colleagues were trained and instructed? The aims of the Black Hand were also supported by Nikola Pasic, Serbian Prime Minister of the day. Although he was not himself party to the murder conspiracy, he subsequently refused to hand over Dimitrijevic and other senior officers because, in his own words, this "would be a violation of Serbia's constitution and criminal in law." Clio the Muse 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider as examples the assassinations of Mahatma Ghandi in 1948 by Hindu religious extremists. The article does not report rioting after the murder of that apostle of non-violence. By contrast, after the apostle of nonviolence Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr was assassinated by a political extremist in 1968, there was widespread rioting, loss of life and property damage in black communities all over the U.S. If the followers of a hypothetical assassinated Pope followed the teachings of Jesus to turn the other cheek, they would publicly forgive the sponsors of the killing, as Pope John Paul II forgave the Turk who shot him in an unsuccessful assassination attempt. On the other hand, the response might be like that to the killing of Dr. King (rioting by the masses) or the response to the assassination of Indira Ghandi which the article 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots says were organized by the ruling Congress party and its activists and sympathizers, in which thousands of Sikhs were killed. Edison 17:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nike wearing anarchist

If someone could help me find a picture of the anarchist attacking the Seattle Nike World at the 1999 WTO protests I would appreciate it greatly. I've searched forever and can't seem to find it.Iconoclast

Art perception

Why is it that a weathered barn, with peeling paint, with an abandoned antique tractor in front, with the wheels off, is considered to be a magnificently rustic scene, suitable for painting or photographing, while the same thing, in an urban setting (an abandoned house with an old car out front, with the wheels off) is viewed as a horrible scene of urban blight and devastation ? StuRat 05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? No seriously, I know what you mean. I think it's partly because an unkempt farm may appear well-used, while an unkempt home may appear disused or abused. No citations forthcoming. ;-) Anchoress 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Picturesque" is a category of responses to landscape and art that wasn't discussed until the late 18th century, but already in the 17th century, Dutch artists like Hobbema and Rembrandt were drawing and painting peasant hovels for their pictorial qualities. --Wetman 05:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Its all about the relation of the objects to the landscape and what it implies. The first induces nostaglia or melancholy, the second suggests failure. Cars and tractors represent very different things.≈Bumblefart 07:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Who says that the urban scene is not suitable for painting or photography? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.163.151.30 (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

That's the point of the first sentence of my reply. Anchoress 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I know. I wanted to ask as well.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.163.151.30 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC). I think it is all to do with perception. Tractors and barns are old tech. Old tech is appropriate in old settings, but not in modern settings. DDB 11:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think space and density have something to do with it - the 'run down farm' will be surrounded by miles of unspoilt countryside no doubt - whereas the urban scene will be surrounded by miles of exactly the same thing.(It's aquestion of how the images feel - one suggests noble decay, the other no hope place perhaps?). However if you've every seen a real run down farm - mangy animals, rotting feed bags, feral children etc you might change your opinion as to the 'rustic beauty of rural decay'. Also note that industrial decay is an often photographed thing and has a similar feel to your 'rusty tractor' image.87.102.6.197 14:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (in other words for exactly the reasons you mention)87.102.6.197 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/02_2.html meltBanana 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, an abandoned car with the door off looks "picturesque" when placed in a rural environment, with a herd of sheep. I suppose an abandoned tractor in an urban setting would also look bad. The setting apparently is what makes the diff, moreso than the objects themselves. Perhaps it is the density of junk that matters, one or two pieces of junk in an otherwise pristine field provide a nice contrast, while a junk yard is just plain ugly. StuRat 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have always seen the tires still on the tractor. The oldest tractors had metal tires, so maybe that's what you saw. The poor farmeer may still be using the deteriorating barn and rusty tractor, since many owners of small farms work have a job elsewhere and farm in their spare time, or as a hobby, or tio help feed their families, so they cannot afford new barns and tractors. Remember that the barn is a relic of cows and horses. Old horse-drawn farm equipment is even more rusty and picturesque. Edison 17:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the wheel is the metal part and the tire is mostly rubber. So, those old tractors had wheels with no tires. StuRat 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Old Book

I'm trying to remember a book my mom read to us when we were kids. More specifically, I'm trying to remember a particular scene. It involved what I believe was a field of poppies, and mirages of buildings in the distance that were so full of gold, they were upside down. Ring any bells? Black Carrot 05:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no idea, although a few more details might help, like what year roughly would your mom have been reading this to you? Was it an illustrated book? Any more bits of the storyline? If you don't find the answer here, then I would try a post on Abebooks community in the Booksleuth section. It's free and has certainly helped me track down the titles of a couple of books that I'd all but forgotten. Mighty Antar 00:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is your visual memory actually from The Wizard of Oz?--Wetman 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Adams-Last Chance To See

I would like to know how many hardback editions of the book 'Last Chance To See' by British Author Douglas Adams, were published by the London publishers. Who I believe to be Pan Publishing. I would sincerely appreciate your response.≠Catherine Blair 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your best bet is to contact the various publishers direct. According to Amazon, a hardback edition has been published in the UK by William Heinemann and by Harmony Books. There are probably other publishers with the overseas rights. (I am not aware of Pan having published any hardback book in the UK.)--Shantavira 13:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

deleting pages

I created a page about my football team Frog Lane Rangers, others have seen this and edited it and it is now offensive, everytime i edit it they change it again, how do i delete this page to stop them doing it again? thanks tom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grimmy16 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

It is already up for deletion. You should go to the page and comment on your opinion that it should be deleted. --Kainaw ^(talk) 08:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jean Lafette's flag

What flag would the pirate Jean Lafette flown on his ship(s)? I think the old Skull & Crossbones is more of a contrived notion. That's to say. maybe a few pirates used it but I doubt is was a requirement.4.90.49.110 08:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Jean Lafitte? I believe Jean Lafette is an actress. --Kainaw ^(talk) 09:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Caption=Only the blue field and stars would have been in the US Navy Jack during the War of 1812

Since he was a privateer (legal pirate), working for the US during the War of 1812, he may very well have flown the US flag. Specifically, I believe it was the custom to fly the naval jack, which is the blue field and stars only (no stripes). The full flag of that era is shown at the right, imagine that without the stripes. See United States flag. StuRat 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Interest"ing question - give me some credit

Since Muslims aren't allowed to earn interest on their money charge or pay interest, do they have credit cards? If so, how does that work? Do the companies just charge the merchants more to compensate for the "lost" income? Clarityfiend 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you know a credit card that pays interest, rather than taking it away, please send me an email with a link, as I wouldn't object to having more money. --Dweller 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have this nice card just for you. There's just this little one-time setup fee... Clarityfiend 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You may find the answer in our long and detailed articles Islamic banking and Islamic economics. Gandalf61 17:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they use cards issued by people of some other religion which allows its members to charge interest to money loaned to nonmembers of that religion. Edison 17:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. in the 19th century there were obviously no credit cards. I have papers of my great great grandfather, showing that he would purchase something (goods, a horse, a piece of land) and give the seller a promissary note, either on a little printed form from a book or written out on the spot, stating that on a certain date, or on demand, he would pay the seller a specified price. I expect that the time value of the money was built into the sale (in 180 days I will pay X which includes say 6% interest over the value of the goods on the date of purchase). Thus he could buy and sell all sorts of things without carrying a huge purse of gold and getting robbed. They sem to have used these little notes rather than checks. They could settle up later at his house or the sellers house or the bank. The note could also be sold to someone else. perhaps at a discount if they thought it would be hard to collect the payment. Other contracts did specify interest paid annually on large investments. But either method would basically work in an Islamic country: promise to pay in a month, and build in a month's interest implicitly without ever referring to it as such. When the payment was made, the note was returned to the purchaser with a paid endorsement and the purchasor's signature was defaced. Edison 17:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find anything in either article dealing specifically with credit cards. As for using cards from non-Muslim issuers, I don't think that's allowed either. Maybe they don't have them. That would be one more proof of the West's superiority over the Muslim world: the ability to go deeply in debt easily and conveniently. Clarityfiend 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

unexplained human body markings

how could a person have only on the left side of there body 1 finger that has what appears to look like a face 2 on lower left arm a letter under the skin that changes at times and3 a perfect hole on the left front lobe of skull that didn'y exsit before —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.146.91.114 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

We have no idea. Tell us who and where and what you are talking about. --Seejyb 21:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not give medical advice. Your doctor or a dermatologist might be able to shed light on these phenomena. Edison 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See pareidolia X [Mac Davis] (How's my driving?) 00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Or Stigmata. Edison 05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, less seriously, my wife has me under her thumb, and our children underfoot.

On a more serious note, you'll need to clarify your question DDB 09:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

January 24

Why did Attila need a pretext to invade Italy?

The marriage proposal sent by Honoria to Attila is often cited in the books as the pretext Attila needed to go to Rome. But why would Attila even need a pretext or any impetus? Wasn't he a conquerer, taking whatever he could? Why did he need to look presentable?

132.239.90.211 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Even conquerers have their limits! The point is that just before he received Honoria's unexpected proposal he had been intending to attack the powerful Visigoth Kingdom, based in south-west Gaul, and had entered into an alliance with the Emperor Valentinian III, Honoria's brother, to enable him to do so with a degree of security. Honoria's seeming offer of marriage opened up a far more attractive political prospect for the ambitious Hun King. Clio the Muse 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If Italy was more attractive why didn't he just go for it? How did the offer from Honoria bolster his effort? 132.239.90.82 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I have said, his immediate objective was the Visigoths; Italy may very well have come later. Marriage to Honoria would give him added legitimacy in the Roman world, a link to the Imperial family, and the prospect of a large and bloodless dowry. It is important to remember that Attila was a politician as much as a soldier; and like all politicians he was first and foremost an opportunist. Clio the Muse 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable man with reasonable grudges is usually better at securing allies or at least reducing opposition. Casus belli is a complex question and usually made up after the event to explain the outcome rather then prove the purpose. "Hairy Hun to save princess" sounds more like a romance novel than historical imperative. An early source, Jordanes in his Getica, mentions Honoria mainly to say how dishonourable she was, he does not say she brought Attila to Rome. Jordanes' account probably had more to do with exposing the bickering and corrupt state the imperial family had come to and comparing that with the awesome power of the papacy. Although of course pope Leo's diplomatic skills are seriously doubted by later historians. meltBanana 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A conquerer always tries to have a good pretext (a reason) to justify his actions. It was the same with Julius Ceasar - "We are invading Gaul to secure our norhern borders", William the Conquerer - "We are invading England because the last king promised that I would be his heir", etc. We like (and perhaps even need them in a psychological level) to have reasons/pertexts/excuses for our actions. Flamarande 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion as to the difference between a "pretext" and a "limit". True tyrants have no "limits" whatsover, yet human psychology being as it is, a good "pretext", as ridiculous as it may be, can add a great deal of perceived legitimacy to a conquest, and in turn this perceived legitimacy is more often than one would hope accepted as true legitimacy, seriously weakening the resolve the tyrant's targetted victims for conquest. The list is endless. For example, pretty much every one of Hitler's aggressions were couched with pretext. Mad as he was, he not once explained the invasion of one country or another "just because I feel like it". Saddam invaded Kuwait under the entirely invented pretext that Kuwait was a province of Iraq. Tyrants make good use of pretext to justify what is in reality their absolutely limitless hunger for conquest. Loomis 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify that: a pretext is the official excuse a leader uses to justify something. Most of the time the pretext is only loosely connetcted to the true reasons. Using Attila; the pretext was that Honoria wanted to marry him. The true reason was wealth for Attila and his Huns. The true reason was Attila's need to enrich his tribe, further securing his position as leader and most importantly to keep the loyalty of his lieutenants. Flamarande 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Loomis 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Living Person double disambiguity dillemma

A person's name in this encyclopedia listed as a sex offender (living in a different country) has the same first, middle, and last names as I do.
What do I do? Just learning about editing...
Can someone provide an example? brian 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you notable in a Wikipedia sense? If so, you could set up a disambiguation page. On the other hand, if you believe this other person isn't really worth noting, you can nominate the article for deletion. Otherwise, you're pretty much out of luck. I myself share the same first and last name with a moderately famous murderer in Victorian England. He rates an article and I don't. Go figure. Clarityfiend 01:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of World War II

Even though the academics accept 1939 (when Poland was invaded by Nazi Germany) as the beginning of World War II, why wasn't the beginning of World War II in 1931 or 1937 (when China was invaded by Japan)? I have heard the argument that it became a WORLD war when Europe was involved along with Asia. But if Asia was included as a theater of World War II, wouldn't it count as the BEGINNING of World War II. And even though it is called the "Second Sino-Japanese War", it became a part of World War II, therefore it is the BEGINNING of it. I have never heard of the "Germanic-Polish War" as it is accepted to be a part of World War II, why does World War II in Asia considered to be a separate war at first before 1939? Or do the scholars consider European wars more highly than Asian wars because of the Western political power? Swang 02:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, why don't we just say that WWII is really just the second half of WWI? It does make sense. The reason is because the Second Sino-Japanese War was between just China and Japan. Germany's invasion of Poland resulted in many countries (GB, France, Canada, Australia, Germany, etc.) declaring war (ie the World part of the War). --The Dark Side 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Periodization is always somewhat arbitrary — it is rare that events come in easy packages, and it never happens that they come without antecedents. In any case I think Dark Side's answer is most correct in this case: it's not just military action which creates a "world war", it's what happens when half of the world declares war against the other half, and vice versa. Which you don't get until 1939. In any case, some scholars have claimed that the invasion of China should be considered the beginning of WWII, if I recall, but it is a definite (purposefully being different) minority. --24.147.86.187 03:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two kinds of people: those who arbitrarily divide things, and those who don't. Edison 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Swang, you have raised a highly interesting and partially unresolved question. There are indeed some well respected historians, including A. J. P. Taylor from my own country, who have put forward persuasive reasons why the incident at the Marco Polo Bridge in July 1937 might be taken as the beginning of the Second World War, rather than the German invasion of Poland in September 1939. Perhaps it would be best to see the whole process as one of a series of separate incidents merging, piece by piece, into a greater whole, which has nothing at all to do with any supposed superiority of European over Asian events. Think of the huge differences between the outbreak of the First and the Second Worlds Wars. If we set aside the ongoing crisis of the Ottoman Empire, and the two Balkan wars that emerged from this, the division in 1914 between peace and war, light and dark, could not be clearer: in a matter of weeks over the late summer the world had gone from one state of being to another, reflected most acutely in the many memoirs we have from this time. Now look at the situation leading up to the outbreak of the Second World War. Could anything, it has to be asked, be less clear? From the mid-1930's the world was beset by one political crisis after another. Aside from Japanese aggression against China, Italy invaded and conquered Ethiopia, Spain descended into a Civil War, where issues were fought out that far transcended a purely Iberian significance, Germany was expanding its borders in Europe by brutal diplomacy; and even Russia was involved in a brief but bloody and unofficial war with Japan. So why should 1939 be taken as the significant date, and not 1935, 1936 or 1937? For the simple reason that it was at this point that the individual crises, from a European perspective at least, ceased to be self-contained, or to bear any semblance of self-containment, in contrast to the Sino-Japanese War, which, to a significant extent, remained within its own political and strategic orbit, even so far as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Clio the Muse 09:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Swang, I don't think the issue is Eurocentric, but Anglic. My understanding is both world wars are largely understood to have been world wars when England became involved. In WW2, England became involved when the Whig leader, Chamberlain, pushed Churchill into the Admiralty, after being humiliated by Hitler. The triggering event was the Invasion of Poland. DDB 09:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, Chamberlain was a Conservative (Tory), not a Whig (which no longer existed). Secondly, England didn't become involved in either war on its own, Britain did. Thirdly, WWII is generally considered to have started when Hitler first took military action (against Poland), and had nothing to do with Chamberlain moving Churchill anywhere (which happened just after the outbreak of war anyway, not before). Fourthly, France became involved at more or less the same time as Britain in both world wars, so why are they specifically Anglocentric? -- Necrothesp 14:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, France became involved in World War I before Britain did, because of France's alliance with Russia, on whom Germany declared war when Russia mobilized to aid Serbia. It was Germany's declaration of war on Russia (in support of Austria-Hungary) that escalated the war from a conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia to a conflict involving other major powers. Britain did not become involved until Germany invaded neutral Belgium prior to attacking France. So the "Anglic" thesis fails in the case of World War I. Marco polo 14:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually they didn't really want to invade Belgium, they just wanted to move through it. They feared that there massive presence of French soldiers near the border with Alsace-Lorraine, that they took back in the Franco-Prussian war, so they decided to move through Belgium instead. They even sent a letter trying to persuade authorities not to consider this as an invasion, and to tell them they still wanted to "get along".Evilbu 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for my innaccuracies, Necrothesp, I'd known the Liberal Party (UK) crumbled just prior to WW2, and assumed it had happened under Chamberlain's leadership, which it had, but not in the way I thought. I felt the question by Swang, in acknowledging the Invasion of Poland as the agreed beginning, but questioning why, deserved more than the affirmation 'because it is.' I don't feel the argument that historians are unbiased and objective satisfactory. In this case, I feel there is an established bias which ignores events in Asia, or mainland Europe, and considers events in terms of a perception by London establishment. I know it is sexy to blame Washington, but they miss the action during this time, so the finger points, not at Britain, (and I'll accept not England because of your assertion, and because it didn't exist as a causative entity) but a view I describe as Anglic, even though I am so wrong on so many points. DDB 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've hear people who say 1931 as the beginning of the Asian part of the Second World War. But Korea was even taken by the Japanese before World War I! Heck, it's been almost a century, and they still haven't become a single independent nation again!Evilbu 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice point Evilbu. Maybe 1905, when the Japanese and Russian fleets fought? DDB 02:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Napoleonic Era

Did other European nations declare war, and what not, on France to stop Napoleon's ambition? I used to think that, but then I read that the European monarchies were doing it to crush the ideals of the French Revolution. Which, if any, is true/more likely? --The Dark Side 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are dealing here with two distinct episodes: the French Revolutionary Wars, from 1792 to 1802, and the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1814/1815. The first begins with an attempt to contain revolutionary concepts, and ends as a straightforward struggle against expansionism and imperialism. The second is a series of struggles against imperialism in the pure Napoleonic form. Clio the Muse 06:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Horatio Nelson entered parlaiment a few years before he died at Trafalgar in 1805. He was a Tory sympathiser, but entered as a Whig because he wanted to 'have a say.' He had been appalled at the excesses of the French Revolution, and felt England should invade to stop the killings (according to biographer Tom Pocock). Military strategy of the day had it easier to defend than attack. European nations opposed each other in the world scene, but generally left each other alone in Europe, where alliances meant that no one wanted anyone to have too much power.

When Napoleon 'did his thing,' Europe united against him. It had not been the first time this happened. Europe has opposed central powers since the time of Rome. Charlemagne and Louis XIV of France fought very hard for their gains.

In the end, both of Nelson's major successes against Napoleon (Trafalgar and Aboukir Bay) were to prevent French expansion. DDB 09:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard that, after his return from Elba, the European powers declared war on Napoleon, rather than on France. Either this is the first time several nations are at war with one man (and his army), or the History Channel made another mistake. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not entirely true; the Allied powers assembled in Vienna declared Napoleon an outlaw, and not the legal leader of France. However, it is not generally understood that they declared war on an individual, but rather on the illegal government of France - and it is not quite correct to say that Napolean was the government of France. See the article on the Hundred Days for a little background. Carom 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the War of the Seventh Coalition was against a nation, not an individual. Even after Napoleon's second abdication, and the second restoration of Louis XVIII, France was treated as a defeated power. The Treaty of Paris of November 1815 was far less generous than the treaty of the previous year, reducing France to the borders of 1790, imposing a large indemnity, and obliging the government to accept the presence of allied troops on French soil for five years. Clio the Muse 23:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to the original poster: There is no single explanation for either set of wars, and it is a somewhat fruitless effort to try and reduce a series of fairly complex causes and rationales to a single one. Very few major events in history (or indeed, in the present time) have monocausal explanations. However, it is important to keep in mind that the event which directly precipitated the French Revolutionary Wars was really the execution of the king, and the declarations of war that followed were not entirely related to containing revolutionary ideals (cutting off the heads of kings was generally frowned on, particularly as most of the crowned heads of Europe were related, if somewhat distantly). Obviously, revolutionary ideals had played a role in the death of the king, but several countries (especially Britain) would have been less inclined to become involved if Louis had still been alive. Clio is also quite right to point out that this set of wars became very much an imperialistic struggle - in some way, a continuation of the Anglo-French wars of the earlier part of the century. The Napoleonic wars are, in some sense, a continuation of the unfinished business of the revolutionary wars, particularly on the part of Britain, which desired to establish itself as the only real colonial player. And, as Ddball says, the balance of power in Europe was very important. No country wanted to allow any other country to build up too much power on the continent, so Napoleon's ambition ultimately made war inevitable. Carom 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Murder in response to domestic abuse

Okay so I have this school assignment blah blah blah...Anyway, I need websites with laws regarding women that have murdered their domestic abuser. Google searches have turned up bupkis. Please help. (Sorry, not sure what else to say about this.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.228.95.20 (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Try searching archives on female killers. While female killers have been known to be arbitrary, social conditioning tends away from the type of killers that are male. Try Crime Library DDB 09:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See battered wife syndrome. StuRat 10:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

what's the deal with music?

yeh, this is kind of a general question, but I have a very general confusion. It's to do with musical scales. I understand that a note exactly one "octave" (which confusingly don't contain 8 notes in every scale system) above another is double it's frequency, e.g. in "western music" The A in the middle of the keyboard is 440hz then the next A up is 880hz. What I don't get is why all the notes imbetween have such obscure methods for determining how many hz they have between them, all these weird ratios and so on. Why not just divide those 440 hz between 440hz and 880hz into equal slices of 7; that is 62.85hz, and have that be the interval between each note? so:

A1 = 440hz

B1 = 502.85hz (440 + 62.85)

C1 = 565.71hz (502.85 + 62.85)

D1 = 628.57hz (565.71 + 62.85)

E1 = 691.42hz (628.57 + 62.85)

F1 = 754.28hz (691.42 + 62.85)

G1 = 817.14hz (754.28 + 62.85)

A2 = 879.99hz (817.14 + 62.85)

B2 = 942.85hz (879.99 + 62.85)

etc.

ok it doesn't fit exactly, and I had to round off a whole bunch of decimal points there, but wouldn't that be so much simpler? So who came up with the seemingly random hz intervals in the first place? Infact come to think of it, what's the point of making them fit into octaves at all? why not just have notes that keep getting higher/lower to the far ranges of human hearing but that never come back round to being exactly double that of a previous note? I assume part of the answer to that last one is because you can't have a keyboard with infinite keys/guitar with infinite strings etc., but with synthesisers I'd have thought it'd be possible... I'm guessing those reading this who know something about music are screaming inside right now at how completely confused I am, but I'm just trying to understand how all this works.--Krsont 06:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The progression is geometric, not arithmetic. To go from middle A to the next A, you don't add 440, you double 440 (the same thing in this case, but you see my point. To go to the next, you would double 880). So you also need to double middle B to get the higher B (which your system doesn't do), etc.. Basically, there's a curve with some dots on it, and you're trying to join the dots with straight lines: It's not going to work. As to "why 8?" (and indeed, "why a curve?"), Octave has the answers you seek. yandman 08:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the octave divided into 12 geometric steps? Because of a remarkable mathematical coincidence. Twelve is the only small number (I think the next is 41 or so) where you "just happen" to hit the magic 3/2 ratio (interval of a fifth) on the way to 2/1 (the octave). In other words 2^(7/12) is very nearly equal to 1.5. If this didn't happen to be so, the whole idea of dividing up octaves into an equal number of steps would be out! (See the last item here.) Wareh 14:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok, that does make a certain kind of sense... But the page octave doesn't quite answer all my questions... Because it isn't always 8 notes, is it? What about pentatonic scales? Or even Harry Partch's 43 note scale? How do they work? And my other question still stands: why octaves at all? I don't just mean 8 notes, I mean the entire thing where one note an octave higher than another is double it. Is it just that this system happens to let us make some nice sounds? has no-one ever experimented with not using scales of notes at all, just notes at random frequencies that never "loop back round", as it were, to a unison? --Krsont 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Octave" is an unfortunate word, since it does imply 8, but one could have any number of notes in an octave. Like most of the terms of music theory, we're stuck with "octave" for historical reasons.

why not just have notes that keep getting higher/lower to the far ranges of human hearing but that never come back round to being exactly double that of a previous note? -- You can do that if you want. Computers make this kind of thing much easier.

why octaves at all? ... Is it just that this system happens to let us make some nice sounds? -- Basically, yes. I think people are drawn to consonances. Singing the same pitch as someone else, for example, has a resonance and a "right sound" to it. You know when you are singing at the same pitch, you can feel it. Octaves are similar in having a deep sense of being harmonic. As people worked this out to fifths and thirds, systems of harmony developed, evolving into the 12 note per octave tuning common today. One problem with using frequency-ratio math to make notes (like 2/1 being an octave, 3/2 a fifth, 5/4 a third, etc), is you really do end up with an infinite number of notes. Also, the pitch you start with, your "root pitch", dictates everything else. You can't move to a new root pitch (modulate) without moving the whole tuning system, which is not so hard with a computer, but with a piano, say, would require a total retuning of the strings.

The use of 12 "equal steps" is relatively new as a standard. It is a kind of temperament. Instead of 12 equal temperament, various kinds of "meantone temperaments" were common, in Europe at least. The meantone systems evolved, eventually leading to equal temperament. One reason for temperament is to keep the number of notes required of instruments low, while still allowing instruments to play together and make complex music. As people became increasingly interested in modulating from one "root pitch" to another, or simply being able to play in different keys, new temperaments were developed. Problems included the existence of things like wolf interval, which sounded "howlingly" out of tune. Eventually meantone systems got pretty good at shifting keys and modulating. J.S. Bach's piece the Well-Tempered Clavier was composed in a well temperament that allowed one to play in 24 major and minor keys, which is exactly what the work is -- 24 pieces in 24 keys. Each key sounded different (had its own "color"), and some were more "in tune" than others, but none were howlingly bad. Not everyone was working with 12 steps per octave back then, some used 19, or more. But 12 turned out most popular. Finally, in the 1800s, the system of 12 step equal temperament became the standard. Its main benefit was that you could play in any key and everything would sound exactly the same, except higher or lower in pitch. Today the tuning is so ingrained it is rarely questioned. Sometimes it is said to be the most logical or best tuning system for one reason or another. But it is really just one compromise among many. Pfly 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that clears things up a little. I had already kinda got the impression a lot of it was historical, but I knew there was some kind of pattern/reason someone had based it on. I think I kinda get it now :p Thanks. --Krsont 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession by Daniel J. Levitin tackles most of this question. I found it helpful in understanding scales and intervals. Rmhermen 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Police Conscription

During World War II, were U.S. police officers conscripted into the military or was this restricted to civilians? --OGoncho 08:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No exemption for members of the police force is mentioned in the articles on Conscription in the United States, Selective Service System, or Selective Service Act, nor could I find anything on the reference sites linking from these articles. ---Sluzzelin 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange, since in the United Kingdom being a police officer was a reserved occupation not subject to conscription (although many police officers did join up voluntarily). -- Necrothesp 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

US/Israeli joint military missions

After reading Loomis' responses to the previous Iran question in which he mentions a US/Israeli join military effort, I began to wonder - Has the US and Israel performed joint military missions before? The only one I know if is US military intelligence support for Israel in the 6-Day War which ended with Israel attacked the USS Liberty. --Kainaw ^(talk) 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I'd have to do some serious research into that one. Given the extremely sensitive nature of mideast politics, the idea of an overt US/Israeli joint mission would be too much for even Israel's "moderate" Arab neighbours to stomach. Take the '92 gulf war. The US knew that any overt Israeli involvement would be disastrous, considering the fact that quite a few Arab nations were actually part of the coalition to oust Saddam from Kuwait. Imagine, for example, the image of Syrian and Israeli forces fighting side-by-side! GHWB knew the Israelis had to keep the lowest of profiles in that war, and the Israelis were smart enough to agree and keep out. On the other hand, I have no doubt in my mind that on a covert level, an incredible amount of vital Mossad military intelligence on Iraq was gladly shared with the US. But as I said, on the surface, the idea of overt US/Israeli joint military activity is likely far too sensitive to be undertaken given Arab animosity towards Israel. In fact, though this may be a bit of a stretch, I wouldn't be all that surprised if despite their public condemnation in UNSC Resolution 487, the US actually had advanced warning and gave Israel tacit approval to go ahead with the Osiraq bombing. But as I said, that much is a bit of a stretch, and is pure speculation on my part. Loomis 12:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

US Central Command has control of US operations in the Middle East, and North Africa. It was founded by Jimmy Carter's rapid deployment force concept during the Iran US embassy hostage crisis, and after the peace talks between Egypt and Israel. Centcom. They do a lot of work in Afghanistan, Iraq and have a media liaison unit that I find helpful with research. I don't know about joint operations or training, but I know that Israel is a liberal democracy of many religions and the kind of nation that might be a model for other nations. DDB 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Operation Moses involved the CIA and the IDF. No combat, though - it was a rescue mission. Rmhermen 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Writing in clay... and cuneiforms

I know the cuneiform script was the first major writing system for clay. They used a type of reed (whose tip was shaped like a wedge?) as a stylus. What species of reed is that?

Are there other ways of leaving patterns in clay, stone or wood? I can only think of runes and ogham. I think Buginese language was written vertically in bamboo.

I'm trying to think of a unique or original way to write in clay, stone or wood that looks different from these but keeps an ancient flavour. Is it possible to use round shapes somehow instead of straight lines? I don't know what kind of ancient tool would allow for this.--Sonjaaa 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Round tool - dried stem of a hollow woody plant might do - eg bamboo but smaller - cut to shape you could get curves...87.102.10.13 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How about writing with thumbs and fingers ? That would leave a series of dots and rounded lines, with fingernails leaving thin lines. StuRat 22:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See Rosetta Stone --Dweller 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In fantasy novel terms, the consideration is the consistency of the clay, the ability to fire it in a kiln and the robustness of the tool. Fingers anf nails would be tough. Bones of ones enemies might be cool. The clay needs to be held straight in a surface, and might need to be anchored in more than one direction if the writing involves multidirectional scoring. It would take an educational attainment, depending on the amout of skill, vis difficulty, required. DDB 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Find The Hidden Predicate

What are the predicate(s) in the sentence: "The man went home to find his ice lolly in pieces." This is not homework. We never even covered 'predicates' in school, but I was only in middle set for English... --Seans Potato Business 16:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A "predicate" is what you assert about something. By the commonest English definition of Predicate (grammar), everything in your sentence after "The man" is the predicate. What the sentence predicates of the man is that he went home to find his ice lolly in pieces. Another distinction is between the attributive (see Attributive#Attributive_and_predicative) or predicative (meaning part of the core assertion, not just an attribute) use of various words and phrases. For example, "ice" in "ice lolly" is attributive because it specifies which/what kind of lolly we mean. "In pieces" is the most interesting phrase used predicatively in your sentence. It is not attributive, because it does not merely specify the lolly meant (this would be the somewhat unidiomatic "his in-pieces ice lolly," more likely "his shattered ice lolly"), but rather specifies how he found his ice lolly to be. It is thus used predicatively. Here's a clearer example of the two uses of the phrase "in the house": "The man in the house is running" (attributive, gives adjectival information) vs. "The man is running in the house" (predicative, gives adverbial information). Wikipedia should really have a broader discussion of this sense of attributive vs. predicative; I couldn't find anything except for that section of Adjective. Wareh 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

William Wordsworth biopic - by Ken Russell?

I had a look at both the William Wordsworth and Ken Russell articles, but didn't see anything about what I remember; a one-hour British TV production featuring an actor playing Wordsworth, roaming around the Lake Country spouting poetry, with typically Russell-esque brilliant colours and splash, though more restrained than his Tchaikovsky, Liszt and Mahler biopics. Does this ring any bells, or was it a different director? No mention of it on the Wordsworth page, unless it's Pandaemonium, but I don't remember Shelley being part of its subject-matter.Skookum1 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Skookum, the TV show you have in mind was called Clouds of Glory, made for Granada Television, and screened in 1978, with David Warner as Wordsworth, Felicity Kendal as Dorothy and David Hemmings as Coleridge. Shelley, of course, was not part of Wordsworth's Lake District circle, and thus is not depicted, though Julian Sands plays him in Russell's 1986 extravaganza, Gothic. Clio the Muse 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. Would kind of like to see it again, actually, although I've lost my taste for "literary flicks" in times since....it's not on the Wordworth page, though. Shouldn't it be?Skookum1 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You can add it yourself, if you wish. Clio the Muse 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

January 25

Skull and Bones

It has been alleged that initiates must engage in homo-erotic activities in front of the group. I do not know if this has been authenticated, but no Bonesman that I know of has denied it. 71.106.207.23 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that very enlightening information. Did you have a question? JackofOz 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

But it has not in fact been so alleged, not even by a fool. --Wetman 02:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, muckracking blogs usually say that Skull and Bones members engage in mutual masturbation. I think it's just an amusing rumor though. 137.22.30.19 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Homo-erotic? Okay. It hasn't been denied because it has not been alleged yet. ;) X [Mac Davis] (How's my driving?) 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the activities depicted in The Good Shepherd, I'm not aware that they are based on any actual allegations (although I must confess that I have no real expertise on this subject). Carom 02:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Arabic Names

For whatever reason, a little while back there seemed to have been a bit of curiousity in the press concerning the fact that unlike newsworthy individuals in the west, who are generally refered to by their "last" names (i.e. "Bush and House leader Pelosi scheduled to meet to discuss...."), Saddam Hussein is commonly referred to as "Saddam" rather than "Hussein" due to Arab tradition concerning names. "Hussein" is not Saddam's "family name" in the sense of Bush or Pelosi, but rather his father's given name, and therefore, according to Arab naming custom, "Saddam" is a more appropriate term than "Hussein" to refer to "Saddam Hussein". Fair enough. In fact it's not all that unusual for cultures to reverse the order of names (from our POV!). For example, according to Chinese naming custom, the family name comes first in order, before the given name. Mao Zedong is a perfect example. He's always been referred to as "Chairman Mao" and never "Charman Zedong", because "Mao" was his family name, and "Zedong" was his given name.

What I don't understand is why this particular custom, followed whenever referring to Saddam Hussein, doen't seem to be followed for any other newsworthy individuals in the Arab world. For example, has anyone ever read a headline such as: "Yasser meets with Anwar, Hosni, Hafez to discuss positions regarding Saddam". (Please ignore any historcal reality or lack thereof of any such meeting taking place!) Why has this Arabic naming custom only been applied to Sadam? Thanks in advance for any information helping me to understand this apparent inconsistency. Loomis 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of his first name is a sign of disrespect. --Nelson Ricardo 02:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Perhaps it's because there are many news worthy Husseins? I think it's because Hussein is both a last and first name. A quick search on Wikipedia brings up 33 people with that either as their family or given name. However, most of those people are either related to Saddam or have their last name spelt in a different manner. That leaves about 16 people, which include King Abdullah II bin al-Hussein and Hussein Rushdi Pasha. --The Dark Side 02:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think both answers are correct. There's no other "Saddam" that I know of, but there are loads of people named "Hussein". And of course, as Nelson Ricardo notes, it's partly to belittle him. It's kind of a "Kaiser Bill" situation. Bhumiya (said/done) 05:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not learned in this area, but I imagine it is language and tradition that goes to names. And respect. In Australia, there was actual consternation when the US media interviewed our then PM, Bob Hawke, as "The Right Honourable Robert John Hawke." It seemed to surprise Bob too. I remember, in the '80s, that Saddam was referred to as Mr Hussein. I think Saddam was fixed in the public psyche before Bob Hope said it was 'Mad Ass' backwards. DDB 07:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The biggest surprise about that was calling him "the Right Honourable". He was "the Hon", but not "the Rt Hon". The Rt Hon is used by members of the Privy Council, yet ironically Hawke was the very PM who in 1986 ended appeals by Australians to that august body, so he could hardly have been a member of it. JackofOz 09:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you may be mistaken on that one Jack. What he did was end appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, not sever ties with the Privy Council itself. In Canada we abolished appeals to the JCPC in 1949, still though, Elizabeth II is our queen, and as such, all PM's and Chief Justices are members of her privy council and retain the title of being "Right Honourable". Loomis 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Returning to my original question, I doubt that referring to Saddam Hussein by his first name was as a sign of disrespect, as that is how HE HIMSELF preferred (read demanded) to be referred to by his own people during his reign. As I mentioned, a little while back when this was a matter of interest, there was almost unanimous consensus that the more proper way to refer to people in the Arab world would be by their "first" name, as their "second" name is merely the name of their father. Sort of like way back in English history when names like "Johnson" and "Williamson" were used as surnames for those with fathers named "John" or "William". It was explained in detail that this remains the practice in the Arabic world. Yet Saddam seems to be the only one who retained this tradition. Is it perhaps falling out of practice just as it has in English? Loomis 16:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that no one yet has corrected the false overgeneralization that Arabs do not inherit surnames from their father's fathers several generations back. I kept assuming someone more knowledgeable than I would come along and do so. All I can say is that I have encountered several Arab families among whom, while living in Arabic-speaking countries, the surname has been passed down in this way. (Our Arabic name article is consistent with this: whether laqab or nisba—I am pretty sure that the article misses the fact that a laqab is equally well used in this capacity—these names can endure many generations, and a community can refer to an extended family over several generations by them. In the article's example, "'Al-Fulani' would be Saleh's family name.") I don't know how widespread this is, or the surnames of Saddam's ancestors, or much else about this. But I really hope someone will give a more adequate account here. Wareh 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wareh. At least you put in an honest attempt at answering my question to the best of your knowledge. I share your hope that someone will provide a more adequate account. Thanks again. Loomis 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

German and French populations

I remember a French politician or general saying something about how there would always be more Germans (of Germany) then French. When did the Germans surpass the French in population? Or were there always more German people? I know it's hard to calculate this as the boundaries of modern day Germany differ from its historical incarnations and sometimes it didn't exist at all, but any estimate will do. --The Dark Side 01:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dark Side, You have to go as far back as 1830 to find a point where the French population was greater than that of Germany within the borders established in 1871. At that time the French stood at 32.4 million, compared to some 29 million Germans. The big switch came in the course of the following century, the relative decline in the French contrasting sharply with the rapid expansion of the Germans. By 1939/40 the total population of France stood at 39 million compared with close on 80 million Germans within the pre-Anschluss borders. You will find the details here [6] Clio the Muse 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Clio. --The Dark Side 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know how many people counted as French or German would have actually identified themselves as French or German at that time. Language is of course an important factor here. (remember that there are several French regions that weren't Frenchspeaking before and some people still have another native language than French). I mean : how many would have been willing to fight for it?Evilbu 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, demographers think that France will actually surpass Germany in a few decades due to its higher birthrates.--Pharos 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again let us be clear : are we talking about a) people with the French nationality b) people with the French nationality within France c) people living within France. If we are talking about c, I think that's pretty obvious because France seems to have a lot more muslim immigrants.Evilbu 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Then again, Muslim immigrants become French (technically) after the second generation, although they aren't accepted as completely French until much later. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

American cities with European names

Is there a complete list on Wikipedia (or any other website, it doesn't matter) of every American city named after a European city provided with the European country where the city is found? For example: New York, NY and York, United Kingdom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swang (talk • contribs) 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

The closest thing I could find on Wikipedia is List of misleading place names, which includes, but isn't limited to, some examples from the United States too. It's not exactly what you asked for though. ---Sluzzelin 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you deal with places like New Boston named after Boston, Mass., not Boston, England? Don't forgot places that have changed names like Nieuw Amsterdam? Rmhermen 06:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Many C18 names compliment holders of titles rather than the places from which the titles are derived. Then there are perfectly ambiguous generic names like Springfield.--Wetman 07:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably the majority of places in the United States have been named after some spot in Europe. That would be quite a list. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names allows you to search through every registered placename in the country.--Pharos 09:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll also find many cities in Britain a history to their name. York is from 'Jorvik' and was originally Eboracum if my local history memory is any good. I'm guessing New England has a lot of cities/towns named after places in England. I haven't come across an etymology wiki yet (not that i've particularly searched for one) but that would probably be the place to find something like this. ny156uk 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge, Rome, St.Petersburg... the list would go on forever! | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 20:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for complicating matters, but on a point of information New York is not named after Old York, but takes its name from James, duke of York, the brother of Charles II. Clio the Muse 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This last point is true for many placenames in the US seemingly named after places in England. Another example -- most of the Cumberlands in the US, like Cumberland, Maryland, were not named after Cumberland County, England, but rather after Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland. As for a list, I've never heard of one, though it would be interesting to see. Pfly 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is common for the U.S. cities to have different pronunciations than the European originals. Paris Tennessee is "PAIR-iss" rather than "Pah-REE" which is understandable, but I understand that Versailles, Kentucky is pronounced "Vur- SALES" and Athens, Ohio has the initial "A" pronounced as in "sale". Bourbonnais, Illinois used to be pronounced "burr-BO-nus " but they officially changed in 1974 to correspond to the French pronunciation, while Des Plaines, Illinois is still pronounced "Dess-planes." Cairo, Illinois is pronounced "KEHR-o" by locals and "KAY-ro" by people living farther away to the south. There could well be an article listing U.S. towns with stupid pronunciations of their names.Edison 05:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My favorite is MAD-rid, New Mexico. Pfly 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone mispronounces Rome, New York. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And "New MAD-rid, Missouri," which has no excuse because it was founded in 1788 while Missouri was owned and governed by Spain as part of Louisiana. Edison 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And Des Moines, which is pronounces Duh Moin in the US and Day Mwane in French. New OHR- LEANS in Louisiana and OHR-LAY-YAWN in France. Basically, names related to Spain and the Spanish language can mostly be found in the southern and southwestern states (New Mexico, Nevada, California, Texas, etc.) French names are found most along the Canadian border and along the Mississippi, the area of the Louisiana Purchase. Dutch placenames can mostly be found in the areas of the first Dutch settlers (New York state, New England) and in the areas where many Dutch immigrants went in the 19th and 20th century (particularly Michigan). Aecis^Brievenbus 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And LYE-ma, Ohio. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the above discussion has answered some questions that you may have had, Swang, but our Lists of North American place name etymologies might be of use to you. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in ancient Rome

Slavery was abolished in ancient Rome (before 476 AC)? There was slavery in Byzantine Impere? --Vess 15:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There's some info under Slavery#Greece. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.75.99.104 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

No, Vess, slavery was not abolished in Ancient Rome, though the advent of Christianity eventually brought gladiatorial contests to an end. However, changing economic conditions meant gradual changes in the conditions of servitude. Bit by bit, agricultural slavery was transformed into new modes of serfdom, as the Classical World gave way to the Middle Ages. In practice, outright slavery and landed serfdom went hand in hand for centuries, through the Byzantine period and beyond. Even the church owned serfs and slaves. Clio the Muse 19:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While slavery has never been abolished from the world, it has become uneconomic for progressive economies. Sexual slavery is still prevalent in some cliques. Laws are rarely made for social reasons .. DDB 02:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fogel and Engerman have argued in Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery that slavery at least in the 19th century was still economically profitable. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Study of Mankind

defend the maxim "the proper study of mankind is man"

I cannot defend this maxim; the proper study of man is homework, which he must do himself. Daniel (‽) 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To say nothing of women! Seriously, this is just too big to swallow whole. Break it up and come back with some more specific questions and we will see what we can do. Clio the Muse 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it, and I've seen debating topics like it, the issues are what a debater finds convenient.

A way of viewing 'the maxim' is to compare it with other statements. 'A proper study of the ocean is fish.' 'A good predictor of future behaviour is past experience.' One summary of the statement is that the collective can be seen through studying parts. One cannot coneive a million man army, however, by picturing a school assembley, and imagining a thousand such schools, one gets an idea. DDB 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it what it means. I think it is saying, "mankind should be studying man (as an idea, as a species, as an organism, whatever)." It is saying that in the end that the end all of the examination of the world is to examine ourselves, I think, which is not at all indefensible (you could make a good argument of this using quantum physics, which in the end requires you to factor aspects of the observer into your thinking — in the end, the observer cannot separate him/herself from the observation, at some level). --140.247.249.43 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let Pope do it[7], i don't know why we should defend such a ridiculous utterance.—eric 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed the Pope poem and found it quite humorous. I think in the end the conclusion is, "instead of trying to study the world, if you study yourself you'll realize you're an idiot, and should let God tell you about how the world works," or something like that. But I only skimmed it quite quickly, and am no poet. --140.247.249.43 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You might also break the sentence into parts. For example, Mankind is really two words, 'mank' and 'ind.' But I haven't the foggiest what they mean DDB 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian leader who made Russia "multiethnic"

hello,

I recently read a Wikipedia article about a Russian leader ( a tsar perhaps) who is credited with expanding Russia and making it a (more) multi-ethnic country. Unfortunately I forgot which one, but I'm interested in learning how Russia got its borders and different groups of people, so I would really like to find him again. Remember, the article explicitly said that. Thank you!Evilbu 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Evilbu, Russia has always been multi-ethnic to some degree or other. A huge open territory with little in the way of natural barriers, and surrounded by countless nomad groups could scarcely fail to be otherwise. But Russia, in the sense we understand it today, really begins to take political shape with the expansion of Moscovy, specifically under Ivan III and Ivan IV. The latter, also known as Ivan the Terrible, the first Tsar as such, may be the specific leader you have in mind. It was he who by the conquest of the Khanate of Kazan in 1551 greatly expanded the borders of Moscovy, ending centuries of Tartar domination of Russia. Clio the Muse 19:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course! I knew people would tell me this, but I'm really trying to find that particular article back, and those two articles don't even contain the word ethnic. Thanks for your efforts though. (I think it was because of eastwards expansion).Evilbu 20:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read again the opening paragraph on Ivan IV, which emphasizes his role in the creation of a 'multiethnic' state. Slowly, always slowly. Clio the Muse

!! So it WAS Ivan IV. I guess I need to handle the "search" function a bit more carefully. Thank you and please forgive this reckless youth!Evilbu 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court

Hello, my name is sara zinn. I am having some trouble with my social studies homework. I need to know who all makes up the Supreme Court. (email removed)

Sara Zinn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.106.235 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi, Sara. It's best not to include any email details here. Anyway, you should find all the information you are looking for on the page on the US Supreme Court, which includes a picture with the names of all of the incumbent Justices. Clio the Muse 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of Canada is made up of nine Justices: Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron and Marshall Rothstein. Hope that helps. Loomis 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

English Channel

I got a question:

What are some uses for the English Channel. And also when in(years) , and how was the English Channel Made. Phoenix_X91 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.16.210.243 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

What "english channel"? --Wooty Woot? contribs 00:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The English Channel is used for sailing, transporting cargo, piracy and keeping the English away from the French. The English Channel was made by the retreat of the ice caps around 8500 years ago. Maybe you are thinking of the Channel Tunnel? meltBanana 02:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, THAT English Channel. Perhaps I've been watching too much T.V. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing until I read "What english channel?" :) X [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 11:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps the OP is confusing a Channel with a Canal. There are quite a few "English Canals" constructed at various dates in history. However the English Channel is a natural geographical feature. Loomis 16:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I explained all of that quite decently here : [8] :) Evilbu 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It keeps the Frogs out of Blighty. --Nelson Ricardo 08:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Booting the President of Vice

Can the President of the US unilaterally fire the VP, or is there some formal procedure required if the VP doesn't want to go? Clarityfiend 06:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The House of Representatives can impeach the VP. The President does not fire him. Also, the President cannot override a VP impeachment with a pardon. Finally, if the VP is impeached, Congress gets another jab by requiring the President's newly nominated VP to be confirmed by Congress. As with most of US politics, the power is in Congress, not in the Presidency. We just have over 500 people in Congress pointing at the President and the President all alone pointing back. So, it is easily assumed that the President is in power. --Kainaw ^(talk) 06:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to do a case study on Spiro Agnew. In a fictional sence, the US President is capable of embarrassing his running mate, and setting them up so that they feel no choice but to be honorable. That scenario presupposes a lot. DDB 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agnew resigned because he was being charged with tax evasion and, I believe, money laundering. It had nothing to do with Nixon - though I'm sure there are plenty of revisionists and conspiracy theorists who can work up some story about Nixon framing Agnew because he knew Agnew wouldn't pardon him. Then, Nixon brought in Ford in a deal that Nixon would leave and Ford would get to be President in exchange for a pardon. Of course, none of that crackpot theory is based in reality. --Kainaw ^(talk) 11:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

An interesting case is Eisenhower's rocky relationship with his VP, Nixon. The men were clearly not on the best of terms, and Eisenhower only included Nixon on the 1956 ticket for political reasons (believe it or not, Nixon was quite popular at the time!), and despite his personal feelings for the man. According to the wiki article, when Nixon was nominated for president in 1960, Eisenhower only very reluctantly supported him, and when Eisenhower was asked to name a decision Nixon had been responsible for during his Vice Presidency, he replied "Give me a week and I might think of something." This was a blow to Nixon, and he blamed Eisenhower for his narrow loss to Kennedy. Now if Eisenhower had the power to fire Nixon sometime in his second term, I would imagine he would have done so.

On the other hand, if by the "President of Vice" you're referring to the heads of either the ATF or the DEA, I'm pretty sure the president has the power to fire them at will. :--) Loomis 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Laws regarding public display of firearms in New York City

What are the Laws regarding public display of firearms in New York City? Are you able to walk around in the streets with hunting rifles if the weapons are unconcealed and displayed nonthreatingly? Also whats the NYC laws for puchasing and owning hunting rifles and shotguns? --Nra4eva 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Try these links, [9] and [10]. I hope you find what you are looking for. A friendly advice: avoid carrying guns at all. Many gun-related accidents have cost too many lifes everywhere. In the current clima of fear you only have to be unlucky once to find a scared trigger-friendly fool who will shoot you because you carried a gun and he was afraid for his life. Flamarande 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the law is, New Yorkers perceive people carrying guns openly but not wearing police uniforms as possible murderers. It is just not done. If you walk around or take public transportation in New York openly carrying a firearm, you are going to create a very tense situation that could end up costing your own life or the lives of others if, for example, you made a move that someone (perhaps with a concealed weapon) perceived as threatening. Marco polo 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If I see you, I will run to the NYPD. This is serious. The police do their job so there is no need of a handgun. This is a very high priority for law enforcement. Plus, what are you going to hunt in NYC? Rats? It is ridiculous. 75Janice 26 January 2007

Youngest Soviet Field Marshal- Front Commander

I read in Glantz's Clash of Titans that the youngest Soviet front commander during World War 2 was Jewish and he faced antisemtiism from Stalin. Does anyone know who this Field Marshal was? --Stalin1942 13:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but that reminds me that Hitler too had many Jews as generals in his army. Maybe try History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union#Under Stalin (1922-1953). | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There were several Jewish front commanders during World War 2, and it's hard to point out who Glantz was referring to. Two candidates are Yakov Kreizer and Semyon Krivoshein. For more, see Category:Russian people of World War II, Category:Military history of the Soviet Union during World War II and Category:Soviet people of World War II. Aecis^Bravado 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure this was a marshal? As far as I know, of all of Stalin's wartime marshals only Rodion Malinovsky had any Jewish background; and while he was the youngest (born in 1898) I am not aware that he suffered to any degree from the Vozhd's alleged anti-semitism. I have a question for you, AndonicO. Who on earth, I have to ask, were the Jewish 'generals' in Hitler's army? Clio the Muse 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read the article again, I presume that Glantz was referring to Major General Yakov Kreizer, who had to face serious anti-semitism (as if there is also such a thing as trivial anti-semitism) after 1945. Aecis^Bravado 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The only Jewish generals of Nazi Germany I could find are Luftwaffe General Helmut Wilberg and General Johannes Zukertort. Both are only half Jewish and recieved German Blood Certificates. --The Dark Side 02:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Would "Half-Jewish" mean having only a Jewish father? 惑乱 分からん 12:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Luftwaffe Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Goering's chief deputy, was almost certainly half-Jewish. See his article for details. -- Necrothesp 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Juvenile violence

Has juvenile violence or crime been up or down in the last 25 years in the US? What about other industrialized countries? Oskar 15:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It has been up and down in the last 25 years in the US, and in most other industrialized countries as well. --Carnildo 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is lots of theory regarding juvenile crime. Bringing up children to become productive, happy adults is a process known and practised for thousands of years.

Juvenile crime is related to poverty, but not caused by it, and not solely dependant on it, many rich kids being violent as well.

Child raising is highly related to juvenile crime, but again, it doesn't cause it, and some well brought up kids become delinquent.

Dr Phil can give you some insights into juvenile violence. As can Judge Judy.

As for rates, statistics are not equal in aspect, so comparing rates from fifties to nineties is a less than meaningful exercise.

Violent crimes involving guns at schools is rising. Many agree that media have much to be blamed for popularising this behaviour. Dumb gun laws and absent parents don't help. Violent pornography is readily accessable to all, and most case studies I've seen link drugs, pornography and mistreatment of animals.

Worth noting, there is less violence now than before, despite the rise of islamo fascism. Educational attainment is higher for all ethnicities in all progressive nations. DDB 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there progress in science and psychology in particular?

Hey guys, I have been looking around various sites and came across this one, by far the best in reguards to overviews of various philosophers of science. However, I can find no relevence to psychology, I am aware of the various theories, eg..popper,khun,lakatos but how could these be applied to psychology in particular. It would be great if someone could get the ball rolling on this one...cheers 212.219.220.116 16:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can get your hands on an introductory university-level psychology textbook, most of these give a brief history of psychology. And yes there's been loads of progress, for instance Freud's Oedipus complex theory has now been broadly dismissed as fanciful. We now have live-action imagery of the brain at work, as it responds to various stimuli. If that's not progress I don't know what is. Vranak

Kuhn et al would not call that "progress" necessarily. It is more complicated than having claimed that old theories are out of date or that new discoveries have been made. And introductory textbooks are the last place to look for good histories — they are histories written to situate the practitioner within the discipline, and of course always tell triumphal, whiggish stories. --140.247.249.43 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that physiologists do single cell recording in a cat's brain like David H. Hubel and the results go into psychology textbooks as new psychology discoveries, when they are purely hardware. Similarly, we now have functional MRI by neuroscientists showing what brain regions are at work when doing what task, and it is claimed as psychology research. Psychology is akin to the study of computer programming, and this process is akin to claiming new discoveries in computer programming when a new type of CPU chip (hardware) is designed. The software (psychology) discoveries that actually pan out are harder to find. Thsy might include Cognitive behavioral therapy now in vogue, which originated in the 1950's. In the history of psychology, the research paradigms of one era seem to be discredited and pretty much forgotten in the next era. Graduate students 50 years later often have not even heard of the controversies and research topics of their predecessors. Psychologists quit the physical sensory measurement paradigm of Fechner, they abandoned the reflexology of Muller, they moved past phrenology. Psychoanalysis, which saw things like libido as pressure reservoirs in the psyche like pistons and boilers in a steam engine, is out of vogue. They quit the introspection of Wundt, and the behaviorism of Watson and Skinner. The fad of analyzing mental processes as analogs to computer functioning (human informatin processing) is passe. In physics, Einstein refined the equations of Newton, but Newton is not totally passe and forgotten, and his equations work wonderfully over a wide range of scales. Chemistry and electricity from the 19th century and before are still the foundation of today's more refined and extended theories(Laws of Boyle, Charles, Coulomb, Ampere, Kirchhoff, or Ohm). Psychology just seems to move from paradigm to paradigm, without laying a sound foundation that the next generations of researchers refine and build on, while the intro textbooks claiming as its own discoveries in physiology. The solid stuff in intro psych textbooks seems to be the biology.Edison 18:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If I recall Popper famously considered psychoanalysis to not qualify as a science under his rubric, though he also considered Darwinism not to as well (but later retreated into saying that he thought it was an "explanatory framework" which could create theories, and thus was OK by him. I don't think he ever retreated on psychoanalysis). I can't think of a time where I have seen Kuhn discuss psychology explicitly except so much as he drew heavily on Piaget for his own thinking (out of the approach of Koyré). Lakatos I know considerably less about.

I'm not sure Kuhn would regard psychology as being different from any other sciences he discusses, except for the fact that as a over-arching category it probably contains many approaches which he would consider to be more akin to social sciences (never agreeing on basic principles) than a hard science. But that is my own speculation. --140.247.249.43 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychology is a pretty broad subject. It has branched out over the last hundred years into physical areas and social areas. There is greater depth to these areas. Is that progress? I understood the Ancient Egyptians believed thinking came from the heart. Certainly, there has been progress since then.

Social Psychology has advanced. 1920's pop psychology, which grew in the wake of the developing study, was used by the more ancient devotees of snake oil. As with all things, Psychology, as a science, owes much to things that precedes it, and rebadges them. All scientific experiments, on people, refer to the effect whereby people that believe they have a working product will feel it's effect. Yet that effect was seen, and predates modern Psychology by thousands of years.

In terms of Lakotos, Kuhn, Popper et al, Psychology will not 'progress' until it is transformed. While tools may be better, specifics ever more detailed, Psychology is little different from when Freud worked with it. DDB 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Righteous reasons for war.

Sometime in the ancient past a pope made a list of what the reason for war that the Vatican would accept in order for a war to be sanctioned by the pope. Who was the pope and what were the righteous reasons? The reasons are important because if a war is not sanctioned as righteous it is more difficult to get any form of backing including volunteers. Known reasons: war to end war, make the world safe for democracy. Recent military actions have been called police actions until Iraq became for "democracy".

You might look at just war as a starting point. I see no popes there but there are a number of Christian theologians. Police actions usually refer to the fact that the involvement has UN sanction. I would suggest that all parties in wars generally think that their side is "just" (initially, at least). Few actually resort to theories of just war to think so, though — it is usually more primal, a "revenge" theory or something like that. --140.247.249.43 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I know of no specific point at which the Vatican decided that there was a given set of circumstances that would allow a pope to justify violence in any abstract sense, or to legitimate war if a certain number of a priori conditions were met, if it might be so expressed. Rather responses have developed over time and in accordance with prevailing historical circumstances. Although the early church fathers, particularly Tertullian, were inclined to condemn any form of state violence or warfare, attitudes began to change after the conversion of the Emperor Constantine. As the emperor was the instrument of God, Christian soldiers, tolerated before at best, were now given specific sanction by the church. In other words, fighting was acceptable when it was in the emperor's service, insofar as this service could be defined as the service of God. It was not the way to salvation as such; but neither was it the way to hell. St. Augustine of Hippo was the first of the great churchmen to give some of these ideas a more philosophical form. In the City of God he condemns war, but qualifies this by saying that violence must be countered by violence in the preservation of peace. What is wrong is not war itself but some of the motives behind war, specifically greed, the desire for power, feelings of revenge or simple cruelty. If war, on the other hand, is waged to restore peace, the soldiers become peacemakers.

The just war and the just ruler, therefore, went hand-in-hand. But what if the ruler is not just: what if Caesar himself is the problem? This is an issue that first comes to serious prominence for the Papacy in the eleventh century, during the reign of the Emperor Henry IV. The church had steadily emerged from its position as 'hand-maiden' to the state, and had become a major player in its own right. Pope Gregory VII, under threat from the emperor, urged all Christian warriors to rise in his defence, the first time in history, I believe, such an appeal had ever been made. This was not just permitted violence-something reluctantly sanctioned by the church in the past-but violence that carried a promise of reward; righteous violence, in other words. This, in essence, was the beginning of the notion of crusade, or holy war, later to be given a much more specific direction by Urban II and, above all, by St. Bernard of Clairvaux. By the early thirteenth century it was even possible for Innocent III, the greatest of the medieval popes, to declare, far removed from the position taken by Tertullian, that failure to fight could, in certain circumstances, be considered as a sin.

Of course, the historical circumstances in which these concepts were conceived no longer apply; but the church has not abandoned the notion of the just war, though it takes great care in defining the terms for such a course of action. Paragraph 2309 of the Catholic Catechism outlines some of the essential preconditions:

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or the community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain;

• All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• There must be serious prospects of success;

• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Well; there you go! Sorry, this has turned out to be longer and more detailed than intended; but I hope it goes part of the way towards answering your questions. Clio the Muse 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas is the name I associate most readily with the concept of a just war - not a pope I think but a saint.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A644672 or search for 'thomas aquinas just war'

Apparently he says there must be a 'just cause'...Hope that helps. (Is your name tony blair/george bush by any chance??)83.100.132.60 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

genocide in 2008

Where in the world is genocide occuring 2006

Your question is unclear. The title gives the year as "2008". Of course it is impossible to predict what will happen in 2008. The text of your question uses the present tense but mentions the year "2006". The year 2006 has already finished. The only place widely considered a site of genocide in 2006 was Darfur. The killing and induced starvation continues today, so this can still be considered a case of genocide. Marco polo 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(After edit conflict-and with the same general observations as Marco) The page on Genocides in History has some contemporary and near-contemporary information. Clio the Muse 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the word, Genocide, evolves with usage. The UN had difficulties making the charge of Genocide stick in the aftermath of Nazi Germany, or Cambodia, and the definition has changed so that, in a legal sence, pastoral care activity has been labeled genocide, as with Australia and her indigenous population. DDB 01:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Humanities

Do you have data about Greek Gods and Goddesses and their relationships with each other and mortals organized, on a timeline, or perhaps, family trees that I can use as a resource for my sixth grade Social Studies classes? Thank you. Rita:24.168.139.94 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rita, the pages on the Twelve Olympians and Greek mythology should give you all the information you are looking for. Clio the Muse 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

political parties in Lebanon

Which political parties in Lebanon are: a)Shi'a? e.g. Hezbollah b)Christian? e.g. Kataeb Party c)Sunni? e.g. Rafik Hariri's party d)Druze?

Look over the List of political parties in Lebanon and the Politics of Lebanon. Clio the Muse 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

they really didn't help that much about which is which.

The problem is there are such a large number of political parties, groupings and associations, and the divisions into specific 'faith communities' is not that clear cut. But for the sake of simplicity the main alignments are as follows;

• Amal-(Afwaj al-Mouqawma al-Loubnaniyeh)-mainly Shia Muslim and pro-Syrian.
• Free Patriotic Movement-mainly Marionite Christian, but with a secular philosophy.
• Future Movement -(Tayyar al-Mustaqbal)-dominated by Sunni Muslims, but with significant support from other religious groups.
• Hezballah-Shia Muslim.
• Lebanese Forces-Christian.
• Progressive Socialist Party-secular in ideology, although it enjoys significant Druze support.
• Kateb Social Democratic Party-(Phalange)-Christian.
• National Liberal Party-mainly Christian.

The Rafik Hari Martyr List, also known as the March 14 Alliance, includes the Future Movement, the Progressive Socialist Party, Lebanese Forces, Kateb, National Liberal Party and others, and is not bound, therefore, by any specific faith commitment. It is opposed by the March 8 Alliance of Amal and Hezballah. If you have read the pages I flagged up you will see that there are a great many other groups and parties, too numerous to list here. The picture is highly complex. Clio the Muse 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Political parties in Bangladesh

Which political parties in Bangladesh are Islamist?

You may be able to find the answer in the Politics of Bangladesh. Clio the Muse 00:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

same thing with Lebanon.

You will really have to do some of the work yourself! The Bangladesh article has links to individual pages on the main political parties. If there is insufficient information here you might try a general google search. My understanding is that the most important religious-political groups are the Muslim League and Jamaat e Islami. Clio the Muse 20:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the lessons aristocrats need to learn?

I know some of those lessons are poise, and manners. What are all of them?

I don't know if there's a list somewhere, but (not all apply to both sexes): horsemanship, fencing, shooting, all the classical forms of education (latin, greek, french, mathematics, geography, history, art, music), military sciences, fine needlework, a lot of memorisation (historical kings and queens, geneology of peers, literature, the Bible), they would be expected to be proficient at a few sports and games, and be able to keep up with current events. Anchoress 05:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

...public self-control; diplomacy; setting an example; perfect directness of manner; a good but unostentatious eye for appraising the qualities in horses, dogs, women, houses, wine, pictures; estate management and land management; the art of conversation and of discreet networking at high strata; sports: polo, lawn tennis, sailing. --Wetman 08:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Horses, dogs and women? In just the right order, too, don't ye know. Almost all of the above is the purest fantasy, straight from Lord Circumference and Lady Tangent's Book of Etiquette, which has been out of print these last one hundred and fifty years. I'm sure Flashman would recognize the attributes; but as far as the modern world is concerned it is complete nonsense. All good fun, I'm sure. What are the lessons modern aristocrats-both the female and male versions-need to learn? Why, public relations, stock market options and how to marry into money, American money for preference! Clio the Muse 08:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How to get out of a limo without flashing your knickers. Debrett's is the accepted modern standard for such things. Natgoo 11:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I got my list from the back of a Georgette Heyer book. You mean that stuff isn't current anymore? ;-) I guess I'll have to move on to The Singing Von Trapp Family. BTW Clio, how was Buenos Aires? Tell me on my talkpage. Anchoress 11:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Maths, English, science, history, geography, probably French, etc., just like anyone else. The things that make aristocrats appear aristocratic are acquired naturally through being brought up in aristocratic families, not through "lessons". Proteus (Talk) 11:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the more practical aspects, e.g. keeping the peasants/serfs/slaves from revolting, creative taxation 101, the fine art of stabbing your peers and/or betters in the back while avoiding same, and the ever-popular pillaging? Clarityfiend 19:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You forgot droit de seigneur. Ah, the pleasures of the noble life! Clio the Muse 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How much do you trust Jimbo Wales?

My concern is that if Jimbo Wales is the big Wikipedia cheese, what's to stop him doing unpleasant things with Wikipedia that I might not like? Theoretically, if he wanted, could he start charging for access to Wikipedia? What other terrible schemes could he potentially be planning? What about the other members of the board - could they vote him out and take over? Whatever will we do?! --Seans Potato Business 04:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No he couldn't, because if he did something to annoy too many people somebody would take the content, as they are legally entitled to do under Wikipedia copyright, set up a server somewhere else, and people would continue on their merry way. Next question.--Robert Merkel 04:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read Wikipedia, Criticisms of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, or take a look at meta:Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws for information on those questions. As for bit about voting him out, it looks like Jimbo's a permanent member of the board; but the other members can outvote him. -- SCZenz 04:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith until you have some reason not to. Vranak

My reason to question is the whole thing where he may have allegedly tried to stomp out any attribution of credit to Larry for co-founding Wikipedia, and that he started that Wikicities business. What if he sells Wikipedia to Microsoft? Everyone has their price... I wonder how many complete and up-to-date backups of Wikipedia exist outside the influence of almighty Jimbo... --Seans Potato Business 06:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Carthage

Are there any major cities named after Carthage? 70.22.81.172 06:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many places names after [Carthage]]. I can not, however, decide whether any of them are major for you. Take a look at Carthage (disambiguation). Picaroon 06:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Carthage, Missouri is not exactly a major city, but it is an important one in southwest Missouri at least, and an American Civil War battle took place there and is named for it, the Battle of Carthage (1861). Pfly 06:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

...don't overlook more than one Cartagena. --Wetman 08:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Slightly tangential, but related nevertheless: If you're looking for cities named after Carthagenian icons, the most "major" one I can think of is Barcelona, with numerous offshoots on several continents, including a French town with the charming name of Barcelonnette. They are all named after the mighty Carthagenian Barcid family. Wikipedia also lists three distinct Hannibals in the United States, the most famous one being Hannibal, Missouri. ---Sluzzelin 21:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Blackfoot Indian Feather Paint symbolic meaning

What are the meanings of different colors painted on feathers in the Blackfoot Indian culture?WhispersLove 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe

What was his life story? How did he die? How successful were his writings during his lifetime?

Hmmm ... have you taken a look at Edgar Allan Poe? As a side note, a lot of people frown on using the reference desk as a way to avoid doing homework. dr.ef.tymac 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Name of tall pointed hat with attached veil

Canonical depictions of medieval European princesses nearly always include a tall, conical hat with an attached veil; see for example Google Image search for "princess hat". What is the name of this type of headgear? When was it worn, and by whom? -- Dominus 17:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a short article on hennin with several external links. ---Sluzzelin 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in looking at the hennin gallery at Commons. Many of the old portraits show truncated and other varieties, as opposed to the pointy version, which has become an iconic design, often used in fairy tale illustrations since the 19th century, and very popular in cartoons too. ---Sluzzelin 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! -- Dominus 20:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making "princess hat" a redirect, as it seems to be a common colloquial name.--Pharos 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pinochet + Wikipedia

On the Spanish site of Pinochet, it say he was a Chilean military man, politician and dictator. On the English site it says he was a general and president of Chile. Same man, sounds different, though he was all. Therefore 2 questions to this please: 1) Does the primarily English-speaking community online (British, Americans, Australians, Canadians, etc.) view Pinochet with more pragmatic and tender eyes? 2) How far may Wikipedia, as a whole, claim objective truth and why is the latter so elusive (ie: which area of philosophy covers this? Thanks, --AlexSuricata 18:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not claim that articles represent the truth, much less T<small-cap>HE</small-cap> T<small-cap>RUTH</small-cap>^TM. Rather, it claims, verifiability. If what you are saying about the articles is true, it is problematic, as there is a significant body of writing that portrays him as a repressive dictator and the article should report that other people criticize him without endorsing . And, of course, all relevant facts about his rule should be included. The main point is that WP does not like or dislike Pinochet, we simply report the relevant facts about him that have been reported in reliable sources. JChap2007 20:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We also try to avoid loaded words like "dictator". User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird statement I read about Turkey

Hello,

without trying to offend anyone, I would like to hear an explanation for this : A while ago, I read a quote from someone saying "Anatolia can join the European Union as soon as the Turkish occupier withdraws behind the Caucasus" I know it sounds pretty harsh, but why would someone say this? And why exactly behind the Caucasus? Is there some historic reference I am missing?Evilbu 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why that person is referring to the Caucasus is beyond me. What I do know is that the Turkic peoples originate from Central Asia. According to the history section of that article, "Turkic soldiers in the army of the Abbasid caliphs emerged as the de facto rulers of most of the Muslim Middle East (apart from Syria and Egypt), particularly after the 10th century. The Oghuz and other tribes captured and dominated various countries under the leadership of the Seljuk dynasty, and eventually captured the territories of the Abbasid dynasty and the Byzantine Empire." The most important conquest in this capture was the fall of Constantinople in May 1453. It marked the end of the Byzantine Empire, and created what would later become the Ottoman Empire. It is widely believed that the Republic of Turkey is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire. See also Ottoman_Empire#Origins.

What this person is probably saying, is that the Turkic population of Turkey and the Republic of Turkey are in his/her view immigrants who have occupied and are still occupying the lands of the people who lived there when the Turkic peoples migrated westwards from Central Asia. The native population should in his/her view be eligible for the European Union. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

'Beyond the Caucasus' would seem to be an extreme way of saying that the Turkish people should return to their point of origin, somewhere to the north-east. The Seljuk Turks began to move from the area of Armenia into Anatolia in the eleventh century, a migration hastened by the victory of Alp Arslan over the Byzantine Emperor, Romanos IV Diogenes at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. For centuries the Turkish people have been the dominant ethnic group in the area. Most of the remaining Greek minority left in a population exchange agreed by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, following the Turkish War of Independence. I imagine this observation must have been made by an extreme Greek nationalist (or neo-Byzantine!). But try to envisage the chaos caused in the world if we all returned to where our ancestors lived a thousand years ago! Clio the Muse 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)