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 Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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

February 1

Questions about essence of Aryan racist theories

Hello,rty

I am trying to understand the racial theories of the nazi's better. Please don't try convincing me that these theories are wrong etc.. because I know, and that's not the point :

• 1. Do I understand correctly that basically they believed that the original Indo-Europeans spread all over Europe and Asia (explaining the big Indo-European family of languages) and mixed with all sorts of people already living there? And that their idea of a "good race" was a race of people who hadn't done a lot of mixing?
• 2. If so, then why exactly would Germans (and Germanic people in general) be "more purely Indo-European"? I mean, most scholars believe the Indo-Europeans started spreading from somewhere near Turkey or the Caucasus. Well, wouldn't that be the right place to start looking for the perfect race instead?
• 3. Alfred_Rosenberg#Racial_theories says : "This master race included the Scandinavians (including Finns), Germans, Dutch (including the Flemish people of Belgium), and the British." I don't get it, why Finns? Their language isn't even Indo-European at all. I heard they looked down upon Slavs, well, wouldn't that make a Finn even "lower"?
• 4. What about the German-speaking people in Switzerland?

• I believe they would preferably have been annexed into the Third Reich. 惑乱 分からん 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• 5. I heard the Nazis had a whole list, describing the hierarchy of races. Does Wikipedia have that full list?

Thanks!Evilbu 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I found the articles Aryan race, Alfred Rosenberg and Untermensch. 惑乱 分からん 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi racial hygiene was not about linguistic families. Their "Aryan" race had less to do with the Aryan language group than it did the Nordic theory of American, German, and French anthropologists of the late-19th and early-20th century. It was not just about language, though the existence of German-speakers in some countries was taken as evidence of past lineages, but not always. "Racial characteristics" were anthropological and psychological ones, not linguistic ones, under their model. And a "good race" was not exclusively about non-mixing — you could be a "bad race" and still not mix. The problem for them was when "good" and "bad" races mixed they thought of it was a "cacophony" as a result — this was used particularly in propaganda against the USA and the USSR, both of which they depicted as being heavily mixed (the USA as Whites and Blacks, the USSR as Slavs and Asians). --140.247.243.251 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

-Unfortunately, I do know something about this line of thinking. I can't claim to be an expert on what exactly Nazi race theorist considered the cutting edge of their business. But I do know something about those who've tried to perpetuate that line of thinking in more recent times:

1. Yes.

2. There used to be pure Indo-Europeans in the east, but they miscegenated with Asiatic peoples over the years, producing Slavs and other eastern Untermenschen. The - to them - obvious historical superiority of the Germanic peoples meant that they were, naturally, the purer breed.

3. Language is a historical coincidence. After all, most European Jews spoke a Germanic language, that didn't make them German. So, the fact that the Finns spoke a non-Germanic language is of no bearing. Remember, the Finnish language is fairly clearly and uncontroversially relared to the Samoyedic languages. But Finns look nothing like Samoyeds. Racial theories have proven quite flexible in this respect. Remember, Nazi theories were expansive enough to grant "honorary German" status to the French, Spanish, Italians, Hungarians and Arabs as necessary. All of them did live in lands that had been invaded by Germanic peoples at one time or another. And race theories could easily be made to show that, in the distant past, practically anybody could be descended in part or whole from the pure Aryan strain. Remember, there was no DNA testing at the time. The comparative method in biology used physiological characteristics to make identifications, and those comparisons were often less than systematic.

4. What about them? The Greater German Nation included them too. They didn't join the war, but that didn't make them lesser people. After all, the UK and US fought the Nazis directly, and that didn't change their position in the racial theories of the time, or of their successors.

5. I doubt it. First of all, the Nazis and other race theorists were never able to stick to a straight story. When the winds blew one way, the Irish were marginal beings of clearly inferior stock; when the wind blew the other way, they were part of the great "Celto-Germanic" race. Every race theorist tends to think he (it's usually he) belongs to the Master Race. But the rest is a tissue of rationalizations that changes depending on who's paying the bills. "Race theory" is just too ugly a business to want to get into and expressing excessive curiosity about it will get you branded as questionable. That alone discourages most research into it.

--Diderot 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, here's a big question, and it certainly deserves a big answer! First of all, Evilbu, the pages you need to look at, in addition to those highlighted by Wakuran, are Nordicism and Nordic theory. Also I would suggest that if you are really interested in this topic there is a lot of good academic monographs. One of the best I ever read, though slightly dated now, is The Aryan Myth-A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe by Léon Poliakov. The main thing to focus on is the rise of nationalism in the nineteenth century, in particular the development of specific national myths used to explain the alleged superiority of a particular community or people. The seminal work here is Arthur de Gobineau's 1855 Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races , where the Aryans, the speakers of Indo-European languages, were held to be responsible for all of humanity's greatest cultural achievments; and at the peak of the Aryan pyramid, in Gobineau's estimation, were the Germanic races of northern Europe. The greatest danger was that the 'purity' of this original race was subject to etiolation and dilution: After passing through the age of the gods when it was absolutely pure; the age of the heroes, in which the mixtures were moderate in strength and number; the age of the nobility, where human faculties remained considerable though they could not be renewed from dried-up sources, it has descended, more or less swiftely according to the environment, to the final confusion of all the elements...The portion of Aryan blood, already subdivided so frequently, which still exists in our countries and which alone sustains the edifice of our society, advances daily towards our last frontier before total absorption.

As you can see, the myth is based on a descent from an original, and mythical racial Garden of Eden, a source of all purity, moving by stages towards contemporary anthropological and political realites. Of necessity it is a theory that has to be modified by practice and reality. Over time it goes through many subdivisions, with the Nazis devising their own categories of superior and inferior, giving Gobineau's cultural model a specific biological twist. As you have quite rightly hinted, the whole theory is eclectic and selective, allowing people like Rosenberg to 'adopt' races like the Finns: even the Japanese were later described as 'honorary Aryans.'. One of the best critiques of this whole pseudo-intellectual farrago puts the position as follows: Naturally there is no such thing as a pure race, not even a Jewish one...Race: it is a sentiment, not a reality; it is 95% sentiment. I don't believe that it is possible to prove biologically that a race is more or less pure. Who said this? Why, Benito Mussolini, in an interview given to the historian Emil Ludwig in 1932. He went on to say, soon after meeting Hitler for the first time, that if Nazi race theories were correct the only pure race in Europe was the Laps! Clio the Muse 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think you should bear in mind that the race theories of the Nazis served political goals, personal whims and popularist themes.. Scientific credibility came second and instances of german archaeologists burying fake artifacts only to dig them up later to prove germanic influences are well known. In general the essense of the race theories was to give the german people a sense of togetherness and belonging together with additional scapegoats such as jews - what ever felt good. As the second world war progressed the racial theories showed less and less consistency with whatever allies the germans could find being declared 'noble' if not truly aryan - this included many unlikely people including turks and central asian peoples.

The nazis were not in general cold blooded scientists/anthropologists - but natural populists - I think to expect to find any logical consistency in 'aryan' theories would be a small hope - except in finding that fundamental the division was into 'us' and 'them' along with 'people we'd like to be friends with' eg dutch,swedish, 'people who actually are friends with us', and 'any oddballs stupid enough to fight for us'.87.102.23.143 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A few answers:

1. I think they would believe that Indo-Europeans originated in the black forest and spread out over the globe if they wished to..!

2. Again 'aryan' was a badge intended to link any possible allies and the german people together - as you rightly spot - the two ways of thinking don't match.

3. The Finns - again why excluded a similarly civilised and probably friendly people when in all probability if you play your cards right they could be good allies.

I think it's important to make a distinction between nazi aryan theories and other theories of an 'aryan' origin of europeans. They won't always be the same thing. For instance if we intend to trace european history back through time using language as a guide we eventually end up in India - with the Vedas and sanskrit and the like. This would make gypsy's (travelling people who originate from india) perfect examples of aryan people - yet they were not as far as I know encouraged to live in germany at that time.87.102.23.143 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to read Aryan#Racial_connotations if you haven't already.87.102.23.143 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a line of thought in the early 20th century that said the Proto-Indo-Europeans must have originated in Northern Europe, since their language had words like beech. (Those who promoted that theory must have conveniently ignored that PIE also had words for monkey and elephant.) The predominant theory now is that the PIEs originated in or around Ukraine. -- Mwalcoff 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Which are the supposed roots for "monkey" and "elephant"? Seems most scholars believe similarities (such as En. "ape" Proto-Slavic *opica etc) are due to borrowing. 惑乱 分からん 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I got that from this page. Guess you can't believe everything you read on the Internet -- Mwalcoff 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Would an old blond-haired blue-eyed man who tended the medical needs of dogs and horses in the Wehrmacht be a veteran-aryan? Edison

Good effort, personally I've come to the conclusion 'blond skiers' = 'aryan', is that what adolf meant?87.102.77.95 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)'

Actually, any SS man would be a veteran-aryan. Or a horse's ass. (Is that the same thing?) Trekphiler 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Nazi race theory was more exclusive to those of Germanic "Nordic" and "Aryan" Indo-European origins. There were many Nazi racists claimed to had advanced knowledge on the origins of European peoples. Some of these psuedoscientists eventually disliked most of their allies (governments backed by Hitler) and categorized the majority of Slavic and Mediteranean peoples: i.e. Poles with little Germanic ancestry (Hitler disliked the Poles as much he especially hated Jews), Baltic peoples (Latvians and Lithuanians), Ukrainians, Russians, Yugoslavians, Hungarians, Slovaks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians, southern Italians, Iberians (Spanish and Portuguese), Caucasus peoples (Armenians and Georgians), and Turks are "inferior" or not completely equal to the Germans or Germanic-speaking peoples. True, the Nazi party gave "honorary Aryan" status only to those individuals whom worked closely in the Nazi axis war effort and it's a reward for their collabaration with the Nazis, although they are "non-Aryan" like the Japanese, an Asiatic people but were allied with the Nazis in WWII, or not quite equal in the eyes of notorious Nazi racial policies. The Nazi race policy declared "dark-skinned" peoples: Africans (the Nazis declared them an "inferior" race), Asians (Indians, Arabs and Malayans, as well the Chinese and Siberians), Latin Americans (if they are of mestizo and mulatto origins) and even placed American Indians, Polynesians and Australoid peoples in a very "inferior" place. The Nazi racial doctrine was not only anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish, but was full of highly racist, ethno-nationalist and xenophobic attitudes to produce a false notion of Germans are "superior" to all other peoples, and Northern Europeans (blonde, blue-eyed, Celtic or Germanic people) are a "master race", and brought on an evil sinister ideology of certain human beings have no civil rights that led up to the Holocaust and the mass murders of 6 million Jews, along with over a million Roma (gypsies) and millions more of others the Nazis condemned to death. What kind of mentality had the Nazis practiced when they were in power is a lesson on the dangers of race science and fanatic nationalism against groups of people, and Nazism is absolutely against the concept of democracy and freedom itself. + 63.3.14.2 03:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross with a circle.

Are there any examples of groups today that use the cross with a cirlce around it to represnt there poltical party. Any example of a group using this symbol, in a non-church related way?

The British Campaign for nuclear disarmament-CND-uses a cross with dropped arms inside a circle. I have a feeling that the straightforward cross and circle symbol may have been used by certain Fascist parties in the past, specifically the Hungarian Arrow Cross. I do not know of any contemporary uses. Clio the Muse 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the article on celtic cross, particularly the last paragraph political symbol. Plenty of right wing parties and fringe groups use this, not necessarily in their logo, but as a symbolic emblem I saw several examples of celtic cross graffiti recently in Rome. ---Sluzzelin 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Nuclear Disarmament symbol is not a cross with dropped arms. It's the semaphore symbols for "N" and "D" (nuclear disarmament) superimposed. Corvus cornix 23:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification! Clio the Muse 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Clio, this seems like the first thing on the Humanities desk that you didn't know the answer to :-) The Mad Echidna 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

...Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), which invented the peace symbol—a circle around a configuration that looks like a missile but is supposed to represent both a broken cross and an overlapping of the semaphore N and the semaphore D.Mueller, John (1989). Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War. pp. p. 160. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

—eric 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, eric. I wonder if the author got some supporting documentation for that assertion, or if it's just his speculation? Corvus cornix 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

None are mentioned in the text, and that's the only neutral looking source i've found connecting a cross to the peace symbol. The others are such as: Behreandt, Dennis (2003). "Unpeaceful Symbol: A Look at the History of the So-Called Peace Symbol Reveals That It Originated in Ancient Pagan Rituals, and That Its Use Has Been Primarily as a Token Not of Peace, but of Evil". The New American. 19 (9). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) which i won't even bother quoting.—eric 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my concern, since so many right wingers try to demonize the peace movement by claiming their symbol is something Satanic (like an upside down cross). Corvus cornix 00:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's more dicussion of this at Peace symbol#The CND or Peace symbol, with references. Corvus cornix 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Koran

How would i go about getting an English Koran, more specifically, a free one. I know the Arabic ones are better, but i don't have time to learn Arabic.

Thanks Omnipotence407 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Several online translations link from the article on Qur'an. See Qur'an#External_links. They're free, and they're in Engish. ---Sluzzelin 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost certain if you go to the your nearest mosque or Muslim bookshop, they should have some, and I imagine they'll all be free. I remember one of my friend's having a Koran with both Arabic and English in it. Hope this helps. - Akamad 01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That would surprise me; I thought the Koran was not, officially, allowed to be translated out of Arabic? I'd be surprised then if Muslim bookshops carried them. Barnes and Noble certainly does, though. --24.147.86.187 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As the Qur'an article says translations are fine, they are just regarded as merely interpretations not canon. A companion of Muhammed wrote the first translation. meltBanana 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As with the Bible, some editions of the Qur'an are subsidized or given out free (including the not perfect but very useful Yusuf Ali version—unfortunately recently with revisions that are not improvements; I suspect the Amana edition gets funding from Saudi Arabia). The biggest give-away seems to be CAIR's Explore the Quran Campaign, but shipping is not covered. (Wow, I just realized that this is the very nice Muhammad Asad edition, with a full liberal, somewhat eccentric commentary, which some Muslims have recommended highly to me, though I've never seen it—it's not in my college library, and I balked at the regular purchase price. In short, well worth the $7.65!) (A little Googling also turned up this request form, which might get you a totally free Yusuf Ali Arabic-English version.) Wareh 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify for melt banana: an English "Koran" is not, for Muslims "THE Koran". It's only "AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF the Koran", because "THE Koran" has to be Arabic, or it's only a translation. Some bits of it are, according to some clerics, simply impossible to translate. Why? Because the exact words, rhythm, diatrics, and virtually everything there is about it are relevant to its meaning, so the English can't be 110% accurate. Unlike the Bible: which for Christians, just says exactly what it means. Which is translated into thousands of languages, and thus considered "THE Bible.martianlostinspace 15:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Types of lawyers

What type of lawyer should you be if you want to work for the government suchas a united states attorney. --Croc 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Criminal law. You need experience as a prosecutor. Corvus cornix 02:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the work of United States Attorneys and their staff has nothing to do with criminal prosecution of individuals, although that's their best-known and most 'telegenic' duty. --Charlene 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

United States Attorneys are generally appointed after years of experience in various fields of law. There are only 93 United States Attorneys (and 94 offices - I don't know how that works but I got those numbers right from the DOJ) at the present time. Of course, each of these individuals has 20 or more lawyers, paralegals, and administrators working under her or him, and this may be the career you're thinking of. United States Attorneys handle federal criminal prosecution, debt collection, civil litigation (if someone sues the US government for, say, a slip and fall accident that takes place in a government office), the vetting of contracts between the US government and private entities, most government real estate matters, bankruptcy fraud, bank fraud, health care and quack medicine fraud, coordination of multi-jurisdictional investigations, child exploitation, immigration law enforcement, violent crime on Indian reservations, and the like. Very few of these positions are likely to be held by a criminal prosecutor; a lawyer with a specialization in medical matters would likely handle health care and quack medicine fraud, while a real estate lawyer would handle real estate and a commercial lawyer would likely handle vetting contracts.

This means that even the smaller jurisdictions may employ lawyers drawn from half a dozen fields, not just criminal law. --Charlene 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A U.S. Attorney represents the United States in civil and criminal matters in a geographical region. They are litigators. Once can be an assistant U.S. Attorney in most jurisdictions upon law school graduation. These are the lawyers who actually go to court. It is a prestigious position. One needs to attend a good law school, edit law review and have excellent recommendations. The work is classified so one also needs an FBI clearance. The official U.S. Attorney is responsible for the office. The U.S. Attorney is a prominent lawyer in the area with political ties. I worked in the Manhattan office and there was a compartmentalization between civil and criminal which does not occur most places. When I was there, lawyers did not specialize further. Perhaps Charlene graduated after I did. The lawyers are good all-purpose litigators. It is a brilliant career move. A young lawyer is given an active docket of 6-10 cases after a short course at DOJ in D.C. Comparable experience at a large private firm would take at least fifteen years. The office works with lawyers from the specialized agencies, such as FTC,SEC,HUD, who would know their specific specialty.75Janice 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 1 February 2007

The practice in Manhattan is *very* different from that in most jurisdictions. There are no Indian reservations, for instance, in Manhattan (as far as I remember), and many other federal agencies have offices there and may have their own attorneys. In places like Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, South Dakota, Mississippi, southern Georgia, West Virginia, etc., etc., etc. United States Attorneys have much more on their plates. My brother-in-law works as an assistant United States Attorney in one of those states. --Charlene 00:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan is not that atypical. Believe it or not, Manhattan is part of New York City, which is a city in New York State, which is one of the United States, which is a nation on planet Earth. What was never clear to me, and perhaps you could ask your brother-in-law, is the relationship between the U.S. Attorney's Office and lawyers from agencies with the U.S. government. My friends from law school work and worked in jurisdictions such as Montana, Kansas City, New Jersey so I don't think my answer is absurd.

If the question is about what a government lawyer does, the answer is one can do any type of law. You represent the government instead of a private client. The hours are typically less -depending on the culture where you work. The pay is usually less. On the other hand, you may get paid more per hour worked. The benefit of striving toward a common good rather than helping a monstrously wealth corporate is a benefit. From my own experience, it is hard to know what lawyers besides litigators do b/c they are rarely shown on TV or films. If you are interested, a local bar association may be able to pair you with lawyers in various fields so that you could visit and talk with them for a few minutes.68.81.166.246 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 2 February 2007.

What is the relationship between Neo-Nazis and the Japanese Nazi Party?

The wiki article on the National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party doesnt really explain how its relationship with the white neo-nazi parties is. On the one hand the Japanese are hardly aryan but on the other hand the founder of the Nazi movement Adolf never lost any sleep over his alliance with Japan. --Robinhood29 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess it's fine, although the movement doesn't seem to have any strong international connections, just a loosely connected network... 惑乱 分からん 02:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would Hitler lose sleep over an alliance with Japan? Japan was not a threat to Germany in any way. Japan was not a threat to any of Hitler's ambitions in Europe. Japan was a willing enemy against the United States. The United States was (very) slowly becoming an offensive ally with Germany's enemies. So, it was a case of the U.S. becoming an enemy of Germany through the rule "The Ally of my Enemy is my Enemy" and Japan becoming an ally of Germany through the rule "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Ally". Now, if Japan decided to do something silly like try to conquer Poland for itself, then Hitler would have lost some sleep over the arrangement.

I just thought I should note that there is no reason to assume Hitler believed anything he said. He was a Machiavellian-styled dictator. Thus, he got his people in large groups before talking to them (because the intelligence of a crowd is equal to the dumbest person in the crowd) and then said whatever he had to say to make them happy. --Kainaw ^(talk) 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nazism has taken shape around the oddest of paradoxes, Robin: a movement that was essentially inward looking and violently nationalist has transcended both race and nation. Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism. Putting the common hatred of all things Jewish to one side, the issue of race, and even the concept of Aryanism, has become largely irrelevant. Of all the European nations none suffered more greatly at the hands of the Nazis than Russia; and yet there is now a vigorous and violent Hitlerite movement in that country. There is no reason why the Japanese Nazis should have any connection with other Nazi movements, though I feel sure that they would co-operate and ally with one another, if they felt this to be necessary. Clio the Muse 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I beg to differ. National Socialism is not a simple, natural, human response to bitterness and discontent. For example, Black Americans in the pre-civil rights era, despite the grotesque inhumanity they had suffered as slaves, and continued to suffer under segregation and other racist policies, conditions that no German can ever dare claim to have suffered, did not turn to National Socialism. Instead, to their credit, they turned to civil disobedience and non-violent protest. Similarly, the Jews, despite two millenia of the most inhumane of treatment, never turned to National Socialism either. Finally, the assertion that the Russian people suffered more greatly at the hands of the Nazis is a remarkable one. It's true, some 20 million Russians perished in WWII, yet much of this was due to the military strategy of their "leader", Josef Stalin, who felt no compunction in using his own people as, basically, cannon fodder. Even so, the Russian Nation never had to deal with existential issues such as the prospect of complete annihilation and extinction. This nightmare was one only the Jewish Nation was faced with. Loomis 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, you say black americans suffered 'conditions that no German can ever dare claim to have suffered'. They did not (in my opinion). The German Jews in the concentration camps were every bit as German as the officers running the camps. I would say that these Germans have every right to claim to have suffered at least as much as the blacks in their struggle for civil rights. Nothing against blacks, just a point. Just because they were Jewish, doesn't mean they weren't German. -Joe^Talk!_Work 04:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll rephrase it: "Black Americans in the pre-civil rights era, despite the grotesque inhumanity they had suffered as slaves, and continued to suffer under segregation and other racist policies, conditions that no [bitter and discontented, non-Jewish German who turned to National Socialism] can ever dare claim to have suffered, did not turn to National Socialism". Obviously German-Jews did not turn to Nazism. But I'm sure that you understood that from the start, which only makes me wonder why you bothered making what is in my opinion such an utterly meaningless point. It's as meaningless as saying: "During South Africa's Apartheid era, even at the height of its popularity, a good number of South Africans believed the policy to be racist and unnacceptable". Well duhhhh! The majority of South Africans are Black! So they'd obviously be against Apartheid. The statement clearly implies that a good number of white South Africans were against it. I see no need in clarifying the obvious, other than to get attention. Loomis 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and sin

According to Christian legend, Jesus was without sin including original sin, correct? Dismas|^(talk) 06:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe and sort of, according to legend to be sure. I'd start by checking out Virgin Birth, Original Sin, and the oft confused Immaculate Conception. As I recall, St. Augustine believed that original sin was imparted by orgasm -- whether or not you consider Aurelius' views as legend remains to be seen. --Cody.Pope 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on ones understanding of sin. Some Christian Theologians posit sin as being opposition to god. Jesus, as the role of sacrificial lamb, was a perfect offering, taking upon himself man's collective and individual sin. For a short time, God 'viewed' Jesus as sinful. Jesus cried out "Lord, why have you forsaken me?" then he died, not by smothering, as was typical of crucified, but by heartbreak, as seen from the separation of blood and water.

The question of 'Original Sin' is one of custom, not theology. What is perfection? Phillip K Dick, in VALIS posits many questions regarding the possibility of existance (re absurdity) of God. The questions, while being valid, are irrelivant to Christian theology, but not tradition. DDB 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The WP article on Original Sin says it's sin you're born with. And if Jesus was born (I think He was), and He was also God, well God was perfect, and therefore without sin. So I suppose He was without sin in that sense. The Bible makes that quite blunt: Jesus was the only perfect man.martianlostinspace 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And just in case it isn't clear, DDB is describing a particular theological interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion. An interesting one, but not one that all Christians necessarily hold. Not that DDB hasn't said this, but I thought it might not be clear. :-) Skittle 23:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(Snicker) ha ha (Snicker) teeheehee... Oh, sorry. I find the concept of discussing religion funny. Especially on the internet. With a bunch of... geeks... (hee hee hee)

Anyway, sorry about that. Yes, I'm pretty sure that the concept of Immaculate Conception was to make sure that Mary was holy enough (born without this so-called "Original" sin) to give birth to Jesus. So if Mary was born without it, that must mean that Jesus was born without it, right? Since having the "original" sin is hereditary. So Jesus was born without it, as would any of Jesus's children. No, wait... that would only be if Jesus's wife (or, you know, children's mother, was without the "original" sin. So... never mind on that last regard. Abyss42 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm going to Hell for this, aren't I?

Yes. Satan 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Skittle. You are correct. I would never want to close off debate .. only add to it :D DDB 11:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Abyss, technically, I think purgatory .. for a long time ;) DDB 11:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Abyss42 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First Contact

We were discussing this in my class a couple of days ago and it still is in my head. during the time of the colonisation of India(meaning Indonesia,india+more(actually everything past cape good hope until the street of magelhaer I believe)) by western-imperialist Europeans, there would have to be moments of first contact with the local population. now I was wondering how exactly did they handle such situations? I mean they lacked knowledge of the language; didn't know anything like it either; didn't know any of the traditions and customs. (mind you: they were dealing with some highly developed civilisations:unlike in Africa at that time)Graendal 08:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a "first contact" situation in the way that Christopher Columbus's and John Cabot's meetings were. There had been sporadic contact between the West and the East for millennia. Also, most early contacts were over land, not over the ocean, so the very early Europeans weren't just showing up out of nowhere - they had already travelled through adjoining territories where there would likely be speakers of the language used in the next country. By the time great numbers of Europeans arrived by sea there were already Europeans there, and some natives spoke the European languages. --Charlene 08:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look into Enrique of Malacca, Ferdinand Magellan's personal slave and interpreter. The earlier "imperialist outsiders" in Indonesia, of course, were those who introduced Islam to the Hindu and animist inigenous populations. --Wetman 09:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The first Europeans traveling to Indian Ocean ports either included some who spoke Arabic or engaged Arab and other traders who knew the trade languages (such as Arabic) already spoken in the region. The next generation of European traders in the region would have included some who could speak local languages (learned on earlier voyages), and they would have met local interpreters who had learned Portuguese. The first European to sail to India was of course Vasco da Gama. Before landing in India, his expedition called at ports on the east coast of Africa engaged in trade with India, including Malindi. In Malindi, da Gama engaged Ahmad Bin Majid, an Arab trader, to travel with him to India. Our article on da Gama indicates that he communicated with people on the east coast of Africa and that the Portuguese were aware that the Arabs were already trading with India (as they had probably been doing for at least a thousand years). It would not be surprising that some European seamen spoke some Arabic, because there had been centuries of trade between southern European countries and the Arabic-speaking ports of North Africa. Such contact would also have given Europeans an awareness of Arab customs. Spain and Portugal may have had an advantage in this area, because the Arabic-speaking Nasrids were not driven from the Iberian peninsula until 1492, just a decade before da Gama's voyage. Marco polo 15:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The First contact (anthropology) page could use some expansion. I recall reading somewhere that European explorers went through first contact experiences frequently enough for a while that there developed a bit of knowledge on how to go about it, although it was always a dangerous procedure. A lot can be conveyed through gestures, gifts, and willing submission to local customs of formality. Pfly 06:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Converts to Islam

Why is it that converts to Islam change their names? Just tradition or is it some sort of spiritual shedding of their old self? Dismas|^(talk) 10:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the latter. 惑乱 分からん 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not tradition, per se. Or at least not an old tradition. Black American Muslims in the Elijah Muhammad tradition bound up Islam in a form of nationalism - a willful and comprehensive change of identity motivated at least in part by political considerations. So for them, adopting Islam also often involved "abandoning their slave names". Although many western converts to Islam are not black and/or not bound up in any special form of nationalism, many are still touched by well-known American Black Muslim experiences like that of Malcom X. And, converting to Islam in the west is at least a somewhat anti-social thing to do. Changing your name is a very visible token of your break with who you were and your rejection of at least a part of the society around you.

You may have a point with the "slave name" argument as I seem to recall Malcolm X saying something about slave names. Although, the question came to mind because of the interview that I heard with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar the other day on NPR. He had converted and changed his name, though as far as I know, none of his ancestors were slaves. Not disputing what you said, just adding that I don't think it applies in all cases... but then what does outside of Science? Dismas|^(talk) 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Asad is a non-African-American example from an earlier period (1926). Wareh 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, one shouldn't take generalization too far, although for Muhammed Asad there was definitely a willful and at least partially politically motivated element to his conversion, even if not inspired by American examples. And, converting from Judaism to something else was a pretty seriously anti-social thing to do - at least if you plan on socializing with Jews. And, on the other hand, there are people who convert to Islam who do not change their names at all, even where there was a very serious and comprehensive conversion, like Richard Colvin Reid. --Diderot 00:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In countries where Islam is more commonplace, I doubt such name changes at conversion to Islam happen very often. In contrast, adopting "Christian names" is a regularly recurring part of the Christian missionary narrative in countries where converting to Christianity is at least a somewhat anti-social act. It was actively encouraged and given a quasi-theological basis by Catholics until the 1980s.

--Diderot 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In countries where Islam is more commonplace, I doubt such name changes at conversion to Islam happen very often. If you look at the Ethiopian and Kenyan athletes who switched to Bahrain and Qatar (see List of nationality transfers in athletics), all but one of them adopted an Arabic name. So it may also be an Arab tradition more than a muslim tradition. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bahrain and Qatar are small countries in the habit of buying athletes. I expect those athletes felt some level of pressure to remake themselves in their adopted nations' images. Notice that Yamilé Aldama and Todd Matthews-Jouda switched to Sudan - a far poorer but quite Arab and Islamic state - but did not change their names. --Diderot 14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While some do it to escape slave names I think others do it to pick a name with supposed meaning which displays their devotion to Gawd http://www.convertstoislam.com/NewName/newname.html On a slight tangent I always like the line in Pulp Fiction where a boxer called Butch tells a taxi driver that names have no meaning in america. meltBanana 16:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not about the question, but I found this page particularly hilarious: [1], especially this line "In fact, a muslim woman is allowed to demand a 'salary' from her husband for performing such duties. Where do you find this level of respect for women in the non-muslim world?" --Taraborn 23:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

HINDUISM: Jai Mata Di/Jai Mata Ki--translation of Di and Ki?

(question moved to language desk) OI! I didn't get a satisfactory answer on the language desk, that's why I asked here IN THE FIRST PLACE. What's the problem?!?--Snowgrouse 12:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original question: I asked this question in the Language section already, and didn't get answers. So I'm asking the Hindus here: What does the "di" or "ki" at the end of Jai Mata mean? I understand Jai Mata means Victory to Mother(Goddess), but what's the purpose of the syllable at the end? I understand Jai Mata Di is Hindi, and I suspect the Ki is Bengali.

The question remains: What does the Ki or Ji signify in "Jai Mata Di"/"Jai Mata Ki"?

"Italic text'ki" or "di" is equal to "of" if you directly translate this into english. In totality it stands "Victory of Mother". Since direct translation of the hindi words would seem odd .. so just told you the meaning of the slogan.. its actually a form of invocation where the devotees put in their belief in the goddes through this.... "di" is as far as my knowledge goes punjabi version of "ki" i.e. "of" in English. I hope you are satisfied. Thanks. Shrijata Calcutta'

Democracy Index and relatively low USA rating

This economist article:[2], linked in Wikipedia in Democracy Index, shows the democracy ratings around the world, and the USA doesn´t do so well compared to other countries. Could someone please briefly explain/summarize the general reasons why the USA democracy is inferior to those of other countries, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Scandinavian countries and Ireland. Thank you. --AlexSuricata 11:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article gives full details of its scoring system and breaks down the scores for those countries. The USA's democracy is flawed, as was notoriously shown by the shenanigans of the United States presidential election, 2000. A simple example where the USA would have been marked down in the scoring is "There is a dominant two party system in which other political forces never have any effective cance of taking part in national government". The USA's worst category (it scored 7.22/10) was for "Political Participation". Read through the questions on page 10 of the report. It's unsurprising that other countries scored much better, but 17th place out of 167 ain't bad; the USA beat the UK (23rd) - we scored 5.00 for "Political Participation" and I think that might have been generous! --Dweller 11:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As Dweller says, the article does give a lot of information about its scoring method, which is based on 60 questions in 5 categories. The scores in each of the 5 categories have been normalised to give a maximum possible score of 10 in each category, but you can "unnormalise" them again to get the raw scores e.g. for US, raw scores are:

• Electoral process : 10.5 out of 12 (median is 11.5 out of 12)
• Functioning of government : 11 out of 14 (median is 11.75 out of 14)
• Political participation : 6.5 out of 9 (median is 6.75 out of 9)
• Political culture : 7 out of 8 (median is 7 out of 8)
• Civil liberties : 14.5 out of 17 (median is 16.5 out of 17)

For comparison, I have given the median (middle) score for each category across the "Full democracies" group of countries. The questions in each category are listed at the end of the article, so you can try to work out for yourself just where the US might have lost marks in each category.

Incidentally, the US "Political participation" score is only just below the median score for this category across the "Full democracies" group of countries. The categories where the US has been scored lowest compared to other "Full democracy" countries are "Electoral process" and "Civil liberties". The US scores are the lowest out of all the "Full democracy" countries in both of these categories. Gandalf61 12:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dweller: Yes, I read the article, including Page 10, and did not find the concrete information I was looking for with reference to the USA. I am not - as you falsely assume - American, nor have I ever been there, and for that reason was also unsure. To my knowledge, this site is a (very useful + informative) place where one could find information/explanations to things that one does not understand or know, by asking politely, and without necessarily receiving sarcasm or aggression in the reply (would be nice). As for "getting some hubris", I do not understand that expression either, sorry. Nonetheless, thank you for explaining that the 2 party system and the 2000 election are contributing factors. Perhaps there are others too (I don´t know, that is why I asked). --AlexSuricata 12:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if my reply was deemed uncivil in any way and have deleted the appropriate parts of my post. I have no insider knowledge other than what I read there. Reading the questions and seeing the detailed scores for the USA as Gandalf and I have done, some of the areas where the country underperformed can be intuitively understood. Incidentally, I did not cite the 2000 Election as something that would have lost the country points in this report, but rather as evidence of a flawed democratic system. --Dweller 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two things that come to mind. As a rule, people in the United States don't vote. Rarely does voter turn-out exceed 30%. There are many excuses for it, but that's not important. It is just that people don't vote, so the Democratic process is hindered. Also, the United States is not a Democracy. It is a Republic. Republics have democratic processes, which often gets them confused for Democracies. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Voter turnout isn't that low. The table on Voter turnout shows an average 54% and that includes elections in non-Presidential election years (electing Congresmen only). Rmhermen 18:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of voter turnouts in other countries, but isn't 54% quite a low turnout? Aecis^Brievenbus 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as "Republics" go (People's Republic of China and SPQR spring to mind!) the USA is a pretty dang Democratic one, hence its very high rating as 17th out of 167 countries. --Dweller 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"The American bureaucracy ... was set up for very slow speeds of the printed word and railways. At electric speeds, nothing in the USA makes sense." - Marshall McLuhan, 1970 Vranak

The Economist methodology is very suspect. Take a look at Question 14: "Is the legislature the supreme political body, with a clear supremacy over other branches of government?" The U.S. loses a point on this. But is the American system of three equal branches of government a bad thing? Not necessarily. Americans could make a case that they should get points for being able to vote for dozens of offices from president to county coroner, and for initiative and referendum in some states. The Economist doesn't give any credit for those. -- Mwalcoff 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The same for Switzerland. The country has compulsory referenda on just about anything, with massive participation and a multi-party system, yet scores no higher than 10th. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Di means the act of giving respect : like to address by using a surname wud be like " Dear Mr. XXX" in written correspondence. I hope that settles ur query! Garb wire 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war and Catch 22

What are the similarities and differences between the Iraq war and the story of Catch 22? Mr.K. 14:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're in the miltary to begin with, you can't get out of either situation without being court-marshalled. Vranak

You could, of course, plead insanity; but then there is a catch.... Clio the Muse 20:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I got out (unwillingly) during the first Iraq War without a court-marshal or pleading insanity. I was in a motorcycle accident. After three months of rehab, I was fine, but my medical-discharge paperwork was already filed. However, this brings up another topic: How much sympathy should I have for a person who enslists in a group that exists for combat and then complains when they are sent off to combat? --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Catch 22 is a fictional setting. Iraq has elements of very creative imaginations, but anchored in reality. Media voice decry the conservative presidential position at every instance of tragedy. But they are supposed to do that. It gets confusing for those who don't know that they sway in a political direction.

Catch 22 was apolitical. In Joseph Heller's day, it was just as unimaginable, then, that mainstream media would criticise a left leaning administration as it is today.

Europe, post world war 2 was allowed to develop in the West, substantialy without Eastern influence, as communist Europe was busy with internal disputes. Iraq, as Vietnam, has significant neighbors that are capable of extending internal strife. What remains to be seen is if the world will let them, and if the political opposition can capitalise on the success of terrorists. DDB 08:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Olivier

Is it true that Lawrence Olivier once forgot his lines whilst performing Shakespeare and recited the names of the tube stations from his house to the theatre so convincingly that noone noticed?Ameliapitt 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Denis Quilley reminisces in this Guardian feature. He remembers an evening involving a very intoxicated overworked Olivier performing Eugene O'Neill's Long Day's Journey into Night:

On this one tired night, he couldn't remember Booth's name, couldn't remember which play they acted in, and after ad-libbing for a minute or two, he got up saying: "I'm sorry lad, you'll have to excuse me, I'm not feeling too well," and staggered off the stage.

Olivier pulled himself together offstage within seconds, all he needed was the first line to throw him back on track. He rushed back on stage and continued the dialogue - "Nobody suspected a thing."

Quilley didn't specify what exactly Olivier said in his ad-libbing, and I couldn't find anything on the tube stations. ---Sluzzelin 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I carelessly stated that Olivier was drunk that night. In fact he was just very exhausted from running the National theatre during the day and having suffered major health problems shortly before. Since you mentioned Shakespeare: Though this was an O'Neill play, in the mentioned scene Olivier's character, the retired actor James Tyrone Sr. , "drunkenly bemoaned the fact that he could have been a great Shakespearean actor."---Sluzzelin 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In his autobiography, Olivier discusses a serious bout with severe stage fright late in his career. He kept performing stage roles until he conquered it. Perhaps the above incident refers to one night in the process.75Janice 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 1 February 2007

Love letters, French, l8c. spec. between Empress Eugenie and Napoleon III

Hello: I am giving a talk on the above subject and would like to know a source to find thes letters, if they exist.

Many thanks,

Judigee

Your request is a little unclear to me, Judigee. Are you looking for a general anthology of French love letters of the eighteenth century, or specifically letters between Eugenie and Napoleon III, which, of course, belong to the nineteenth century? Anyway, on Napoleon and Eugenie I know of no English translations of their letters, but you will find some representative samples of their exchanges in Desmond Seward's Eugenie: the Empress and her Empire. A new paperback edition was printed last year by Sutton Publishing. The treatment, to be frank, is not very profound-a little too gossipy for my taste-but the subject has been reasonably well researched. Clio the Muse 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What role did the United States play in the 1965 military coup against Sukarno?

What role did the United States play in the coup against Sukarno? Are there any documents to support the claims that the CIA was involved in planning the coup? How much aid was given to the military? What role did the United States play in the 1965 military coup against Sukarno? To what extent had Red China and the Soviets been connected with Sukarno prior to the coup? To what degree could the coup be considered part of America's policy of containment?--Dinotro 17:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Sukarno, not Sukrano? Rmhermen 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the evidence presented here [3] and here [4]. I cannot, of course, personally vouch for the political objectivity and reliability of either of these sources; but they do at least lay down paper trails you should be able to follow. Clio the Muse 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After the Vietnam War, in 1975, there was a security fear based on the Southern states decision to capitulate without first destroying its armament. It was felt that the Vietnamese would get money by selling these weapons to other communist regimes. One such possible recipient was Timor, which is very close to Australia. It is known the Australian PM, Gough Whitlam, failed to reject the Indonesian (Right wing, under Soeharto) invasion. It is rumored Whitlam gave tacit approval to the murder of Australian journalists at Balibo.

I think the politics of that entanglement should give you an idea of US foreign policy concerns regarding Sukarno, as it impacted on the ANZUS treaty. DDB 09:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Former Presidents' eligibility to run for Vice President

Originally posted at Talk:President of the United States -- Vary | Talk 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC) There have been some former President's who also were Vice President, like Nixon or George HW Bush. so if a Vice President can become a President, can a President became VP? example, Bush his term is almost over and Dick Cheney wants to be the new president, can he use George W. Bush as his Vice President or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.35.109 (talk • contribs) 17:50, February 1, 2007.

I don't think so. The 12th Amendment reads in part that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Since he can't run for president again, he can't be Vice President, either, as that would put him back in line for the presidency. There are different readings of the relationship between that and the 22nd Amendment (see 22nd_amendment#The_relationship_between_the_22nd_and_12th_amendments, so if the question ever arose I think it would likely be an issue for the Supreme Court to decide, but I'm inclined to think it wouldn't be permitted. -- Vary | Talk 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any legal prohibition against a former 1 term President from running as a vice president. So Jimmy Carter or George H. W. Bush could now run as a Vice President candidate, as before his death could have Gerald Ford, whose name was bandied about as a Vice President candidate to run with Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election. The negotiations reportedly fell through because Ford wanted to have more influence than the typical Vice President. Edison 21:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Legally this may be true, but psychologically, it would be very unlikely. After being the most powerful man in the world, an ex-president is hardly likely to be satisfied being second banana. One was reelected to the Senate or House (can't recall who), but I don't think any of the rest tried for elected office. Clarityfiend 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Darn! That means we can't flip the "Billary" ticket this round and have a run by "HillBilly". --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See President of the United States#Life after the Presidency, which mentions JQ Adams and Andrew Johnson returning to Congress, and Cleveland returning to the Presidency after a break; but omits Teddy Roosevelt's failed bid for re-election as President. JackofOz 23:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See Former United States presidents who ran again for the complete list.--Pharos 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Place names in Prague

Things in Prague used to have very German(?)-sounding names but at some point they were changed to Czech(?)-sounding names (e.g. Laurenziberg is now Petřín). Is there an article has info about this change like when it happened, why, and who made the change? I looked around a bit but couldn't find anything. Recury 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot say with any certainty when these changes were made, or by whose decision, though I think it reasonable to assume that they were made by the Czech government-or the Prague municipal authorities-in the wake of the country's independence from the Austrian Empire in 1918. It is possible, though, that such alterations were made before independence, with the liberalisation of the empire and the growth of Czech national consciousness in the nineteenth century. It's quite likely that German and Czech names existed side by side for some time before 1918. Clio the Muse 20:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I found no official dates either, but to give you some context, have a look at the articles on Czech National Revival, Germanisation, and Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938). According to this article in German, the 19th century saw many Czech speaking people moving from the the hinterland to the city; by 1855 Prague's German speaking population was no longer in the majority. ---Sluzzelin 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good info, guys. Somehow I got the impression that it happened all at once in an organized, official sort of way, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Thanks for the help. Recury 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "the name". Austria (as opposed to Hungary) used German as its official language, but came to require fluency in Czech of its officials in Bohemia. So Laurenziberg would be found in official documents, and is more likely in English, before 1918. After 1918, the Czechoslovak Government strongly encouraged the use of Czech; but it was a while before English writing abandoned the familiar German names (and we, WP, still use Pilsen, and the French Prague.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In the late 19th century, as Czech speakers came to dominate Prague municipal politics, German names were phased out. I think they took German names off the street signs in the 1890s. With Czech independence from Austria, there was a great degree of anti-German sentiment. The Nazis restored German as the first language of Prague, but their defeat, and the expulsion of most Czech German-speakers, meant the end of German Bohemia. In Prague Castle, you can see an old, 19th-century bilingual street sign in which the German part has been rubbed out. This presumably dates to 1945. I've got some info about Czech street names around here somewhere; I'll try to find it. -- Mwalcoff 01:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"In 1892 the Prague city council, dominated by Czech nationalists, voted to replace the city's bilingual street signs with exclusively Czech ones" -- The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861-1914. by Gary B. Cohen, Slavic Review, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring, 1983), pp. 141-142 -- Mwalcoff 01:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pepper article?

In the UK, you can buy these things called 'peppers' and they come in green, red, yellow or orange and they're not spicy and they're often bigger than an apple and bulbous, as opposed to long and thin. I type in 'pepper' in Wikipedia, and I predictably get a disambiguation page but this doesn't appear to feature an article on the kind of pepper I'm looking for. --Seans Potato Business 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for the bell pepper article. - AMP'd 19:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In the UK they are also referred to as capsicum, as well as peppers (never bell peppers). They are sweet rather than peppery, and can be used in a wide variety of recipies. Clio the Muse 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll be... thanks AMP'd. --Seans Potato Business 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To add to the confusion: Where I live, whe call them peperoni. And, had I not been forewarned, I would have been one of those tourists "in for a surprise" when ordering pizza in the United States, as explained in Wikipedia's article on Pepperoni. ---Sluzzelin 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And it's not just in the UK! You can buy these where ever they can be grown. I buy them all the time here in the southeren United States! schyler 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think his point was that they're called "peppers" there, not and never "bell peppers", so when he went to look them up under Pepper he was surprised they weren't in the list. I knew a guy from St. Louis who called them "mangoes", which was even more confusing. We just call them "[colour] peppers", as opposed to "chile peppers", which are the hot ones. Oh great, now I'm hungry. --Charlene 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Which have nothing to do with the country Chile. I think the peppers are usually spelled "chilli" peppers. (Nothing to do with Red Hot Chilli Peppers.) JackofOz 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The spelling is a contentious issue, Jack - see Talk:Chili pepper. Natgoo 00:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated cycles of pejoration: multiple sequence of periodic euphemism and dysphemism treadmills

Some words develop negative connotations with time (pejoration), and some previously unsavory words become progressively more acceptable (like the expression "that sucks", which previously was very negative, or the expressions "God-awful" and "chrissakes"). I read some years ago of an example of multiple cycles of pejoration and restitution for the pair of words "ass" and "arse", at least in British English. Apparently over several centuries, alternately "ass" or "arse" would be viewed as more rude, and the other the polite form. For example, at the start, it might be appropriate to use the word ass in polite company, and impolite to use the word arse in polite company. Fifty or 100 years later, the opposite was true; arse was the proper word, and ass was the nasty term. Fifty or 100 years after that, the connotations of the two words had flip-flopped again. Apparently this cycle continued on for a long time. I have from time to time tried to find out more about this. Does anyone have any information?--Filll 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the difference between "arse" and "ass" dialectal? 惑乱 分からん 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the substitution of "donkey" for "ass" a class-shibboleth or a localism? Midas had asses'-ears, but at Wikipedia this is bowdlerized to "donkey's-ears", apparently out of a misplaced fastidiousness. In the US one hears of Jesus entering Jerusalem "riding on a donkey", with its unconscious echoes of how Yankee Doodle went to town. Is the substitution insisted on in the same milieu that makes no verbal distinction between "ant" and "aunt"?--Wetman 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think donkey/ass are old synonyms, ass (for arse) and ass (for donkey) have no etymological connection as far as I know, ass(arse) is related to Greek orros (or something), ass(donkey) is related to Latin asinus. 惑乱 分からん 11:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See rhoticity. Actually, a friend of mine wrote a paper on such a cyclical behavior of postvocalic /r/ in New England. (I can't find it on the internet, but if you like I could give her your e-mail.) — Sebastian 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhoticity has nothing to do with it, as there is no /r/ in either 'ass' nor 'arse', it is merely a different initial vowel. Additionally, there are some British dialects where 'ass' is traditionally acceptable, such as Midlands English, which generally shortens most vowels, however, the reputation of 'ass' as an Americanism has diminished this somewhat. 194.80.32.8 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what anybody but Wakuran is talking about. What cycle? "Ass" is American, and "arse" is British. There is nothing more to it. No doubt they are etymologically related. Possibly, American speakers interpreted a non-rhotic pronunciation of "arse" as something like the British pronunciation of "past" and substituted the American 'æ' vowel that replaces British 'ɑ' in that position. Also, Jesus would ride a donkey rather than an ass in American English because the word "donkey" is the normal word for that animal, no doubt to avoid ambiguity. Marco polo 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Could it be possible that the use of the word "ass" to mean buttocks originated as a euphamism for the taboo "arse?" Like "darn" or "dagnabbit" or something? -- Mwalcoff 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's dialectal, just as old "hoss" for "horse", "cuss" for "curse" etc. 惑乱 分からん 11:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes my impression is that at one time, ass for buttocks was a euphemism for arse. then eventually ass acquired crude connotations, and arse gradually became neutral. So then ass was the taboo word, while arse became the euphemism. This apparently cycled a few times in the UK. I do not know the relationship with American usage however. This is what I read some years back. I wish I could dig up the reference again. I was fascinated by it so I remembered it.--Filll 06:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A fascinating discussion! But Marco is right:arse is British and ass is American. It has only ever been used in England in reference to the behind as an American loan word, as far as I can tell. The second usage of ass for donkey is still to be found in Standard English, though now slightly antiquated. There is a short story by the Irish writer Padraic O Conaire which translates into English as My Little Black Ass. Yes, that's right! If anyone doubts the veracity of this you will find it in The Oxford Book of Irish Short Stories, edited by William Trevor, first published in 1989. I dare say it appears in the American edition, for obvious reasons, as My Little Black Donkey, but I would be interested to know for sure. And please, folks, do not attempt to do a google search for the original title. You may end up with more than you wish! Clio the Muse 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Or how about Big Black Ass, then? (How pubertal...) 惑乱 分からん 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

District court for the District of Columbia — but not the D.D.C.

Does the District of Columbia have a district( of Columbia) court the way other U.S. states have a state court? That is, not a federal court (federal district court), but a "local" court. The article United States District Court for the District of Columbia says:

Cases dealing with the laws of the District of Columbia are heard by this court only under the same circumstances that would cause a case under State law to come before a Federal court.

That would seem to imply that there must be some other court to handle other cases, no?—msh210℠ 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind: I've found an answer to my question. Not on WP, but, rather, at dc.gov. I will now commence looking for WP articles on the DC courts, and write stubs if they don't exist.—msh210℠ 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

District of Columbia Court of Appeals --Spoon! 12:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the island of Kikipujuu?

I can't seem to find anything about this subject on the web. I believe it's one of the islands in the Ralik Chain in the Marshall Islands.

Barik Wadju

66.248.222.34 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about the spelling, Barik? I've scoured my maps and can't locate this island. Perhaps that's not surprising, considering the whole Marshall group has over a thousand! Clio the Muse 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Marshallese spelling seems to be a bit flexible.—eric 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a dBASE format gazetteer for the Marshalls here[5], some 5,000 entries including islet and atoll names. Nothing that looks like Kikipujuu tho.—eric 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Israeli reaction

How do the Israeli government and general Jewish populace view the current Fatah/Hamas fighting? Clarityfiend 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For official government reactions this is quite informative [6]. Clio the Muse 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the general Jewish populace, well, I don't see how it's possible to gauge the reaction of an entire people, but I'd venture to guess that such infighting is generally viewed as both tragic and frustrating. Loomis 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re the second part of the question, regardless of whether you mean the general Jewish populace of Israel, or that of the world, you'll find the usual diversity of opinion. Many will think as Loomis described. More politically astute people will worry about how the Israelis will be able to undertake any kind of meaningful negotiations when they can't possibly work out who's really in charge today let alone tomorrow. There will also be a minority who will rejoice in what they perceive as their enemy's discomfort. Mindful of the ref desk take on people's personal opionions, I'll keep my opinion of them to myself. --Dweller 10:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misread you, Dweller, but you seem to imply that only the "less politically astute" view the situation as "tragic and frustrating". I'm quite sure that even the most "politically astute" would lament the situation as tragic and frustrating. Tragic because of the inevitable continuation of the violence and misery that the Palestinian people will inevitably suffer, and frustrating for the very reasons you described concerning how this will only stall any possibilities of a final peaceful resolution. Loomis 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't clear, rather than you misreading me. The two frames of mind are far from incompatible. --Dweller 10:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it though, I can't help but be honest. No, the general Jewish populace does not delight in the suffering of others; yes, some Jews may, but they're a disgrace to their people. Yet, in all honesty, in electing Hamas, an organization that promotes terrorism and denies the existence of Israel, the Palestinian people have finally laid to rest the fiction that they're ready to be true partners in peace. Hopefully some day they will be ready. But at the very least, the election of Hamas has finally laid to rest the fiction that Israel, in being forced to hold on to the occupied territories, is either acting out of paranoia, or as an agressive "imperialistic" force, subjugating an innocent people in an "apartheit" like manner. Rather, it's finally become clear, even to the Europeans, exactly what Israel is struggling to contend with. Loomis 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, I wouldn't characterise the vote as supporting terrorists, although Hamas won the vote, I would point out that both the leading parties are terrorist in practise. I understand the Palestinians did not actually vote Hamas for their terrorist credentials, so much as for their cleanskin politics, it being known that Fatah has corruption issues. I understand that all moderates have been eliminated over the years by any of many activist groups. However, I understand a hope of the praxis of democracy is to encourage moderation over time. When the rule of law returns to Palestine, Israel will find a negotiation partner. This affects Israel, which naturally has moderates of its own who desire the stability of peace.

Within Israel, there are conservatives and radicals, neither having one person or party that represent a conservative or radical view. The conservative Israeli parties seem to have had more success with negotiations over the years, with Egypt, Lebanon and Fatah, but that is only an impression of mine, as the more leftwing parties seem to have had power during the worse conflicts in recent years. It is presumptuous of me to suggest that it is a convenience for the left to maintain conflict, while stridently calling an end to it. DDB 06:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"This affects Israel, which naturally has moderates of its own who desire the stability of peace". DDB, perhaps it wasn't what you meant, but the way that comment came across it actually sounded like Israel itself is equally overwhelmed by radicals, just as the Palestinians are; that "moderate" Israelis, the ones who desire "the stability of peace" are a struggling minority just as they are amongst the Palestinians. Yes, there have been a few radical, shameful, "take their land and kill'em all!" parties in the Knessett, such as Meir Kahane's Kach party, but in 1988, Kach was declared a racist party by the Israeli government and banned from the Knessett, and, in 1994, following the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, the movement was outlawed completely. This is how racist radical Israelis are dealth with. All the major parties, be they Labour, Likud or the newly formed Kadima, in addition to, of course, the several minor Arab parties representing Israel's 20% Arab population, as well as several left wing socialist or communist parties, one and all desire the stability of peace. Loomis 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, Loomis, that wasn't what I meant, but I wrote it because I am trying to compare two things that aren't similar. Israel is an advanced liberal democracy and her politics have those foibles peculiar to such. The politics of Israel as portrayed by liberal media, with the cooperation of Israeli political parties, draw the equivalence. I would point out that Fatah, too, claims to want peace, but no leader of Fatah has ever agreed to peace terms. Israeli's probably, naturally, view the issue from the prism of their politics. In fact, it has little to do with them. Likud has been very effective, and Israel has done poorly when Likud has been in opposition, but the populist view is not that, and is reflected in media. DDB 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Israel bans racist political parties? part of me wishes that was the case in this country (UK) but anyway, surely that doesn't marry very well to the statement "Israel is an advanced liberal democracy"?87.194.21.177 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Black races

Hi Can black people be races?Nasa135 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)nasa

Race is such a loaded and not very precise concept. However, have a look at the page on Black people, which addresses the issue in general terms. Clio the Muse 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to tell what the question is asking:

• Is there a "black race"?
• Are there multiple races that are all generally called "black"?
• Can black people be racist?

Without knowing the question, an answer cannot be properly given. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As part of an answer I think it's fair to say that there are multiple black african races - if you would consider in general italians to be a different race from scottish..87.102.4.6 10:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard there was much larger genetical diversity between blacks worldwide than whites, if it helps. 惑乱 分からん 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking whether black people can be racist, you might want to step back and instead look at your assumptions. Are you assuming that all black people are Americans, or that the American form of racism is somehow typical worldwide? Are you assuming that black people are historically the most put-upon group in every country in which they live? Are you assuming that the only cultural tensions around are between blacks and whites?

Then talk to a native American (or even better, a native Canadian) about whether black people can be racist. I think you might be surprised. --Charlene 13:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You could probably find persons of every "non-black" race with bad experiences, if you just look around, see also black supremacy. 惑乱 分からん 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, anyone can be racist, just as anyone can be a victim of racism, no matter what race they are. --Candy-Panda 08:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Febuary 2

Getting into university

Everywhere in the media, I hear that it's "hard" to get into university, but is it? In my senior years of high school, I have an average of 86%. Should I have nothing to worry about when it'll get time for me to apply to a university? Is it just "hard" for average students who have marks of 70%-75% to get into university? --Codell ^{[ Talk]} 03:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are you located in the world? The use of the word university instead of college seems to indicate to me that it might not be the US. You should be consulting with an advisor either at your school or independently who can guide you through the proccess. Also how well you do on the SATs/ACTs etc will have an impact. Half-way through senior year seems a little late to be thinking about this though, you better get a move on. After looking at your profile I see your from Canada this site looks good http://www.schoolfinder.com/Gradvmedusa 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Call the university or universities you want to attend and ask them.

Even which province you're in (assuming you're in Canada) will make a HUGE difference. There's no "Canadian educational system"; there are 13 systems, one for each province and territory, and there's more variance between the provinces than there are between many European nations.

Your chances of being accepted are influenced by which province you live in, which province you're planning on studying in (if not your own), and what you're planning on studying. Unless you're planning to study in the US you likely won't need to take SATs, but (for instance) in Alberta your marks on provincial exams are as important as your grade percentage. It also depends on whether your high marks are in academic, artistic, or vocational courses, and even how the university you're planning on attending views those types of courses. (It even depends on how registration is set up - in Ontario you apply to a central university registry and then choose which university you want to attend, which means that every university has the same requirements, but in Alberta and B.C. you have to apply to each university individually, and each university and faculty has slightly different requirements.) Every province has quotas that state how many Canadian students from out of province can be admitted; these quotas don't apply to students from the Territories or PEI or those applying to certain faculties such as medicine or law (and can be different depending on where you live - in the West, students from other Western provinces get priority over students from Ontario and Quebec), but they can prevent you from attending your university of choice.

I often think American students are put through the wringer to far too great an extent. Not only do they have to graduate with high marks AND write SATs, they (and even their FAMILIES!!!!!) have to go through interviews! I can't imagine any university here basing admission on how one's FAMILY handles an interview - in fact, I think it's blatantly illegal in most provinces. When I went to university in Alberta in the early 80s even interviewing prospective undergraduate students was strictly forbidden. --Charlene 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Charlene comments, admisssion procedures vary widely in the U.S. by school. Interviews are not required everywhere. In fact, I got an admission letter from a college to which I had merely sent my SAT scores but never sent an application to. Schools vary in how selective they are - especially prestigious and smaller schools which receive far more students than they can accept so they have more elaborate procedures to find the "best" students for the school and, as far as legally possible, the "best" mix of student diversity. Schools like Harvard and Yale accept only about 10% of applicants. Here is a list of the lowest acceptance rate school: [7]. But generally, speaking the U.S. has more than enough places for every student at some college - just not necessarily their first or second choice. The U.S. also takes in half a million international students (one-third the number studying abroad in the entire world[8]) Also Americans take tests, not write them. Rmhermen 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The most selective U.S. colleges and universities reject a great many applicants who have perfect 4.0 grade point averages and/or perfect SAT or ACT scores, and/or who are National Merit Scholarship Finalists and/or who are their schools valedictorians. If they are athletes who can help the school have a winning season in a major sport, or if their parents went to the school (makes them a "double legacy") or if their family is rich and might give a million dollars to the school, or if their grandfather is on the board of trustees, or if they are a famous persons offspring, or if they are famous themselves such as an actor, they can be admitted with just about any test scores and grades. But there is always a college experience available to anyone who finishes high school or who passes the GED (in the U.S.). They can attend a community college and take courses in the same topics as at the selective colleges, perhaps using the same textbooks, perhaps taught at a less frantic pace and with more remedial education. They can attend a smaller and less selective 4 year college. They can take remedial math or remedial English if they have trouble in those area. They can then transfer to a college to complete a 4 year degree program, or obtain a 2 year Associates degree. Getting into a college is the very easiest part, compared to passing the courses. Then getting out with good grades and recommendations is the key to getting a good job or getting into a good graduate school, unless they possess any of the helpful attributes listed above which help one get into a selective college. Edison 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much for the notion that it's 'hard' to get into university. First, those who get in may be inclined to feel superior to their non-collegiate brethren. Not good. Second, those who get in may feel like they've got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and stay the course even if university does not suit them. Also not good. That said, there's plenty of benefits to going to university, but it's hardly the be-all and end-all of learning. It's best to think of a university as a business, first and foremost. Vranak

In general it's hard to punch above your own weight - this comment might apply to 'big money' courses like law.. In general just about anyone can go to university - as long as they try to do a subject they're good at. But there's a lot of snobbishness etc - where a degree in ancient history/the classics is considered better than one in pottery. Also universities make a big fuss about how good they are - despite the fact that from an economic point of view they are entirely parasitical. Now I'm older I release that my university degree is a load of bullshit and 'big names' in university life a bunch of self-promoting retards. That shouldn't shop you from from enjoying time at university if you go - most people do enjoy it.. It like a butlins for geeks. And by the sound of it you should have no problem getting in.83.100.183.48 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See also this article about students without bombastic grades getting into university. BTW 83.100.183.48, at university you will not just find some self-promoting retards, but also tenure lovers, paper writers, non-teaching professors, etc. Mr.K. 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolute paradise - why did they kick me out?83.100.183.48 23:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because you are not an idolater and you did not let them transfer their memes into your brain.Mr.K. 18:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the 'meme transfer' really pissed me off, and continues to piss me off more and more every year - as for idolatry - ?213.249.232.136 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You were not worshipping the bunch of self-promoting retards = not an idolater.Mr.K. (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was thinking of idolatry as in golden calf..213.249.232.136 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To narrow it down more, I'm from Ontario, I'm halfway through grade 11, and I take all the academic science courses (biology, chemistry, physics, space science, medical, etc.) and history courses. I'm planning to study here in my home province and go to a University, not a college. Wow, you all make the American system sound so corrupt (No offence intended). Now, Vranak, I totally agree with you. Happiness in life is more important than just having wads of cash and feeling superior. I just like science and history and am looking to further my education in the field, and if I can get a good job for it, all the better. Thank you everyone for the help so far.--Codell^«T» 02:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I too got all that bullshit about a good job - (I'm from the UK by the way) - now say you were doing chemistry - where I am there are more than 20 chemistry departments taking say 60 students a year - that's 1200 chemistry graduates a year - are there that many real vacancies for chemists in the UK per year - answer - no nothing like that. Ask yourself this - who told you that you would be earning big money because you got a degree.. Did someone actually tell you that - or were you just allowed to keep impression that a degree was a ticket to a wealthy lifestyle.. I feel bad (sort of) for being such an ogre about this - but unfortunately the rose tinted assumptions of the young don't always match up to the realities of life. Have a good time at university by the way.213.249.232.136 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ghana during the First Persian Gulf War

How was Ghana involved in the first persian gulf war in 1990-1991. I know they didn't deploy troops to Kuwait, but did they do anything else? And does anyone know solutions that helped the war stop? I already viewed the wikipedia page on here, but it wasn't much help. Thanks!

-I choose to remain anonymous

Does anyone know anything about this topic?

Classical authors who have acted as spokespeople for the regime

In the book "Who Killed Homer", the authors state that "no important Classical author ever becomes a mindless spokesman for the regime." I could think of Virgil, for one. Am I correct here, and are there any others? The Mad Echidna 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really see Virgil as a 'mindless' spokesman for the regime? He provided Augustus-and Rome-with a great foundation myth; but surely the Aeneid goes far beyond the limits of bare political necessity? Propagandists never achieve the sublime. Clio the Muse 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you can read the first page of this article without a subscription. "The new approach, developed initially by Brooks, Parry, Clausen, and Putnam, is profoundly pessimistic, for it finds that the Aeneid speaks with two voices, as Parry puts it, those of personal loss as well as public achievement. That is, the poem's successes are accompanied by failure—of Aeneas, of the Augustan order, and of human nature in general and its ability to attain its ideals." Obviously, not everyone agrees with this reading of the Aeneid, but Virgil's poem certainly contains all the material needed to support it. It's a rare modern reader who can come away from the poem's last page with the feeling that he's just heard the closing statement of "a mindless spokesman for the regime." Wareh 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The literary form one should be looking at is panegyric. Poets like Claudian who wrote panegyrics were otherwise occupied, perhaps more mindfully, on other occasions. Propagandists for the regime multiplied once that regime was Christianized and the classical schools were closed down. "Mindless" is the word that renders the opening statement unintelligible: "Many important Classical authors served on occasion as spokesmen for the regime, and in the fifth century they were replaced by Christian ones." --Wetman 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, one wonders what might be meant by the term regime. In the twentieth century, many notable writers got kudos for writing support for left wing ideals, highlighting the faults of Western Institutions. George Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. Steinbeck wrote the Grapes of Wrath. Fitzgerald wrote The Great Gatsby. Then there was that book/movie All The President's Men. Yet, in many ways, all these books' writers fell into a trap of endorsing a populist view, occasionally at odds with reality.

Consider Arthur Miller's The Crucible. There is a direct association between the outrage one naturally feels when a movie producer who supports totalitarian communism is given restricted democracy, and the unjust witch trials in Salem. It is an irony that more modern research has suggested ergot poisoning as a plausible explanation for what happened at that community, when people are so much more comfortable believing Miller's thesis of evil and sadly misled humanity.

It wasn't just the twentieth century where great, respected books support the populist view. Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species was a great work that made few of the wild claims attributed it by radical activists wishing to support their majority view, that of simple folk. Karl Marx and Engels wrote something that seems to have much support in many institutions, yet fails in profundity stakes. After all, who could question the phrase 'common good'? The Three Musketeers, and those following, (Twenty years after, Vicomte de Bragelonne, Madame de la Valliere and The Man in the Iron Mask) were great works that did much to endorse the populist view of the relative importance of things. Charles Dickens wrote much that people believed in, regarding fairness in the face of disparity between wealth and poverty. Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace was despised by Fyodor Dostoevsky, who replied with Crime and Punishment, yet which work is remembered better? Which is the greater?

I think those who write books that aren't endorsed by the vast majority of mankind, are few, little liked and little remembered. Neitsche, Maquis de Sade (John Lennon tried), Hitler. DDB 09:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If Neitsche is Nietzsche, you should know he is extremely popular at least in my country, Brazil, very liked and remembered very often. TV shows, high school and college students and newspapers often refer to him. I thought this happened worldwide as well. By the way, there was also a best seller book, When Nietzsche Wept by Irvin Yalom, which will become a movie now. And there is a Brazilian movie about him, Nietzsche in Turin.People like Nietzsche.I don´t understand why you say that about him. And I thought Marquis de Sade was "pop" nowadays, there is a movie about him as well...

I think people who wrote books that aren´t endorsed by the vast majority of mankind were forgotten exactly because of that. Their books were not published, sold and copied (during European middle ages, for instance, the priests decided which works would endure and which would not) and so we can´t know if they are few or many.A.Z. 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There were 95 Theses

How many are now inapplicable?

132.239.90.211 06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See The 95 Theses. [9] is a listing of them in English. Per Exsurge Domine, Pope Leo X wanted Luther to retract 41 of them. That should have left about 54 of them as undisputed at that time. The Catholic Church no longer sells indulgences to reduce the time spent in purgatory, so doubtless many of the 95 theses are no longer applicable to the Church in this era. Since the Church does not now sell pardons and since St. Peters has been built and paid for, many of the theses no longer address corruption in the Catholic Church. Edison 06:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But can we make new ones?

Computer generated pornography

I was looking for the above and found that there is only an article on Poser porn and nothing by a more straight forward description. Is this all that there is on wikipedia on this subject or have I missed something in my search?83.100.183.48 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably isn't much more information... 惑乱 分からん 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Beards

Looking at the article on beards I notice that there is much on beards in ancient greece.. But I was hoping to find more on beards in china - attitudes etc maybe some interesting quotes. Would this be a suitable addition - surely confucious must have said something on the subject - he had a beard I believe - has any one got any good sources or excellent quotes?83.100.183.48 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I found an interesting story about a man being arrested in China for wearing a beard.

 ...Umar Aziz paid the price for sporting a beard in China...


 ...All was well with Aziz till one day in 1995, when he and his wife were taken into custody
 by the Chinese police.He was charged with sporting a beard, seen as a symbol of Muslim identity
 and a rejection of Communist philosophy, and supporting the anti-China movement...


 ...He was tortured and beaten on a regular basis for four long years before being released. 
His wife died in police custody...

Entire story found on this page: Rediff
--Codell^«T» 03:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not being any help. but I had to mention, Gee, was it only the beard that got them jailed? What about the wife? Did she have a beard too? DDB 05:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions about fascists

1. Are there any countries in the world where the government self-identifies itself as 'fascist'? The answer to that is arguably yes. In the 1930's Michael Aflaq , the chief the theorist of baathism, modeled his then theoretical ideological system on European fascism, The one difference was it empathized Arab people as "the master race." The Syrian gov's offical ideology is baathist.

2. Are there any elected politicans anywhere in the world that represent a political party with 'Nazi' in the name?

Thanks very much. --84.68.213.80 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Nazi" meant nationalist in German, so in that sense, yes, right-wing parties with the word "Nationalist" in various languages exist.

Nazi did not mean "nationalism" in German; "Nazi" was short for "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", meaning "National Socialist German Workers' Party". It's specific to the party. Skittle 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course there's the American Nazi Party, and the British Nazi Party, though to my knowledge neither of them have had any electoral success. Then again, unless your name is Bernie Sanders, you have to be either a Republican or a Democrat to make it anywhere in US politics.

Of course you also have guys like former KKK Exalted Cyclops, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia in Congress. Of course, like I said, it's practically impossible to get into congress without being either a Democrat or a Republican. Naturally, then, Byrd joined the Democratic Party and got elected Senator. Naturally as well, this particular Exalted Cyclops is one of GWB's fiercest critics in Congress. Loomis 00:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But, of course, having somebody evil who hates you doesn't make you good. Hitler and Stalin hated each other, after all. StuRat 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You're of course correct on that one, Stu. I just threw that last bit in for fun. I suppose it's very similar to the old "the enemy of my enemy MUST be my friend" logical fallacy. But speaking of Hitler and Stalin, I can't help but quote Churchill once again, speaking upon the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941: "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." Loomis 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a little strong to call Byrd "evil". Putting the Klan into context (the 1940s) is very important, and that the activities of the Klan, as well as the violence it is infamous for, varied over time. I'm not an apologist for the Klan's or for any form of racism, but using the blanket term of "evil" for anyone who was a member of it is just stupid, just as it is stupid to call all Germans who were in the Nazi government "evil". --24.147.86.187 15:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But we're talking about a former Klan officer (Exalted Cyclops), not an ignorant tobacco chewing hunch-man. If "blanketing" the term "evil" over the top 20 Nazi/KKK officials is stupid, then I don't like the word "stupid" anymore. What he represents now is a different fact that I leave for people like Mnemeson to consider.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The number two Nazi was Hermann Göring. I wouldn't call him evil. Misguided maybe. Power-hungry maybe. But evil? No. The same goes for Rudolf Hess, the number three. And definitely for Albert Speer. I wouldn't dispute the label for people like Hitler and Himmler, but I think there's a danger of overusing it. -- Necrothesp 14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Henchmen often do the worse evils than do the leaders. And again it depends on what time you are talking about: the Klan's history is marked by some periods of high violence, some periods of little to no violence. To use the term "evil" to describe political positions one no longer finds palatable is intellectually sloppy at best. Harry Truman, Hugo Black, and many other people started their political careers in the KKK as it was considered by many at the time to be something of a leadership and cultural organization, not too different from the Rotary Club today. And heaven help us if we decide that all people who previously espoused racist views are "evil"! It wasn't until the 1960s that the KKK became wholly synonymous with unfettered racism and blunt violence. --140.247.250.175 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Byrd was indeed historically a member of the KKK, but as I recall he currently scores 100% positive ratings from the NAACP. Which would indicate his views might have changed. Subtly. --Mnemeson 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

David Duke served a term in the Louisiana state legislature. Corvus cornix 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed he did. (?) Loomis 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Winnie was willing to make a "favourable reference to the Devil", who he'd suggested in 1918-20 should be assassinated, & look what it got him. He'd have done better to condemn totalitarianism & call off Harris. Trekphiler 04:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Febuary 3

poetry

i am looking for a poem that has the line : from whence we came. i think it is from yates or keats and was used in a documentary some yrs ago done by peter graves in reference to all of life coming from the sea. any help is appreciated. thanks

Garryowen by W.B. Yeats? You can see it on this page, a little way down, to see if it's what you're looking for. I found it by putting "from whence we came" Poem Yeats into Google, but it also turned up without using the word Yeats in the sear

thanks but that's not it as it referred to the ocean any other ideas?

It's possible that you are thinking of a quote by John Kennedy:

"I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it is because in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes, and ships change, it is because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it we are going back from whence we came."

You can find the entire speech here. Carom 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The pedant in me most point out that the word "from" is needless in the phrase "from whence". "Whence we came" says as much. Pfly 07:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Botched University Application

I applied to an M.Sc. at a Dutch university but one of my three references hasn't been sent in. I was already aware of this when I sent my application in but expected my application would not be processed until after all my rerefences has been recieved. What I wasn't counting on is that the deadline is earlier than I expected (due to an error on the university's website. I want to ask if you would check these two paragraphs that I was planning on sending to the admissions person that has just contacted me:

Dear Mrs. Anonymous,

Thank you for your letter regarding my application to the Biomolecular Science M.Sc. course, dated 2 February 2007. Unfortunately, my third referee, Ms. Anonymous, has not yet completed my reference on account of the fact that I gave her an incorrect deadline. The University of Anonymous webpage, http://www.anonymous.nl/prospectiveStudents/degreeProgrammes/mastersProgrammes/masters/croho60616 gives the application deadline for EU/EEA citizens as 1 May and thus I was unaware that the correct deadline is in fact, 1 February.

I have already emailed Ms. Anonymous, to alert her to the situation. Would it be possible to delay the processing of my application until my third reference arrives? Of course I understand if this simply is not possible.

Yours sincerely,

Sean Smith

I've replaced any (albeit remotely) sensitive information with anonymous. Should I send this or just let it go? If you go deeply enough into the website, you descover their "alternative" deadline, 1 February, but I only discovered this today and kinda feel (or at least would like to) that it's not really my fault. --Seans Potato Business 01:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am an American. It sounds as though it is a good try to me. I don't know how competitive the program is. The worst that they can do is to say no. You can apply again next year. 75Janice 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 3 february 2007

I agree, go ahead and send the letter. Either it will make no diff or it will help, I can't see how it could possibly hurt. StuRat 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've sent it. Thanks for the advice. :) --Seans Potato Business 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proper Term in U.S. for black Americans, African-Americans

75Janice 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)I use the terms black or African-American interchangeably. NPR, National Public Radio, programs dealing with black culture appear to also use the terms interchangeably. I could not discern any particular pattern but I am a Northern-European American. My nephew has been reprimanded several times for using the term "black." The school district has a policy. The New York Times also appears to use both terms. Am I not seeing a pattern? My sister could not tell me the school district's reasoning or even who decided the policy.75Janice 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 2 February 2006

I happen to edit social studies textbooks professionally. We use both "black" and "African American", but we probably use the latter more often. Both, to my knowledge, are acceptable. The company's goal is to maximize sales, so we certainly wouldn't use a term that would cost us a sale. Are you sure it's the school district's policy? Marco polo 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. When the teacher admonishes him, the teacher states it is the official policy. The teacher further states that it is racist to use the term black. My sister would speak to the teacher if it were the teacher's policy. If it were my child, I would want the transcript of the board meeting at the very least. I am an extremely "blue" person. Manhattan is my home. I practiced civil rights law. I am afraid I am misusing the terms.

This question comes up periodically. The primary difficulty in answering is the assumption that there *is* such a thing as a "proper term." The very notion that an arbitrary subset of the human population has a 'clinically sanctioned appropriate name' could be considered offensive by some, or at least simplistic. Therefore, no matter what "term" you may choose, it won't please everyone. For example, what about someone who is half African descent and half French Candadian descent? What is the "proper term" for that, African-French-Canadian-American? And how are you supposed to know this in advance? It's definitely a sensitive issue for some people, and a non-issue for others, but unlikely to be resolved with a trite answer from any single source. In fact, the only "simple" answer I have heard that ever made sense was "treat other people as you'd want to be treated yourself." Best wishes to you and your nephew. dr.ef.tymac 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. Also note that it has recently become fashionable to claim that races don't exist. This, of course, makes discussing things like Affirmative Action programs with quotas based on race quite impossible, if one accepts that races don't exist. Another problem with the term "African-American" is that not everybody who comes from Africa is black. There are many Arab nations in North Africa, for example, such as Egypt, Libya, Algeria, etc., so is it proper to call an Egyptian-American an African-American ? Perhaps we could come up with a new term, such as "of Sub-Saharan African descent" (OSSAD) ? StuRat 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I love these policies. Wait until the day they have someone who is black but not American; they'll find that "African-American" can actually itself be considered racist. --Charlene 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "Negro" is used by the United Negro College Fund ("A mind is a terrible thing to waste") [10] and the term "colored people" is still used by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [11], so those terms must still be acceptable. Some American blacks have claimed that to be a "African American" you must be dark skinned and have ancestors who came from the West Coast of Africa and were slaves in the U.S., thereby excluding caucasians born in Africa who moved to the U.S., recent immigrants from Africa, and Barack Obama, whose father came from Eastern Africa and who had no slave ancestors [12]. A white boy at a U.S. high school who was born in Africa was suspended after nominating himself for a "Distinguished African-American Student of the Year" prize, and his friends who put up campaign posters for him were also suspended, per the Telegraph. [13]. Edison 03:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost story from 2004 also mentions that he was expelled per policy WP:POINT. [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 05:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I once actually saw an advertisement for a G.I. Joe doll of an SAS trooper. You could buy it in either "white" or "African-American"! Obviously in their efforts to be politically correct the company hadn't realised that black British people are not generally referred to as "African-American". -- Necrothesp 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that it all depends upon your tone of voice, the relationship between you and the subject, and 'the strength' of political correctness in your social environment. If you using the word "African American" with a sarcastic tone of voice, it becomes an insult. If you are a true friend you can use the "Nigger" (notice, in a joking tone of voice with a fast old friend). In the presence of a large group strangers you are basicly screwed because whatever word you care to use, someone is going to take insult regardless. Flamarande 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it only me who see the distinction between "nigga" and "nigger"? 惑乱 分からん 19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Since perhaps the late 1960's, "black" was generally considered the appropriate term in the United States. Since the mid-1990's, "African-American" has pulled up alongside "black" as the term in common use. See African American#The term "African American". But as noted above, "African American" can never completely supersede "black" because are people of African descent from many places besides the United States; to pick a random example, Oona King is not an African American. (I remember a reviewer's description of a Star Trek:Voyager character as "the first African American Vulcan", which was ludicrous, although the actor who portrayed the character could properly have been described as the first African-American to portray a Vulcan.) Newyorkbrad 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sister needs to ask for a copy of the policy in writing. If the teacher cannot provide it, she should tell her to stop making things up. If such a policy does exist she should contact the school board. Obviosuly the school district idiots don't know that Black is Beautiful. --Nelson Ricardo 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that the term "African-American" seems to be largely a "White" invention. Between the Black people and the Whites I know, it's the Whites that are far more prone to use the term "African-American" than the Blacks, who seem to be completely comfortable with the term "Black". Very similarly, the term "Oriental", which is simply the Latin for "Eastern", seems to be shunned by "Whites" as shameful and derogatory, preferring the term "East Asian". Yet when I explain this to my Oriental friends, they're bewildered by the whole thing. "Oriental is Latin for Eastern, right"? "Yes, it is". "So why do White people think it's so insulting to call us "Oriental"?

In fact, I'd say it's rather condescending and patronizing to Black people for Whites to determine the proper term for them. To expand on Nelson's point, during the civil rights movement of the '60s, the Black people of the US made it as clear as possible that "Black" was their term of choice. Phrases like "Black Power" and "Black is Beautiful" were in abundance. Black people have clearly decided on the term "Black" to identify themselves. I actually find it rather shameful for Whites to so paternalistically reject their term of choice, and replace it with the geographically ridiculous "African-American" designation. I'd say the school district's "policy" of discouraging the term "Black" is a pathetic cop-out on the part of the school district designed to satisfy their consciences and feel that they're somehow doing their fair share to eliminate racism, by means of an overly simplistic, ridiculous, terminological policy. The elimination of racism is far more complicated and requires far more effort than a silly name-change. Loomis 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tamil language author

hai wikipedians im a tamilian and im eager to learn about G.U.POPE, who had written tamil literature and wished to be buried with the words:"this man learnt tamil"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Veekayvee (talk • contribs)

Hello, Veekayvee. Wikipedia's article on George Uglow Pope is rather short, and I wasn't able to access the first external link. The second link gives quite a bit more information, and the third link is A Letter to the Tranquebar missionaries, Regarding "Their Position, Their Proceedings and Their Doctrine." by Rev. G. U. Pope., published in 1853 ---Sluzzelin 09:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How much concourse was there between Persians and Europeans in the 13th century?

I'm writing a story set in Italy in 1240 AD, and in my total ignorance have had included an affable meeting between a Persian astrologer and a Franciscan Friar - how likely was this to have happened? What with the Crusades and all, were Persians allowed to wander Europe on, say, diplomatic missions, or am I totally reaching here?

Thanks Adambrowne666 11:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to be a Persian, or would others from the Muslim World do? I'm not sure how common it was for Persians or Muslims to be in Italy in the 13th century, but it probably not totally unheard of. THe Republic of Venice and the Republic of Genoa were doing brisk trade with the eastern Mediterranean world. Moorish Spain still held on in Granada. Marco Polo made his journey across Asia in the late 1200s (he was from Venice). I couldn't find much on a quick look for Persians scientists traveling in Europe, but some did apparently travel quite a bite. The 13th century Persian poet Saadi (poet) went to Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Turkey, and could have easily encountered Italians there. The Arab astronomer Ibn al-Banna live in Morroco. Maybe some of those links will lead to a definite answer. Pfly 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite within the realms of possibilty - if I read such a book (a historical novel I suspect) - such a meeting wouldn't raise any eyebrows - as long as both were 'clerics' or similar - given that such people often had the role of ambassador/travelling scientist in those days.. As to the question of being allowed to wander - I'm not sure - I think such meetings may have been by invitation to a royal court or papal palace - but there's no reason why a person might not meet various other people - by chance or otherwise on the way to their audience...213.249.232.136 20:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The story of Fibonacci might be of help here. His businessman dad took him to Persia, where he met this girl .. and they tested themselves at math ;)

Also, you might look into the true elements of Michael Chrichton's 13th Warrior. It is based on the true account of a muslim scholar meeting some Vikings, and liveing a year with them. It provided the only written account of Norse lifestyle from a viewpoint of someone liveing among them. Vikings didn't write much. DDB 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the very prompt and extremely useful answers. Adambrowne666 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If a man born near the Alps can turn up at Stonehenge in 2600 BC, you may plausibly have a great many Persians in Italy in the 13th century AD. Edison 05:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Persian may have been visiting Moorish Spain. Where does this meeting take place? Corvus cornix 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

world war 1

how many countries went to world war one? who was Germanys leader in world war one? why did world war one start?

Those are simple questions, so I suggest you to search first. Our article World War I provides all the answers you need. --Taraborn 12:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This article may provide you with a more complete answer to your first question. Carom 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

May I assume that this user is from the USA? Just because he or she wrote "went to war". Believe it or not, some countries are actually attacked (on their very own soil) when war breaks out and they don't go to war, they get pulled in...Evilbu 00:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The terminology "went to war" is common in the English language to describe soldiers leaving their homes (or bases) to go to the front, regardless of where, precisely, the fighting is taking place. Incidentally, the IP address appears to belong to a user in the UK, although I'm not entirely sure that this is relevant. Carom 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes those who are attacked are in countries which have mobilized and are preparing to attack the neighbor who atacked tham preemptively.Edison 05:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A la Florentine

I would like to know what's the relation between Florentine and spinach dishes. I've been told it has to do with a woman named Florentine, whom I find no relationship with spinach, and the city of Florentia, which isn't exactly known for it's spinach. Thanks----— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.139.247 (talk • contribs)

This very question has intrigued the reference desk before Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Language/May_2006#The_word_.22florentine.22 meltBanana 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Interpolitical Marriage

Thomas Jefferson is said to have suggested that interracial marriage (American Indians and newcomers from Europe) could break down the interracial barier through marrigage. Does this apply to having offspring only and could this be a solution for reducing if not eliminating political and religious differences represented by different cultures? For example could Brits and Americans, each descented from their respective groups of soldiers who fought on opposite sides during the American Revolution marry or just have offspring to help reduce, if not eliminate, any remaining differences between the two sides? -- Barringa 18:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have brothers or sisters? Do they share the same political and religious views as you? Human nature being what it is, people will always find ways to differentiate themselves from each other. Just guessing, but it may even be some sort of evolutionary trait. Clarityfiend 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Brothers and sisters are restricted from marrying each other in most cultures with few exceptions (Hawaians). Brits and American already pride themselves on the different starting point of their respective heritages since the Revolutionary War, not the evolutionary war. -- Barringa 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Clarityfiend was suggesting you marry your brother or sister. He was merely pointing out that many brothers and sisters, although descended from the same parents, have radically different beliefs than one another. Thus, having children with your spouse does not guarantee that there will not be important differences between them. GreatManTheory 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my response. Hmmm...I may have to change my name. Clarityfiend 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Since brother and sister can not marry legally as a way to test whether their descendents would from their biological descendency represent both biologically and psychologically by their inherent melding of both sides of the arguement be able to resolve any political or nationality difference their parents had (unless of course you might be thinking of inlaw brothers and sisters or adopted males and females who have no parents in common and can legally marry or have offspring) then it is a special case and does not answer the question I am asking. Putting it another way...would you be able to completely take one side over the other if you regarded both parents with equal esteem regarding any national or political difference either might have or would you find taking only one side impossible? -- Barringa 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to keep in mind that there is a great deal of regional variance within a country - cultural practices are not uniform throughout either the United States or Great Britain. Additionally, proposals to intermarry white Americans and various indigenous persons were intended not simply to "break down racial barriers," but to assimilate the indigenous persons into "white" American culture by "civilizing" them. If you're interested, Jim Fergus has written a well-recieved novel on the idea of white women marrying Cheyenne men under a (fictional) US government program; the title is One Thousand White Women, although it appears that we don't have an article... Carom 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Familial groupings have diversity as well as similarity. Any group tends to throw up certain characters, so that there is an over achiever, and an underachiever, or a giver and a taker or any of many demarcation styles. One interesting fact is that a father of daughters is more likely to vote for leftwing political parties than a father of sons, or a man with no children.

What many fail to appreciate is that skin color is an environmental thing. There is some reason why Sub Arctic peoples are white/pink, but tropical peoples black. There have been white families living in South Africa for some five hundred years, but they aren't getting more dusky. What might happen is that environmental factors favor skin colors for survival, but don't change genetic determinations. If that is so, then Thomas Jefferson's theory fails. We can best become good corporate citizens not by being like everyone else, but by sharing corporate values. It may well be that family is the key, but not in the way Jefferson envisioned, but Adams. Maybe we can't change our families, but improve them. Morally.

I recently heard the difference between a moral man and an ethical man described as:"The ethical man knows it is wrong to cheat on his wife. The moral man won't do it." Thomas Jefferson achieved great heights in wisdom, but at times, he was as a thoughtless child. DDB 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is it said that Jefferson suggested marriage between European immigrants and Native Americans? The wikipedia article on Jefferson has info on his apparent condemnation of miscegenation, at least between whites and blacks. It is hard to answer this question without a source for what Jefferson actually said.

For what it is worth, there were many marriages between Euro-Americans and Native Americans long before Jefferson was born. The people who married generally got along and liked each other, having broken through cultural and racial barriers to that degree at least. Often the marriages were between white men trading with and living with Indians, and Indian women. Indian children take the clan of their mother, so such children would, by Indian culture, be Indian. A great many Euro-American frontiermen "turned Indian". A famous example is Sam Houston, who was adopted by a Cherokee chief, married into the tribe, and lived among them for years.

By Jefferson's time, many Indians had rather non-Indian names like Alexander McGillivray, William McIntosh, William Weatherford (all Creek leaders), John Ross (Cherokee chief), Elias Boudinot (Cherokee), James Vann, George Gist (Cherokees), Joseph Brant, and John Norton (Mohawk chief) (Mohawks). Jefferson's suggestion thus sounds more like an observation. The offspring of Euro-American and Indian parents often became diplomats and leaders in US-Indian political issues. It wouldn't be hard to argue that these intermarriages and children did in fact reduce differences. The Cherokee famously adopted many Euro-American practices before the Trail of Tears. The mixed-blood Cherokee were often the strongest advocates of adopting these new ways. Of course the imbalance was far too great to avoid calamity in the end.

Also, what is the "interracial barrier" that Jefferson suggested could be broken down through marriage? He apparently didn't think this about white and black relationships. And on whites and Indians, there were plenty of people crossing the barrier already. Perhaps more Euro-Americans "became" Indians than vice versa -- but then again, every other American family with roots in the south has some story or other about Cherokee ancestors. If a mixed family was "American" rather than "Indian", it would behoove them and their children to downplay their Indian ancestry, especially when, for example, voting or responding to a census. Indians were not citizens.

It seems to me that cultural barriers were the trouble with Euro-American and Native American relations. I'm sure there was racism as well, but if you look at, say, John Ross, the Cherokee leader before the Trail of Tears, he was 1/8th Indian descent and 7/8ths European. It wasn't the color of his skin that was the problem. Pfly 05:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we may be taking the OP's assertion a bit too far. I doubt s/he was speaking in any sort of "genetic" sense, but far more likely in a "sociological" sense. In the Americas, countries like Canada, the US, and perhaps Argentina actually stand out with regards to the whole "white/black/red" racial issue. Many if not most other American countries hold a rather opposite view. Now this is purely anecdotal, but I have a certain Brazilian friend. She happens to be pretty much exclusively of European descent and therefore "white". Now this may sound odd to the rest of us, but from what she told me, Brazil prides itself on its tri-racialism on the individual level (i.e., the fact that the vast majority of the population, as individuals, can claim part African, part European, and part Aboriginal American descent), to such an extent, that being of tri-racial ancenstry is actually an asset, in the sense that you're regarded as more truly "Brazilian". Of course that's just her take, and shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. Loomis 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I´m Brazilian and I have one Russian grandparent, one Polish, one Portuguese and one Italian. The Italian one is half Jewish. The Portuguese one is most likely descendent from Portuguese Muslims, which occupied the Iberic Peninsula for more than seven centuries. In Brazil we always talk about how almost no one can claim to be belong to any particular "people" or "race". Everyone has multiple genetic and cultural backgrounds in their families, as I do. This miscigenation, however, has not put an end to discrimination against black people. The census has the categories white, black, yellow, red and "pardo", and people choose to which they belong. People who are "pardos" tend to say they are white and people who are black tend to say they are "pardos". Even people who are clearly not white and don´t regard themselves as being white treat white people as if they were superior and treat people like their own like inferior people. Of course this is just my point of view and I am making extreme generalizations. Nonetheless, it happens, and shows that miscigenation alone doesn´t make a difference when it comes to discrimination.A.Z. 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaboration on the situation in Brazil, AZ. To be honest, after submitting my above post I had second thoughts about whether an anecdotal reference from a single Brazilian friend of mine had enough validity to be posted here. Thanks again for the elaboration. Loomis 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

history

Why is the Drawing Room called a Drawing Room?--- Tim84.70.39.40

If you take a look at the article drawing room, it says "the name is derived from withdrawing room." Chickenflicker---♣ 19:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And, although it doesn't say so in the article, the room was called the "withdrawing room" not because the lord or lady of the house would withdraw there to get some privacy, but because that's where the ladies went after leaving the dinner table. It used to be that after the last course of a formal dinner was over the women would rise and withdraw from the dining area, and after they left the men would bring out the cigars and brandy. The women would meanwhile sit in the drawing room and chat; after a suitable interval, the men would join them.

One of the great scandals of pre-World War I society was that the ladies stopped withdrawing. Some older people were shocked, shocked! but nobody else paid much attention. --Charlene 01:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

...post-World War II society, actually. --Wetman 04:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyramid Robbery

What is the most widely accepted scientific theory for how the Great Pyramid of Kafre was robbed? And when did this robbery occur? I am sorry to ask an obvious question, but I can't find any information on this, and I have been searching for about an hour and a half. Can anyone give me a website which treats this subject? Thanks plenty!David G Brault 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Khafre's Pyramid, apart from modern archeological investigations, most of the pyramid robberies took place many hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago, and I doubt whether anyone knows the details. I don't believe any scientific theory is required; brute force would have sufficed. And they wouldn't even have had to keep it secret: what few local people there were could have organized quite a systematic operation. They probably didn't even think of it as robbery any more than modern archeologists do.--Shantavira 11:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading that somehow the robbery was accomplished in the pharonic era, less than a hundred years after the treasure had been placed in the pyramid, with the help of priests or former workers. I don't know how they would know this, but somehow they seemed to. I just want to know, where did they make the hole to get in?David G Brault 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Family name Cornelius

I realize Cornelius is a name most commonly found in Ancient Roman history, but was it actually used in the Middle East some 2000 years ago? --Doug ^talk 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC):

Very possibly - the Romans had a presence in Syria and Judaea from the early 1st century BC. --Nicknack009 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and the Origin of the white race

Wikipedia and numerous websites state that the nation of islam believes that whotes were created by Yakub. Are there any primary sources from the NOI themselves where they explicity state this? --Dinotro 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Elijah Muhammad's book http://www.amazon.com/Yakub-Father-Mankind-Elijah-Muhammad/dp/1884855342 and a transcript of an interview with Louis Farrakhan where he is asked about the subject http://www.finalcall.com/national/mlf-mtp5-13-97.html meltBanana 00:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Febuary 4

Question on political titles

Hi! It's me--again; sorry if I'm bothering you, but I have another question about political titles. In this site, there is a delegate by the name of:

H.E. The Rt. Hon. Lester B. Bird

(Lester Bird is from Antigua and Barbuda)

What does The Rt. Hon. mean?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rt. Hon. is an abbreviation for The Right Honourable. ---Sluzzelin 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Two things politicians rarely are: right and honourable. Clarityfiend 05:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, those entitled to the title are not necessarily politicians. JackofOz 06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Right" in this case means "very". I don't have an OED where I can look up the derivation, but http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right says, —Usage note 47. Right in the sense of “very, extremely” is neither old-fashioned nor dialectal. It is most common in informal speech and writing: It's right cold this morning. The editor knew right well where the story had originated.. Corvus cornix 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright law regarding photographs

If I take a photograph of a celebrity, say, at a premiere or something, wherever it doesn't violate privacy laws, and then stick it on a T-shirt and sell it, is that legal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking the photograph isn't illegal, but I think that unauthorized use of a celebrity's image to sell a product is illegal. GhostPirate 14:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think the celebrity's lawyer or image manager would say? Carcharoth 01:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't a copyright one -- you own the copyright, you are fine with that. Depending on how it is used, it might be analogous to a trademark one, though. See personality rights. --140.247.250.175 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Heroic Roman fashion - Asterix 'shield' inspiration?

"Messrs. Victor Hugo and Emile de Girardin try to raise Prince Louis upon a shield [in the heroic Roman fashion]: not too steady!" Honoré Daumier's: satirical lithograph published in Charivari, December 11, 1848

I recently saw this picture here (see right), and was reminded of the Asterix comic books, where a common running joke in one of the books was the Chief Vitalstatistix being raised on his shield in an uneven fashion like this. I am wondering whether the similarity is entirely coincidential, or whether there is a possible connection? How common was the motif of later times depicting people raised on a shield like this in the "heroic Roman fashion"? Carcharoth 12:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You might try: Teitler, Hans (2002). "Raising on a Shield: Origin and Afterlife of a Coronation Ceremony". International Journal of the Classical Tradition. 8 (4). ISSN 1073-0508.—eric 15:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow! Just wow! :-) Wikipedia's Reference Desk comes up trumps again. That is just amazing. I was resigning myself to thinking that this might be a "no answer" question, but that is incredible. Thanks for that. The next challenge I guess is how to work that reference into a Wikipedia article somewhere... Carcharoth 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's any help: the authors of Astérix were certainly familiar with Daumier. There are lots of references to Daumier's cartoons in Astérix. Chl 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! It gets better! Are these references documented anywhere? I'd be really interested in reading up on them. We have to try and get them, along with the PD Daumier cartoons, into the Astérix articles! Uderzo (who is still alive) was the illustrator, while Goscinny (who tragically died at the age of 51) was the writer. I guess the illustrator would be more influenced by the Daumier satirical cartoons. Carcharoth 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After some searching, here's where I read about this: Stoll, André, Asterix, das Trivialepos Frankreichs : Die Bild- und Sprachartistik eines Bestseller-Comics, Köln: DuMont Schauberg, 1974, ISBN 3-7701-0773-X. Only available in German, I'm afraid. The book details all the cultural influences and hidden references in the comic. Chl 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

German is a problem. But many thanks anyway. Carcharoth 00:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I always liked the variations, such as when the chief Abraracourcix (or Vitalstatistix) was interrupted while taking a bath and was carried off, topless, tub and all, and presented to the visitors. Another one I remember is after the chief fired his carriers and Obelix is forced to "serve" him alone, balancing him on one hand over his head, like a waiter balances a tray (even carrying a towel folded over his other arm, if I remember correctly). ---Sluzzelin 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I remember all those. Maybe it is time to re-read my Asterix books? :-) I see, with glee, that there are three new ones I haven't read yet, though I seem to remember the later ones (post-2000) not being that good any more. :-( Carcharoth 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, "not that good anymore" is the understatement of the day. My POV. ---Sluzzelin 01:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you're revealing WAY too much about yourself, Sluzzelin! I thought you chose to be a complete mystery. I'm still trying to figure out the meaning of all those black balls, with one conspicuous green ball on your user page! Loomis 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Sluzzelin is trying to tell us he's related to Shri Dattathreya Ramachandra Kaprekar. Having 6174 balls on the page would have taken up too much space, but 297 is ok. JackofOz 00:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

footpath

How do I make a footpath that runs by the reservoir that is owned by the water company into a public right of way so I can walk down it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Assuming you live in England or Wales, the short answer is that you can't. The law is complicated, and keeps changing, and access rights have improved a lot over the past few years, especially within National Parks. It used to be the case that if you could prove someone had used a path every single day for more than a year, you could claim a right, but that may have changed with recent legislation. If there is a notice telling you it is private property, that remains the case. See rights of way in the United Kingdom for more information.--Shantavira 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but you might contact the water company and express a concern that the lack of a footpath is an environmental hazard. You might claim that quality inspectors and/or children have been seen misbehaving as a result of there being no footpath. I would avoid suggesting vagrants need bathing access. DDB 06:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You may not be a lawyer DDB, but you're sure sounding like one! :) Seriously, without a mental picture of the property, and the history behind its usage, the question is impossible to answer. Still, I'd definitely disagree with Shantavira's short answer that you simply can't. There are too many different varieties of easements to list here. But take the simplist possible of examples: say you own a piece of land that is completely surrounded by that of another. By operation of law you'd have what's called an easement by necessity. After all, if your property is completely surrounded by someone else's, how can you possibly get to it without trespassing on your neighbour's property! And by the way, even if you plan on airlifting yourself in, you're still technically trespassing, according to the maxim cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos, the Latin for for whomsoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to the sky and down to the depths. Loomis 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention it, but if you happen to be in the Civil Law world, the law is extremely similar. The main difference is in the terminology. What in the Common Law world is termed an easement is pretty much identical to what in the Civil Law world is termed a servitude. Loomis 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Soco and Vancette

I hear references to Soco and Vancette and would like to understand who they were. I thought they were WWII spies in the Boston Mass area but can not find a connection when I search that phrase. Your help will be appreciated Everett Hastings```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.184.11 (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

It's Sacco and Vanzetti. They were anarchists who were executed by the U.S. government. Here's the article: Sacco and Vanzetti. -GhostPirate 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They were executed by the government of Massachusetts, not the U.S. government. - Nunh-huh 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, eight German spies/saboteurs did get captured in the U.S. during World War II, of whom six were executed, but that wasn't in Boston and didn't involve Sacco and Vanzetti (whose execution was in 1927). For the story of the German saboteurs, see Ex parte Quirin and follow the links. Newyorkbrad 16:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctorate in "Krishna"

i wish to do PhD on the topic "kRISHNA" .How can Wikipedai help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.128.141.142 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

The answer is - not much - a PhD is usually original research - of which wikipedia has none.

You could look at the article krishna and see if this is the same thing - though in terms of a PhD thesis it would only contain very basic information. Other related topics may have articles on wikipedia that would serve as background and the links may be of more use to you for obtaining more detailed information.213.249.232.179 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Wikipedia can give you some information on what is already known about the subject, but what is unknown and how you could approach that is completely up to you. Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, by reading up on the subject, but further research should take place elsewhere. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the others. We're very proud of the work we do here, but no one should write a high school term paper based on Wikipedia articles without checking out the sources, much less a Ph.D. thesis. The articles should cite some sources you could start with, though if you are ready to approach the subject on a doctoral level you should already know many of them. Newyorkbrad 16:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your IP address indicates you are in Kerala, India. If your question is, where can you find information about earning a Ph.D. on the topic, it is still hard to answer the question since Krishna is a subject of interest to several disciplines. If you would like to become expert in the Sanskrit sources, for example, then you may wish to inquire further of the Department of Sanskrit at Kerala University (Kariavattom, Trivandrum, 695 581) or the Department of Sanskrit at Calicut University (673 635). Wareh 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

February 5

Question about Stonehenge

There is something I've always wondered about Stonehenge, but no one can seem to answer it. What I'm wondering is this: what is so damn great about it? I mean, it's nice collection of rocks... must have been hard lugging those around... but still, it's just a bunch of rocks. It's not the Great Pyramid of Giza or anything. Some people say it's because it's so old, even ancient! But come on, they were building far more impressive ziggurats in Sumer half a millenium earlier. I think it's very strange that so many people worship this thing that isn't all that impressive, when down in the fertile crescent there was a whole civilization, with writing and taxes and churches and dynasties and things. So again; why is Stonehenge so damn famous? 83.250.192.118 04:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a pretty impressive effort, considering it was not the Egyptians or Sumerians who did it. Like when your kid does a fingerpainting. Edison 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it some sort of clock, with rock from far away, and large rocks laid on top of pillar-like rocks, which is harder to explain than ramps for pyramids? Personally, I agree though. I don't see much in Stonehenge. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Stonehenge is famous to some extent because it isn't entirely clear exactly what it was used for - not knowing why it was built adds to the allure, particularly as humankind seems driven to produce explanations and causes for everything we encounter. Our article also touches on another topic, which is the otherworldly feeling that many vistors experience (even those who, like myself, are skeptical of the mystical, etc.).

There is also a case to be made for ethnocentrism, but I'm not entirely sure that I want to go down that road...Carom 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that those lovely pieces built elsewhere were done through the support of enormous civilisations with impressive organisation and drive. Not only did some stone age group build Stonehenge, they've disappeared without trace. This wasn't built by afterthought, but with considerable forethought over centuries. Sci fi writers would not write such a script, because it is too strange. DDB 06:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying! Why is this collection of stones more interesting than the enormous civilizations with the impressive organization and drive? It doesn't make any sense! I would make the case for ethnocentrism, I think it's a slam dunk. It's deplorable, really. 83.250.192.118 12:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right - there is really nothing that great about stonehenge (I agree and don't get why it gets so much publicity - TV programs etc). There's a lot that's good or interesting about it though - looks nice on postcards etc. One of the reasons for it's fame amongst other megalithic structures is it's obvious organised structure - most other megaliths just look like stones in a field - in some cases it's difficult to tell that they were actually man made - stonehenge however is obviously man made. It's also a source of pride to british/european people - who maybe couldn't give a shit about what some jews or arabs have built in the middle of a desert - there are many reasons..it's overhyped - because it's an obvious visual symbol.87.102.8.103 11:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to make a related point about the pyramids etc - why so many books/TV programs.. There's practically a different TV program on the pyramdids every day - yet the story is always the same - big rocks, big pyramid, lot of people, primitive tools, dead guy, stars.. Once would be enough yet every TV company seems to think that they simply must make another program about the Pyramids - whilst the rest of civilisations accomplisments go completely unfilmed - why?87.102.8.103 12:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. More documentaries on ancient China, the middle-east and and the Olmec people (even though we know basically nothing about them, it's more than we know about the henge-people). 83.250.192.118 12:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As an American, I was wondering what all this fuss was about. But it just occurred to me that Stonehenge might get a great deal of media and textbook attention in Britain. It does not get such attention in the United States. Most Americans have probably heard of it. It is after all one of the most ancient monuments in the world. However, it does not get the same degree of attention in the United States as the Egyptian pyramids or the Great Wall of China. The pyramids and the Great Wall are covered in our textbooks; Stonehenge generally is not. To me, Stonehenge does seem worthy of the same kind of attention that is given to other very old monuments that were engineering feats in their time and place, such as the heads of Easter Island, Macchu Picchu, and the Mayan temples. I think that this is about the degree of attention that it gets in the United States and probably in other countries outside of Britain. Marco polo 16:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Avebury Henge and Village

It's mostly those people from Avebury that go around trash-talking Stonehenge :-). Seriously, the interesting part for many of us is the "why" aspect: Why were all these various, obviously-related megalithic structures built? What purposes were they used for?

Atlant 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always blamed gypysies or bored farmers - if I find one on my land - I'll blow it up.87.102.8.103 17:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Irish Traveller "...suggests that Travellers habitually defraud their neighbours, demanding high prices for substandard day labor" - would that form the basis of an explanation?87.102.8.103 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Although less well known beyond the British Isles, Stonehenge does seem to be part of the "canon" of wondrous ancient ruins. Why? Because it is an impressive feat of engineering for the culture that probably left it: small communities without writing, unlike the great empires of antiquity. Because it is visually striking and easy to recognize. Because of the astronomical information it contains--solstice alignments, at minimum. An astronomer, Gerald Hawkins, proposed a theory that it was evidence of sophisticated astronomical knowledge, and that it was a solar eclipse calculator among other things. His theory has been challenged, but it received alot of attention, not least because he used a computer to analyze possible alignments. At the time he wrote (1960s), doing anything with a computer was a real novelty to the general public. Katherine Tredwell 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I used to be very impressed with it until I saw that a guy named Wally Wallington can do the same thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0 65.94.5.169 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rate of Ink Usage in Quill Pens

This is an art question, not a humanities question, but it seemed to fit better here than Miscellaneous.

When writing with a quill pen, how much ink (by volume) is consumed per unit written? (page, line, word, any useful measure.) Wikipedia pages on pens and ink give a lot of good information, but I couldn't find this. Gnfnrf 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I find I write about five hundred a4 size papers for each pen I use .. just an approximation. I estimate 10ml of ink per pen. These are ball point (naturally). Quill's probably use more ink because they are useful for art, as well as writing ;) DDB 06:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, quill pens use more ink. But how much more? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Gnfnrf 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched a bit but found nothing conclusive for quills. Several variables that also affect the rate of ink consumption are the width of the quill, the paper's absorptive qualities, the writer's touch (stronger or softer), and the ink's viscosity (which also depends on the temperature). ---Sluzzelin 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

disimbursement of loans in India

--Tshireen 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out whether I am an Australian citizen or British. I was born in 1959? or 1961 in Madang on Karkar Island. It was known then as New Guinea and I believe under the British New Guine? a subject of british colony. Now Papua New Guinea. Since PNG Independence my parents remained as British Subjects until there their death. Does that mean that are British citizens. If so am I also a British citizen.

You would be best to contact the British High Commission, Kiroki Street, Port Moresby for an answer to that question. Go with Birth Certificates, Passports for yourself and your late parents. --Trieste 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

British laws are quite complex on the issue. British subject and British citizen are not the same legal category. And where you were born on New Guinea makes a difference for eligiblity for Australian citizenship - see Australian nationality law#Papua New Guinea. If Madang was in the Territory of Papua, there is considerable difficulty as the issues regarding Australian citizenship are legally unsettled. Rmhermen 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

yakshi concept ,Kerala,India

Sir,

I am journalist. Now I want to write about the origin of Yakshi concept in Kerala.It is a myth but investigating the origin is an interesting subject.If you can give me maximum details. my e-mail:(email address removed) faithfully sunil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.17.221.175 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

I've removed your email address. Questions are not answered by email - please see the guidelines at the top of this page. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Difference

Sir, Can you please tell me Difference between Mirzae and Ahmedi according to our Islam Religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.160.8 (talk • contribs)

This isn't a computing question, so we won't be able to help you here on the Computing Reference Desk, but the Ahmedi and Mirza articles may be of some help. Wikipedia in Arabic may also have some details. --h2g2bob 14:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#difference 87.102.8.103 15:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage engagement in non-Western cultures?

Our article on engagement is very Western-centric. Does anybody have any information to add to it from other traditions, religions or cultures?--Sonjaaa 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Betrothal--Wetman 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Arranged marriage Clarityfiend 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Child marriage, cousin marriage (although the article itself is also highly Western and doesn't mention engagement.) Rmhermen 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

blockage

hi. im jesse king. i'd like to know how long i will be blocked on this sight from editing articles? just out of curiousty?Jk31213 19:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You could ask at the Wikipedia Help desk rather than the Reference desk. But I do not see that you are blocked. Why would you think that you are? You had a vandalism warning last June, but no current block. Edit away. Edison 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the Wikipedia:Blocking policy page for more info. - Akamad 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you were blocked, you wouldn't have been able to ask this question. Please direct questions about Wikipedia to the help desk. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Myths

I'm having a lot of trouble thinking of 'original source' or as close as possible of different mythologies (i.e. The Prose Edda, Metamorphoses, etc.) What are some? 64.198.112.210 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Having trouble figuring out what your question is. Perhaps you should try rephrasing it more clearly. Loomis 01:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the closest possible things to primary sources for different world mythologies. Examples would be the Prose and Poetic Eddas, Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Mabinogion...and there I fail at thinking of more. I need to make this list bigger. 71.220.127.97 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Iliad & Odyssey? --The Dark Side 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost any ancient text would fit the bill. Think of the text related to the culture. Gilgamesh? Zoroastrianism must have something. Ireland has Cúchulainn. I'm sure China and India have stuff, eg Baghavad Gita. Australian Aborigines famously talk of the dreamtime.

However, first stories are as easy to locate as first cities. They predate writing. DDB 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bible contains many "myths" common to other cultures such as that of Noah and the great flood. Yet "myths", by their very nature, tend to have no commonly agreed upon origin. Whether the Bible account is the "primary source" is anybody's guess. Loomis 13:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: I would like the names of books that contain as true as possible translations of ancient texts of myths, rather than 'retellings'. 64.198.112.210 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the you're probably going to need a Time Machine. Before the Printing press all literature was copied by hand, allowing for accumulated errors, and often the outright changing of important story elements (for example, Judaeo-Christian versions of earlier myths would always 'correct' the number of gods referenced in the story), it has only been since relatively recently that the idea of respecting the original author's intentions have come about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.32.8 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

OK, you guys don't seem to get this. I know I'm not going to get originals. I want the oldest possible source, except I don;t read any ancient languages, so I want close translations of ancient/old texts. I know it can be done; I have copies of some. I mentioned a few above. 64.198.112.210 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you'd like reliable translations of Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Prose Edda, and other old sources for myths. For Greek myths, here's a book review of a book that at least contains pointers to the earliest original sources for Greek myths. You'd find it useful once you got the hang of following the references to those sources in translation. Homer is our very oldest source; to get as close as possible to the Greek, read Richmond Lattimore's translation of the Iliad and Odyssey. The Loeb Classical Library contains virtually all the Greek and Latin authors on whom our knowledge of Greco-Roman mythology depends, usually in fairly literal translations. So that's getting pretty close. For the Prose Edda, there is a full translation published in 1987 by Anthony Faulkes (ISBN 0460876163). For a pretty good translation into English poetry of Ovid's Metamorphoses, try Melville's polished version in the Oxford World Classics (ISBN 019283472X), or Martin's for something more colloquial and Ameriacn (ISBN 039332642X). (If you want everything in plain & literal prose, again, go for the Loebs.) Wareh 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The oldest surviving mythology is probably the Sumerian, for which the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature is a good online source. I think the Inanna/Dumuzid poems are particularly interesting. For Greek myths the oldest source is probably Hesiod's Theogony and the so-called Homeric Hymns. For Hindu myths, try the Vedas. sacred-texts.com is a large collection of mythological and legendary texts that you may find useful and interesting. --Nicknack009 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Boccaccio's "Genealogia deorum gentilium"

I see in the Wikipedia article on Giovanni Boccaccio information on this in relationship to meeting Petrarch in 1351: Although unsuccessful, the discussions between the two were instrumental in Boccaccio writing Genealogia deorum gentilium — the first edition was completed in 1360 and this would remain one of the key reference works on classical mythology for over 400 years. Translated into English? Is there a list of mythology names this involves someplace? Did Petrarch and Boccaccio work on this together then? Did these two work together on other works also? Did Giovanni Boccaccio work with Petrarch on Petrarch's epic poem Africa about the Second Punic War and Scipio Africanus?--Doug ^talk 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You can get a sense of the work, especially the names it mentions, by consulting the original, even if you don't know Latin. It's available online here (PDF) and (HTML) and probably easiest to search via here. As far as I know, all that's been Englished is Boccaccio on poetry: being the preface and the fourteenth and fifteenth books of Boccaccio’s Genealogia deorum gentilium in an English version with introductory essay and commentary by Charles G. Osgood (Princeton Univ. Press 1930, reprinted in the Library of Liberal Arts, Bobbs-Merrill, 1956). Wareh 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for those leads, I will follow up on that. --Doug ^talk 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Where can I found procommunist resources about the establishment of East Germany??

Where can I found procommunist resources about the establishment of East Germany?? Partiuclary I'm looking for information about grasroot campaings and the redistribution of Juker lands. --Jacobin1949 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you want current resources or contemporary to the establishment? 惑乱 分からん 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to find, but aside from histories published in German in the GDR, there is the illustrated English-language Difficult years bear fruit, published in East Germany. If you read German, there are many more possibilities. Marco polo 23:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And if you read Russian, I'm sure you'd find much more. Loomis 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying to identify a painter

Hi, good Wikipedians

I'm trying to remember the name of a painter, who I'm pretty sure is a man. I think he was mostly active around the 1950's. Unfortunately I don't know the titles of any of his paintings, but I'm hoping if I describe a few someone might be able to point me in the right direction.

His style is realistic, but slightly caricatured, the faces, expressions and poses somewhat stretched or exaggerated

I think one of his most famous paintings is Thanksgiving themed, with a whole family gathered around and somebody bringing a turkey to the table

Another one, from just after the Jim Crow laws were overturned depicts a black girl walking to school looking very proud, and a egg smashed on a wall behind her.

The other one I remember has a girl with a black eye and a kind of dopey grin sitting outside a principle's office at school.

As I recall a lot of his images featured children and/or family settings.

Sorry if this isn't much to go on, but any help would be appreciated. Much thanks :) --Cryptess 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You must be thinking of Norman Rockwell. ---Sluzzelin 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! Thats him. Many thanks ^_^ --Cryptess 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

superbowl 41 2007 pregame show

Apparently, the pregame show featured the "Elements of Life Orchestra" featuring vocalist "Anane." Does anyone know the name of the actual song/composition that was performed? dr.ef.tymac 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals and The Law

Is vandalising of Wikipedia covered by the UK computer misuse act and analogous laws of other countries?

Incidentally, if someone punches me in the face, and I don't want to press charges, they can get away with it whereas if someone murders me, if I'm not mistaken, they are charged regardless of my wishes - is there a name for the distiniction of two offences in the respect of whether or not the victim may decide whether or not the offender should be subject to justice? --Seans Potato Business 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your second question, you are referring to the difference between the civil and criminal sides of the law. If you want to "press charges" against someone for punching you in the face, you are bringing a civil action against that person. Under the criminal law, the government brings charges against the offender. As you noted, usually this is for a crime of serious public concern (murder being a good example). However, I believe the state could still press criminal charges against the person who punched you in the face, regardless if you wanted to press charges on your own, if it really wanted. However, limited resources mean that lesser crimes such as this are rarely prosecuted. GreatManTheory 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what GreatManTheory was referring to with the civil/criminal distinction, but the term "press charges" has an interpretation that has nothing to do with any kind of civil/criminal distinction. The interpretation you seem to be referring to in your question has more to do with whether you want to *help* the government to pursue criminal charges against someone, which is a factor they may consider when deciding to whether to prosecute. Another factor is the seriousness of the criminal charges (Battery vs. Homicide in the example you gave). Even in cases of Homicide, the government may opt not to prosecute (for example in a plea bargain). In some jurisdictions, an action against you may constitute a both Crime and a Tort, which is where the "civil/criminal" distinction may arise, but this has nothing to do with the definition of "press charges" that you seem to be asking about. DISCLAIMER dr.ef.tymac 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is my understanding that the criminal/civil distinction is very appliable in the present situation. If the government wants to bring a criminal charge for battery, homicide, or any other crime, it does so on behalf of the people (as in the community), and not on behalf of the victim. Thus, whether the victim wants to see the person punished or not is not legally binding, although I'm sure it is a factor in the decision making. Of course, the willing help of the victim is helpful in obtaining information, but it is not required. The goverment can always force the victim to testify if necessary. However, if the person wants to bring a tort action against someone for battery, he would file a civil action against the offender. In this case, it is the individual bringing the case, and not the government and so the individual himself makes the final and only decision on whether to proceed with the case. And yes, "press charges" can mean either a civil or a criminal suit, but I didn't see that as the crux of the question. GreatManTheory 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lint on the television

I've tried googling it but I have had no luck. I distinctly remember a "shocking moment" in which the president at the time, Lyndon Johnson, picked a piece of lint off Lady Bird's dress on national television. I remember that it embarrassed her greatly and that she told the story for decades afterward (probably how I heard about it). Can anyone give more insight into it and tell me if it's of use to cite in the trivia section of their articles? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lint picking pales in comparison to showing reporters his surgical scar or licking his dog up by the ears. I would not even mention lint picking. Edison 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"licking his dog up by the ears"? Surely that's grounds for impeachment.137.138.46.155 14:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Culture and the internet

what might be the ramifications of the hypertext on culture? The hypertext transforms a text, which no longer has a set meaning, but how can we look upon a text as a unit when it is led into different directions by "links". There are no authors any more(in the sense that nothing new or amazing can come from an online publication), only writers and users, most of whom do not write very well. What is the future for culture when it is being degraded as it is? Also, does anyone know of any idea of where we are headed with the hypertext? What's next? Thank you for any comments on this you might have, it would be greatly appreciated. Henry Adams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.124.63 (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I disagree with your comments that "there are no authors any more" and that "nothing new or amazing can come from an online publication". I have come across many things new and amazing online, and there are many authorial voices. Bloggers, especially those with a broad following, are an example of this. I am also not sure that culture is being "degraded". It is true that the internet allows many to publish without meeting the quality standards typically required by print publishing. But there are also people online who do meet those standards. I think that what we have instead with the internet is a migration of conversational culture into a (sometimes poorly) written format and forum. While the quality of the discourse is often not up to the level that might have been found in an edited and printed magazine, there is a compensating advantage in that a much greater number of people are able to participate actively as producers and not just consumers of content. This has allowed a degree and volume of exchange and cross-fertilization that did not exist in the days before the internet and that, in my opinion, has enriched global culture. Marco polo 14:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, plus I would put fourth that MTV, or reality television are far more damaging and degrading to culture than the internet could ever be. Cyraan 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response- very helpful. Please consider that the author I was thinking about was the person who writes a set text, and that text is left to be as it was- hence, he has an identity that cannot be changed, apart from by the individual reader at the time of reading(who might add his own interpretations, personally). With the internet, however, the author writes a piece and it is taken apart by anyone who wants to add to it, links that move away from the original text, and other online pieces. Because of this the author's identity is changed by the other authors online. The hypertext does not allow the text to remain static for long enough for the readers own interpretation. Clearly, the significance of this on culture (and difference between individual cultures)is effected on the global scene. Any thoughts? Henry Adam

Your analysis seems to rely on a shaky and debatable premise: the notion that "fixed" text is somehow the historical antecedent to "hypertext," and that the encroachment of the latter is somehow influencing the definition of "authorship," which depends on the "fixity" of print media. This premise shaky because: 1) traditional print media already has many examples where the definition of 'authorship' is not trivial or obvious (see e.g., Bible, Work_for_hire); 2) print media are subject to revision, republication, redaction, sometimes even *requiring* frequent and unpredictable change (see e.g., West American Digest System); 3) some philosophers and scholars would debate there even *is* such a thing as the "fixity" that you imply in your premise (see e.g., Deconstruction, Operationalization). Just some thoughts, I hope this question was not a substitute for doing homework ;) dr.ef.tymac 15:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

--Henry, the same complaints were made in the early part of the age of print, in the rise of popular culture in the 19th century, and over and over again in the 20th century. Certainly in my youth, I heard the same complaints about TV and commercial arts. If you take "meaning" to mean "reference", then texts have never had set meanings. If you take "meaning" in the Derridean sense of internal structures of opposition, then texts have always had an indeterminate number of meanings open to exploration. Consider the constant process of discovering and rediscovering different meanings in the works of Shakespeare - a process that has been unquestionably fruitful and productive, and has gone on for several centuries. This undermines any claim that a lack of set meanings is something new. I don't see how hypertext is ever going to change any of that.

And there most certainly are authors. Postmodern authorship is perhaps more explicitly about repurposing other works than in the past - it is maybe more aware of its self-referentiality than in past ages. I like to use Quentin Tarantino's films as examples, but it's a pervasive phenomenon across not only the arts, but practically all text production. Blogs are almost a trivial example. But greater self-awareness is really about all that's changed. It's not as if the fact of repurposing and self-referentiality have changed, merely our awareness of it. Shakespeare's plots and characters were old when he stole them, and any theory of culture that dismisses the Bard for unoriginality or denies him genuine authorship is boldly going nowhere.

As for the "degradation of culture" - that's been a line used against novelty in media since... I don't know, isn't there some kind of bitching about the degradation of culture somewhere in Plato? Egads, if there's been a time in the history of man when there haven't been complaints about the degradation of culture I'm hard pressed to think of when it might have been. Most writers suck. Most writers have always sucked. If you think authors of the past were better than those today, it's because the sucky authors of the past are forgotten, not because they didn't exist. Access to writen media is more democratic these days, so more people are able to become authors. But limited access to media in the past didn't mean that only the best authors had access to it; more often, it kept the most original works from gaining distribution in favour of mediocrity. At least the present offers more works a chance at distribution.

If I were to put my finger on some real change that hypertextuality is bringing to text production, I would look at the way it undermines social cognition by segmenting informational ecologies and restoring a type of communitarianism that people in the 19th and 20th centuries worked very hard to abolish. And, remakably, it is able to do so without ever challenging the hierarchial and undemocratic structure of western culture and media. Blogs, and other micromedia like the Washington Times, mean that any news story you read is spun a dozen or a hundred different ways into radically incompatible different texts, and then redistributed among people who use them to reinforce existing cognitive structures within their communities. A New York Times article on how the war in Iraq is going badly becomes an indictment of the President in one community, while in another community it's just more proof of how the "liberal media" is losing the war. The importance of texts published in the Times is never questioned, but their significance is impossible to ascertain. The same applies not only to news, but to popular culture. Is South Park about liberal values or conservative ones? Has the show ever taken a discernable stance on anything? Or The Simpsons? Or The Sopranos? It depends on whose blogs you read.

I would suggest that the future of culture is therefore the construction of still more limited, hierarchial, undemocratic and information-poor mass media, along with a vast system of writers and rewriters, constantly reconstructing and repurposing its output, until people who try to become well-informed about issues are even less well informed than those who make no effort at all. Ultimately, it means the restoration of a culture of bad information reinforcing bad social structures, just as existed before the liberal revolutions of the 19th century. The reduction in international correspondents in the major media, the increasing use of wire articles and pre-packaged news texts from outside sources, the consolidation of the media in the west - these are all phenomena that would fit such a theory because they turn major media outlets into little more than big budget bloggers, commenting and rewriting rather than seeing and reporting.

Of course, it may not turn out that way. There is some evidence of a contrary trend as well. The most popular shows on American TV are - for the first time in my life, if not the first time ever - routinely the best, most original and most intelligent shows on TV. Even film is slowly improving. Those media are every bit as hyperlinked as the web - The Sopranos is as hyperlinked as any blog, just chock full of references to Mafia and cop films and other media. People do seem capable of recognizing sources of creativity and information. This change hasn't yet reached the news media, or print at all much. But it may yet be coming. --Diderot 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Diderot, merci de vos points, ils clarifient beaucoup pour moi. Mais que tout cette parole au sujet d'originalité ? La culture contemporaine s'amuse avec le repitition et l'intertextuality- mais où ce fil nous ? Combien de couches doivent là être avant que ce tout devienne inaccessible et unoriginal. Et vous êtes un traducteur ? L'Internet peut vous mettre hors des affaires avec ses fonctions immédiates de traduction ! Quelle, en effet, est une bonne traduction ? Henry Adams

Yes, thanks Diderot for the excellent discussion, and thanks Henry Adams for your question. Could you please keep discussions on this page in English though? It helps maintain the continuity of the "text" and also makes it possible to search and find your question in the future if anyone else has the same or similar questions later. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and while I am (or at least was) a professional translator, I'm a much better writer in English than in French, so I'm going to stick to answering your questions in that language - not to mention that it makes the conversation more accessible. And I'm a specialist in machine and computer aided translation doing a doctorate in computational linguistics, so I know a lot about that subject, and no, there is no chance the Internet will put an end to the business of translators.

Yes, contemporary culture amuses itself with repetition and intertextuality, and at so many layers of remove, the original substance is often at quite a great distance from the media consumed. However, this stems from a very different source than hypertextuality or any new media. Media is - and always has been - a consumable product. The public has never been content with a handful of great, unchanging classics that are recirculated over and over again. As far back as the classical Greeks, we see the emergence of not especially original plots and characters, used over and over again. People want and will pay a great deal for new cultural texts even where there's precious little originality in them. The arts as an industry have always responded to this demand. Repetition and intertextuality are the backbone of the business of the arts - a multibillion dollar industry that brings more colour into people's lives every day than all the religions of the world combined. One of the functions of text production - one of its most legitimate and necessary functions - is bringing that kind of colour and feeling into people's lives.

Even if we were to do as the Marxists always suggested and abolish capitalism and with it abolish the text as a commodity, this need still would exist every bit as much in a post-capitalist society as the need for food and shelter. Demand for texts as consumable products far, far exceeds the capacity for original production. A social order must exist to meet that excess. Hypertextuality has changed none of that. Indeed, one of its most interesting properties is that it places in the people's own hands the means for text production. Postmodern text production is, in a very limited sense, a kind of Marxist economy of abundance. There is no monopoly on the means of production, and the result is enormous surpluses beyond the capacity to consume. That is one of the great changes of the age, but as I highlighted, it has a downside that should be obvious to any economist: inflation, the collapse of value, and an informational and cultural version of Gresham's law where bad texts chase away the good, and a reduction of people's text consumption to a few "junk foods" like Fox News.

But if you step away from the idea of originality and see text production as meeting social needs, the importance of hypertextuality fades away. Repetition, intertextuality, commentary on commentary on commentary - all of this is designed to meet demands and none of it represents much of a difference from the past.

As for what constitutes a good translation... a lot of ink and occasionally a bit of blood has been spilled over that topic. I am inclined personally to a sort of Marxist conception of practice as being at the root of meaning. A text is communicative when it produces the intended effect, and learning to do that in one's native language is challenge enough. A translation is the same. The only question is whose intention is should guide the judgment. This was always a burning question for Bible translators - that answer for them was God, but God's intent was always hard to agree about - and a lot of modern translation theory takes its cues from the Bible translators. In a strict sense, since I hold to a somewhat modified version of Derrida's theory of meaning (which he always attributed to Saussure) I would judge a translation on the basis of its maintenance of the original structure of oppositions within the text. Under realistic circumstances, however, this can be a poor guide for a lot of reasons that I haven't the space to go into. --Diderot 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Romans

What Roman presented a treatise that philosophically pointed to the existence of God monotheistically? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gowillitay (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Augustine of Hippo? Or do you mean Roman as in "born in Rome"? Should be plenty of examples. Pfly 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Lucretius seemed pretty monotheistic. Lisiate 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) - Actually scratch that the article implies he's more of an atheist. Lisiate 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Italian or Roman? Thomas Aquinas was Italian and came up with some of the most pertinent arguments for the existence of a monotheistic God.

Any sort of era we're looking at here? There have been a lot of Romans! Is this, for instance, BCE? Russia Moore 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

February 6

How many Representatives are required to "compel the attendance of absent members"? Senators?

Hello. Article One, Section Five of the U.S. Constitution states, "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."

What exactly is "a smaller number"?

Thanks for taking the time to look at my question. --Db099221 15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"A smaller number" means less than a majority. Each House decides, in its own rules, how many that is. Corvus cornix 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The House rules say a majority of at least 15 members can compel the attendance of absent members. The Senate rules say a simple majority can compel absent senators to show up. -- Mwalcoff 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. --Db099221 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Finance for Seniors

Can a person age 66-1/2 file for social security, receive benefits and still maintain employment for full salary of upwards of $70,000/yr? Will their place of employment be notified of this filing for social security benefits?

For the most accurate answer, I would ask the Social Security Administration. --Lph 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon`s two sons

What happened to Napoleon's son, Alexandre by Marie Waleska? When did he die? What was the cause of death of Napoleon`s son, the Aiglon?

Alexandre Joseph Colonna Count Walewski (4 May1810-27 September1868) married twice [1] (1831) Catherine Caroline Montagu (daughter of the 6th Earl of Sandwich, by whom he had a son and a daughter (both died in infancy), [2] (1846) Maria Anne Alexandrine Catherine Clarisse de Ricci, by whom he had three daughters and a son (one daughter died in infancy), and had an affaire with the actress Rachel which resulted in a son, who has living descendants. The Aiglon died of tuberculosis, though as usual, some people claim he was poisoned. - Nunh-huh 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It was "rumored" that "Aiglon", Napoleon II, Duke of Reichstadt, was poisoned by Metternich's spies, rather as Salieri was "rumored" to have poisoned Mozart.--Wetman 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Judaism is/was polytheistic?

is there anywhere in the j. old testament where yahweh specifically says there is no other god but him, or does he just command his followers to only worship him and not "those other rubbish gods"? i know people say judaism is monotheism but is it really?

Interesting question. The Shema, one of the most important prayers in Judaism, is a simple statement pronouncing and reasserting the oneness of God, taken from Deteronomy 6:4. "Shema Israel, Adoshem [sic] Elokeinu [sic], Adoshem [sic] Echad" ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is ONE"). It seems clear from this seminal prayer of Judaism that there is but "one" God.

Additionally, the first words of the Torah or the Christian Old Testament speak simply of "God". Specifically, they are: "Bereshit barah Elokim [sic] et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" ("In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth"). It would seem by this statement that it was considered as a sort of given that only one God exists. Otherwise, it would only be logical to first identify just which God is being referred to, before going into just how He went about creating the universe. Loomis 05:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Henotheism#Israelite_beliefs_and_Judaism, perhaps. --Shirt58 09:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I read that there was some serpent which could be assumed for a staff if it was hypnotized stiff, or something, and you could wake it up by throwing it to the ground. I read it in the Danish comic Nofret, though, so I'm not sure on how accurate it is. 惑乱 分からん 12:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You could also check out the Ten Commandments, which according to the biblical text, were spoken by God to all of the Jewish people. It must've been quite a show. Avoiding the usual debates about "were there 10?" and "are they all commandments?" depending on your take on religion, the first or first/second commmandment is/are taken as a commandment/including a commandment to monotheism. Sorry that's complicated - biblical interpretation often is. Check out our article. --Dweller 14:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some interesting passages in the Pentateuch or Torah that suggest that the early Israelites recognized the existence of gods other than their own God. For example, Exodus 15:11 asks "Who among the gods is like you, O LORD ? Who is like you— majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?", and Exodus 18:11 states "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly." Deuteronomy 4:7 reads "What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him?" Deuteronomy 6:14 commands "Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you." Deuteronomy 10:17 states "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes." This seems to me quite close in sense to the questioner's scenario in which the Israelite's God commands them to worship only Him and not those other "rubbish gods" (such as the Canaanite gods who accepted bribes). This however, does not exactly mean that the Israelites were polytheistic, since they worshipped only their God. Marco polo 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of interpretation, of course, but the passages can be read as acknowledging that other nations have their gods (lower case g) which are not to be worshipped, but that they're not really God (upper case g). In a similar way, one would call a child's toy car "a car", even though it doesn't really work like the car parked outside your home. The most famous allegation of polytheism in Judaism actually stems from Genesis 1:1 where the name used for God ("Elohim") is plural. There are many ways of debating this issue, a simple one being that the verb form tied to it ("bara", created) is singular, therefore referring to a single entity. Elohim famously is a common usage for God's name in the early chapters of the Bible. --Dweller 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice analogy with the toy car, Dweller. As Dweller implied, much rests on one's definition of the word "god". In addition to Dweller's analysis, I'd add that even if a "god" is defined as a REAL supernatural being, this still does not imply polytheism. Certainly, the early Israelites as well as modern Jews have always recognized the existence of other supernatural beings, such as the various angels, including Satan. Yet if by the term "God" one is speaking of a single, omnipotent Supreme Being, the Torah only speaks of only one "Almighty" God. This is reflected in many Jewish prayers which open with the words "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe". Note the "King of the universe" part. According to Jews, God is not simply "God of the Jews", but "God of the universe".

The Jewish concept of God is as an omnipotent Supreme Being. The very definition of omnipotence would seem to imply that there cannot exist any rival or independent beings capable of acting beyond God's control. An interesting illustration is the apparent conceptual difference of Satan as between Judaism and Christianity. From the best of my understanding, the Christian concept of Satan appears to be that of a fallen angel who opted to represent Evil in defiance of God, who represents Good. Satan is apparently "beyond" God's control. Apparently, to Christians, God and Satan are locked in an eternal battle of "Good vs. Evil". In contrast, the Jewish concept of Satan is that of a loyal servant of God, who's special duty is to continually test mankind's righteousness by constantly tempting us into Evil. I realize this is an EXTREMELY sensitive issue, and if I'm misrepresenting Christianity in any way, I'd be more than pleased if someone more knowledgeable than I would correct me.

Perhaps I've gone off a bit too far on a tangent, but my point is that despite Satan's apparent independence, Christianity is still considered a monotheistic religion. That considered, if recognizing the independence of Satan does not preclude recognizing Christianity as monotheistic, then, a fortiori, the recognition by the early Israelites of lesser, "rubbish" gods, not beyond God's control should certainly not be construed as implying any sort of "polytheism". (Sorry for rambling on a bit. I'd actually be VERY interested in others' feedback as to this post, especially my remarks concerning Christianity, as it's been a thought running through my head for quite a while). Loomis 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the victory over the serpent in Revelation reminds us of Isaiah 27:1 "That day Yahweh will punish with his unyielding sword, massive and strong, Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will kill the dragon in the sea." And this Hebrew Bible text bears the influence of the (most definitely polytheistic) 14th c. BC Ras Shamra poem, "You will crush Leviathan the fleeing serpent, you will consume the twisting serpent, the mighty one with seven heads" (note in NJB). So the henotheism strand is clear enough. For a listing of henotheistic passages in the Old Testament, see these online essays: [14] [15]. Wareh 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article on henotheism leaves much to be desired. In particular, it doesn't answer the question as to whether, despite believing in many "non-omnimpotent" supernatural beings, or "gods", one believes in only one omnipotent God, whether that set of beliefs is properly characterized as "henotheism". To my mind, the omnipotence aspect is key. Loomis 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But omnipotence is only a required characteristic of a god in certain, specific religions, for certain, specific gods. To be honest, if you discovered Judaism/Christianity/Islam today in a tribe of people, and these religions were not known to you, I'm not convinced you would find them monotheistic. Sure, they only worship one god, but they clearly have a whole range in their world, just like the Greeks, Romans, Eygptians and the rest. They seem to believe in an 'evil god' (although they do not term him a god), various 'lesser gods' that serve their God, and the existance of gods that are opposed to their God. Only their God has omnipotence, but we do not require omnipotence of Mercury for us to class him a god. Skittle 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Omnipotence is certainly central to my faith in God. The God I believe in is omnipotent. Otherwise he wouldn't be "God". He wouldn't be any sort of Supreme Being, but merely a "superiour being". Non-omnipotent "superiour beings", to me, aren't "Gods" at all. They're simply superiour beings, just as some more evolved alien race from some other solar system or galaxy would be certainly be "superiour beings" as compared to humans, but far from any sort of Supreme Being. I can only speak of Judaism, but Jews believe in only ONE omnipotent Supreme Being. As I've explained, according to Judaism, even Satan is a mere subservient servant of God. (That's what puzzles me about Christianity: If God is omnipotent, and Satan is causing all kinds of Evil mischief to the detrement of mankind, why doesn't the Almighty Omnipotent Christian God simply snap his fingers and make Satan, the trouble-maker, go away? Why is the Christian God seemingly limited in his powers over Satan, forced to engage in an eternal struggle with this apparently independent force of Evil? Is the Christian God not as omnipotent as the Jewish?)

The question assumes that a truly omnipotent god would never allow evil to exist in the world. If that is the case, how come the Jewish omnipotent god allows so much evil to exist in the world? If there can only be ONE omnipotent God, then all faiths that believe in an omnipotent god are believing in the same entity regardless of what name they give to him or what attributes they attribute to him. Who are we mere humans to question the mind of God? JackofOz 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said that if God is truly omnipotent, there could not exist any other being, such as Satan, who is beyond His control. What I did not say is that an omnipotent God would not allow evil to exist. The essential difference is that to Christians, Evil exists due to the existence of a Satan who is beyond God's control. To Jews, evil exists because God allows man to have free will, not because He couldn't eliminate it if He so wished. A central tenet of Judaism is God's commitment to the free will of man. As an illustration, many Jewish Holocaust survivors, as a result of having gone through the unspeakeable horrors they did, though they still believe in God, blame Him for the miseries they were forced to experience. A common sentiment would be "how could God allow this to happen"? On the other hand, I would expect the reaction of a Christian to be somewhat different: God/Jesus certainly did not "allow" this sort of thing to happen, rather, I would imagine that they would see it more as an unfortunate instance of a victory of Evil (Satan) over Good (God/Jesus). Loomis 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, Skittle, if I discovered any tribe of people whose religion was not known to me, and if they told me that they worshipped only ONE omnipotent God, the analysis would end there. These people are clearly monotheists.

The Greeks, Romans etc., despite the fact that even polytheistic religions tended to have "chief gods", like Zeus, Jupiter etc., these "chief gods" were by no means omnipotent. If I remember my classics well enough, these "chief gods" were constantly getting into tangles with the lesser gods, and even with the humans they supposedly reigned upon. On top of that, they weren't even considered as the "original creators" of the universe, but rather the children of the Titans, who, and I'm really going out on a limb here as my memory of it all is failing, I believe they actually killed to acquire their status as "gods". In any case, the whole Ancient Greek/Roman polytheistic tradition was a mess of power struggles amongst the various subordinate gods, and between the "subordinate" gods and the "chief" god: Zeus/Jupiter. Add to that the hybrids: the offspring of those gods who chose to mate with mortals...well...I think I've my point. As for Hermes/Mercury, he was never considered omnipotent, and therefore I'd be the last to describe him as a "God". Loomis 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

jesus crucifixion = odin on world tree?

is there any reason to suggest that the jesus crucifixion story is a rehash of the norse odin death-and-rebirth on the world tree story? they seem very similar. is there any way norse teachings could have reached the middle east?

Have you read our article on Odin, particularly Odin#Odin_and_Jesus? It discusses your question quite fully. --Mnemeson 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps the other way around, like middle eastern teachings reaching the north? There are some who believe that religions simply influenced each other during the millenia (some may even say copied from each other). This is easy to follow with the gods of classical Antiquity; the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and Germanic gods. There is always a female god of Beauty: Venus, Aphrodite, Hathor, Freya. A big mighty boss: Jupiter, Zeus, Amon-Ra, Odin. ETC There might be big diffrences amongst them but also great similarities. Even our modern religions are not immune. Notice how the story of Horus and his mother Isis is in some ways similar to the story of Jesus and Mary. How about Aten, the only God and the Jewish-Christian-Muslim God? How about the Genesis and the ancient Greek mythology, both say more or less that: "at the beginning there was only Caos". How about the similarities between Loki, Seth, Judas? There might be mighty differences but many ideas are in many fascinating ways the same. Basicly almost all religions try to answer the old eternal questions: Where do we come from? What are we doing here? Where are going? How can I reach "enlightment"? (damned if I know what that really means) Is there a life after death? If everybody is asking the same questions then the answers (religion/mythology) are bound to be quite alike. Flamarande 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Greek myth of Prometheus could also be compared to Christ (though strangely the article doesn't mention it). Prometheus brought fire from the Gods to humans, and for this he was punished (pretty harshly, too!) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Herodotus in his History mentioned the similarity of all religions. Everyone seemed to worship Zeus. There was one tribe that only worshipped Zeus, and no other .. ;)

The question of who was first goes to the heart of credibility. Not many today worship Odinn. American religions and Asian religions seem quite different from European/Middle Eastern, so, I would say that if the Norse mythos was older, then they would be the influence. I suspect Babylonians might have had more influence, though. DDB 11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I know Prometheus has been compared to Lucipher, rather than to Jesus: both Prometheus and Lucipher (whose name means "he who brings light") brought a divine attribute to humankind (fire/the knowledge of good and evil) in some kind of an effort to make humankind independent from its creator, and they were both punished for that. Of course there are differences in the interpretation of the act, in the motives they might have had etc. Generally Lucipher is seen negatively, while Prometheus is regarded as a positive character (by the way, did the ancient Greeks see Prometheus as a positive character too? That would be an interesting question). SFinamore 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Except we know that the Roman Empire had a policy of nailing trouble-markers to crosses and leaving them to die of exposure. Making it much more likely that the tale of Jesus' crucifixion was based on actual events, and that any connection with myths from the other end of the known world are merely coincidental. 194.80.32.8 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo Davinci

I was reading your article on Leonardo Davinci, and I just wanted to let you know there was an error "In 1882 Leonardo, whom Vasari tells us was a most talented musician, created a silver lyre in the shape of a horse's head." Shouldn't that be 1482? Otherwise, he would have lived 400 years.

Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it in the article. For future reference, did you know you can edit the articles yourself? - Akamad 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What score does a hole in one give?

In golf, how much is a hole in one worth?--70.129.200.128 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The score in golf is determined by the par of the hole. So if it's a par 3, and they get a hole in one, their score is -2. If it takes them 2 shots, then it's -1 and so forth. - Akamad 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be more correct, the score in golf is determined by adding up the number of shots a player takes on each hole. Although scores are generally reported in relation to par, they exist independently. A hole in one indicates that the player needed only one shot to get the ball in the hole, and is consequently worth one stroke.

Other golf terminology, such as "birdie" or "bogey" are depndent on par for determining their precise value. A hole in one is always worth one, regardless of what par is. Carom 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist schools in Vietnam

Which is the main Buddhist school in Vietnam?

Per our Vietnam article, Mahayana Buddhism is the predominant version of that religion in Vietnam. Marco polo 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist schools in South Asia

Which Buddhist schools does India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have? I read the article but it didn't specifically say which is the main school of Buddhism. Thanks.

In Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, Theravada Buddhism is the predominant school of that religion.

The article Buddhism in India does not give enough information to be certain about relative numbers. However, the article states that, prior to about 1900, Buddhism in India was confined to tribal groups along the borders with Burma (present-day Myanmar), who, per the article Buddhism in Bangladesh would be predominantly Theravada and in the Himalayas, who would adhere to Tibetan Buddhism. Since 1900, there has been a Buddhist revival in India, facilitated by Buddhist monks and religious figures from Sri Lanka, where Theravada Buddhism is practiced. Presumably, these converts are also Theravada. Also, there has been an influx of Tibetan refugees into India. Ethnic Tibetans mainly practice Tibetan Buddhism. Marco polo 02:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics is the language of God

How old is this idea? I understand the Egyptians believed in a kind of divine geometry, and that the Pythagoreans had a kind of mystical mathematics, but when was the first time someone suggested that mathematics was not only a divine science, but also a language in and of itself?

Thanks very much - I realise this is a bit of a curly question - any responses would be appreciated Adambrowne666 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the history of ideas, mathematics as a language was a conception of the mid-17th century: see this review of Einstein's Heroes: Imagining the World Through the Language of Mathematics by Robyn Arianrhodat, at American Scientist Online. Not really a question for us humanities folk. --Wetman 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics, as we understand it, did not exist until recently. Descarte linked geometry with algebra in a special way. Lord Napier gave us decimal numbers. Fibonnacci brought Hindu Arabic numbers to the West. Ancient Greeks thought in terms of number and geometry, making discoveries linking modelling and observation, but not necessarily practise. Thales of Miletus made some fabulous discoveries, according to Aesop.

However, for your question, there is an assumption of a singular god? That is a modern concept. The middle ages saw the Christian church (with monks) link with learning. The statement is suggestive of a renaiscance figure. Possibly Kepler, who wrote of the Harmony of the Spheres, or Isaac Newton, who wrote Principia Mathematica. Kepler would be sincere, Newton more wry. Unlikely to be Galileo, who was hostile through experience, to the church. DDB 11:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Galileo stated that mathematics is the language in which God wrote the universe. DDB 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Galileo_Galilei#Scientific_methods . ---Sluzzelin 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to take issue with DDB's implication that the ancient Greeks did not practice "Mathematics, as we understand it." The proofs in Euclid, based on stated axioms and demonstrative reasoning, and concerning mathematical objects (points, lines, triangles, numbers, etc.) that are very clearly abstract mathematical constructs, are ample proof of this. (As to the more religious notion that mathematical reality, e.g. number, can be some kind of higher principle of the world, I think you'll find that first & strongest among the Pythagoreans.) Wareh 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wareh, I respect you, your work and your viewpoint. However, my statement regarding Math praxis among Greeks is orthodox. Morris Kline detailed differences in his work Mathematical Thought From Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972. While there are surface similarities of study and understanding as regards Euclid's Geometry, in fact, theory and assumption are quite different, so that Zeno's Paradox would today be understood in terms of continuity and the concept of infinite, in Ancient Greek days it was a type of koan. While the Pythagorean school was religious in nature, this is not overstated. Teaching and learning among Greeks was subject to the great dialectic, and so the schism both describes and overstates practical knowledge. Don't forget, Hypatia was pagan, and the Greeks predate the belief in one god. DDB 09:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All excellent and enlightening answers - you have a point, Wetman, about it being a science question, but I think this shows I was correct to go to the Humanities Desk with it. DDB, are you also referring to the fact that the word mathematics was once used to refer to something broader than it does now? - didn't it used to mean just 'knowledge' or 'science', and that's where words like polymath arise from? Adambrowne666 09:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Our mathematics article discusses the etymology of the word - it says, in part, "The word "mathematics" (Greek: μαθηματικά or mathēmatiká) comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which means learning, study, science, and additionally came to have the narrower and more technical meaning "mathematical study", even in Classical times". As for the original question, I think it depends entirely on how broadly you define the terms mathematics, language and God. We have an article on mathematics as a language that relates the modern concepts of mathematics and language. In a broad sense, it seems plausible that the ancient Egyptians may have attached some spiritual significance to the methods of arithmetic and geometry that they used to design and build their pyramids, but I don't think we have any firm evidence for such beliefs. Gandalf61 11:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, shoulda thought there might be an article on it. Thanks again. Adambrowne666 09

14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sects In Sikhism?

Does Sikhism have sects or schools like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism?

The article Sikhism lists several Sikh or Sikh-related sects (near the end of the article) whose practices or beliefs differ from those of mainstream Sikhs. This implies that there is a mainstream, or orthodox, sect, and some non-mainstream offshoots. Marco polo 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Independent Eastern Christian Church

Is there such sect as Independent Eastern Christian Church?

I cannot find evidence of an organized sect with that name. There are, however, a number of independent eastern Christian sects or churches. Marco polo 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In Eastern Orthodoxy, some state churches are autocephalous, "self-headed". --Wetman 07:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

February 7

nudism religion

Is there such religion where people worshipped their god in nude?

Lots, probably, but Wicca and its sky-clad rituals pop most readily to mind. - Nunh-huh 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion is a relative term. Nudists may claim religious inspiration if it is convenient. So any examples are fluid.

Early Mormonism may have had some devotees, though I doubt it mainstream. Sects like of Jonestown or Koresh had liberal views on sex/marriage. Thing is, religion is termed that because of certain laws guarenteeing freedoms, including tax relief. They mightn't exist in some cases if they were treated as mere corporate bodies. I have heard interesting stories regarding J Edgar Hoover. Sorry I'm not more helpful. DDB 10:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Early Mormonism does not include any example of worshipping nude (mainstream or otherwise). TK421 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Many fertility religions would have involved sexual intercourse in their worship. See Dionysus (particularly the link to Livy's description of the Bacchanale) and possibly Astarte. --Dweller 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Some early christian sects were synchretisms between christian doctrines and pagan or hedonistic traditions. Some of their rituals would end up in orgies to celebrate fecondity. I'll let you guess what such sects as the "spermatophages" got up to in order to celebrate their union to the god(dess) of fertility. Keria 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a religion or religious sect in India where large numbers of its worshipers, both men and women, take to the streets naked. Dont know what its called. And then there are many Indian holy men who live nude.

Some Finnish pagans made sacrifices to local spirit of household if they had made that spirit unhappy and tried to compensate. Normally they sarcificed with clothes on. 193.167.45.242 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

War outcomes and troop levels

Of all of the large-scale international wars in modern history (let's say after American independence), what percent have been won by the side that committed the most troops to the conflict (with technological advancement, other resources, etc. ignored)? C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be a large research project, which may be beyond the time that most Reference Desk editors have available for this sort of thing. The first task of such a project would be to determine what constitutes a "large-scale international war". For example, does the current Iraq War qualify? Once those parameters are determined, you might want to search for figures for each conflict in The Encyclopedia of Military History by Trevor and Richard Dupuy, though this covers only the period up to the mid-1980s. For more recent conflicts that meet your parameters, you might be able to find troop numbers in the relevant Wikipedia articles. Obviously, you would also need to record which side won each conflict. Then record the conflicts in which the side with the greatest troop strength won, tally the number that meets this criterion and compare it to the total number of conflicts meeting your parameters. Sorry not to answer your question directly, but I have laid out for you a way in which you might be able to find the answer yourself. Marco polo 02:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There was some staticician, probably British, who studied this some decades ago, and came up with a mathematical law about this.

His name was Lanchester. His "law" is bullshit. Cf Dupuy, Numbers, Predictions, & War. Trekphiler 06:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of cultural reference in Love Minus Zero by Bob Dylan

Firstly, please note that this is not a question about a Bob Dylan song per se, in case someone wants to move it to the Entertainment desk. In the song "Love Minus Zero/ No Limit," there is a line that goes "Madams light the candles." What is this referring to? Do they place the candles in rooms where the prostitute is still available? The Mad Echidna 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it's sometimes fruitless to search for meaning in Dylan lyrics. A lot of it's just there because he thinks it sounds good. I have no answer to your actual question about candles and prostitution, though. Sashafklein 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I love Bob Dylan. I agree that Dylan paints an overall picture using music and lyrics. People interpret the specific lines by what they want to read into the work. If Bob Dylan were to tell you--which is not very likely--I doubt it would be what he meant originally. My editorial comment is that is one great song. The Beatles frequently wrote word pictures that are almost meaningless. 75Janice

Macbeth help

So I'm acting out in my Shakespeare class tomorrow Lady Macbeth's famous "unsex me" soliloquy, which can be found halfway down this page. I've went through it to understand it fully, and had no trouble on anything except for the lines "you murdering ministers/Wherever in your sightless substances/You wait on nature's mischief!" I just don't get what/who she's referring to. What, do you think, could "substances" mean here? And "ministers?" I guess those are the two words that shake me up here. I just can't figure out what LM is literally getting at, and I want to understand the speech completely before I act it out. So any help to that end would be greatly appreciated. Sashafklein 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the sudden craziness of her ambition for Macbeth, Lady Macbeth is summoning up hellish spectres like the Erinyes to give her the nerve for her purpose. "Murdering ministers" here are "fell agents" who will "minister" to her in her plans, which are half-forming. Their incorporal "substances"— like ectoplasm— are sightless because they're ghostly, and because they are without reason or moral rightness. She is conjuring imaginary helpers to screw her courage to the sticking point. --Wetman 06:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. So she's in a way already hallucinating here, or going crazy? Sashafklein 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

She's in an extremity, on the edge. Others might scream the lines: why not try a hoarse whisper? --Wetman 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome in literary fiction

I'm looking for literary fictional portraits of people suffering from Tourette syndrome. The character doesn't have to be the protagonist, but should be a recurring character. Also, I'm interested in more recent fiction where the author was or could have been aware of the condition's existence. (Not Pushkin's Mozart and Salieri, for instance). Thank you in advance. ---Sluzzelin 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Motherless Brooklyn by Jonathan Lethem. Maybe Icy Sparks by Gwyn Hyman Rubio. And Skull Session by Daniel Hecht. Lowerarchy 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you very much, Lowerarchy. ---Sluzzelin 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this comic says it all. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it'd suffice, but there was a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode with a coprolaliac (is that a word?) chef. 惑乱 分からん 13:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The victim in Minette Walters' murder-mystery novel The Shape of Snakes had Tourette's, and it's a major part of the story. Natgoo 11:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thrilling contrast makes three! Thanks, Natgoo. ---Sluzzelin 13:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I once wrote a kids' story featuring a character suffering Tourettes, but it was just a mild case, so his swear words were also mild - 'heck, damn, what the dickens' etc. Adambrowne666 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

... link? ---Sluzzelin 00:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

common law marrige in ohio

if a couple married by common law in ohio took place before 1991 does a grand father law exist

vincent howard

• "Common-law marriage (or common law marriage), sometimes called informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute is, historically, a form of interpersonal status in which a man and a woman are legally married. The term is often mistakenly understood to indicate an interpersonal relationship that is not recognized in law. In fact, a common law marriage is just as legally binding as a statutory or ceremonial marriage in most jurisdictions — it is just formed differently." A grandfather clause exempts people from a new law. For example if the legal age to drink is raised from 18 to 21, such a clause means people between those ages at the time it is implemented will retain their right. After explaining all that, I don't see why a grandfather clause would be needed. What would it exempt the couple from? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The questioner asks this question because common law marriage was disallowed in Ohio after 1991. However, according to this site, common law marriages contracted in Ohio before October 10, 1991, are still legally recognized and fully valid marriages. Marco polo 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then I have to ask: Whatever gave Ohio state the impression disallowing them was a good idea? - 131.211.210.17 09:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason usually given by states for getting rid of common law marriage is the government's need to have accurate records of who is married to who in order to keep track of who owns what and who is responsible for what. Crypticfirefly 04:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Poetry (2)

I'm looking for a chinese poem about aging. I think it's titled "On Being In Your Sixties" & has a line "the time of quiet ears". I've done a Google search in several ways to no avail. Any help appreciated, thanks. tbone02e40Tbone02e40 16:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't help you I'm afraid, but are you sure that shouldn't be "quiet years"?--Shantavira 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it had to do with enjoying the finer things in life; hearing, tasting & seeing things through mature senses. I heard it, about six years ago, on a classical radio station in Washington DC & saw it on their web site. I questioned them, but they didn't have it archived. Does anyone in the DC area remember this? Tbone02e40 12:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty in finding a translated poem is that the one line you remember may have been reinterpreted by other translaters. 194.80.32.8 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

civics project

i need help finding out some info on geronimo for my reserch paper can any one help me thank you you can email me at <-email removed->

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Geronimo. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --Shantavira 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps over time

I have recently been reading history articles on Wikipedia, specifically the many nations existing in Europe over the last 500 years or so. I am interested in the maps that accompany these articles, and am wondering if anyone knows of a website where you can see the boundaries of world or European nations change over time.

I'm not sure if you are looking for animated maps. If static maps for different dates are sufficient, then Euratlas is a good source. Marco polo 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The field of Historical GIS is just getting started, it seems. Perhaps that page has links to something of interest. Pfly 06:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

At the early end of your stated period, you'll be interested in the Holy Roman Empire. There are some pretty good maps at our article. --Dweller 14:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find this website very interesting :) : [16]. Maps of France, Russia, Germany, United States, European Union,.. you name it!Evilbu 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool sites. Thanks, guys. Trekphiler 06:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Russian czar exploding?

I remember hearing about a Russian czar (or something of that sort) that thought so hard his brain exploded. I doubt that the story is true, but does anyone have any more information?

It's absurdly non-true. However, Tsar Alexander II was blown up (ie. exploded) by an assassin's bomb, if that's any help. JackofOz 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Telekinesis? Oops. Somebody call Steven King. Trekphiler 06:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, I know the feeling. Adambrowne666 09:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrases headbanging and Beyond Thunderdome... (Keeping up the good old Wikipedia tradition of bad puns... =S) 惑乱 分からん 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Exploding head syndrome? (not what you think) — Kieff | Talk 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalin

Stalin had formal power to enact, approve or change laws? What were formal powers of Stalin?--Vess 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Joseph Stalin-article you can read that he was:

1. General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
2. Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars

In these article you can read that:

1. The first was an administrative office, which gave Stalin power over the party's bureaucracy.
2. The second made him head of government of the Soviet Union, its premier.

Note that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union formally also had their own legislatures the Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Supreme Soviet, to which the power to enact, approve and change laws is traditionally given

Formally this meant that Stalin by himself did not have the power to change the law and that he needed the Polit bureau (the party executive) and Council of People's Commissars (cabinet) to consent to his proposals. How this worked it practice, is another story.

So: No Stalin by him self did not have formal power to enact, approve or change laws. His formal power was that he chaired two influential councils.

To learn more about Politics of the Soviet Union please click any of the links in this answer.

- C mon 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

wars and conquests

1. Could anyone supply a few obvious examples of wars in which the initial aggressor was victorious.. I notice that the aggressor often seems to be the loser.. Could this be an example of 'history being written by the victors'? (or is it just justice prevailling)

2. Also I notice that successful wars of aggression (with gain of land) are called 'conquests' eg Norman conquest.. Is there some sort of unwritten rule here that wars when won by the aggressor are called conquests, but when the initial aggressor loses they stay as wars? I'd appreciate your feedback, thanks.83.100.250.165 19:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting questions. For the second, I would have thought the reason conquests are called conquests is because someone was conquered! If nothing/nobody was conquered, you can't call them a conquest. 86.139.237.132 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first part of the question, the conquest of the Americas is a perfect example of justice not prevailing. And the aggressor definitely kept the upper hand in that conflict.65.94.5.169 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it's a good example of the second type - perhaps I should ask for a war which was won by the intitial aggresssor that has not come to be described as a 'conquest' - any suggestions/83.100.250.165 22:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Depending on interpretation, World War II. The initial declarations of war by the major powers were Britain and France against Germany. People will generally agree that Germany was clearly the primary aggressor in Europe, but the Allied Powers could have watched Poland get carved up without intervention should they have chosen.

Additionally, the Vietnam War seems a good example, though this is an even messier initial situation than WW2.

Sticking to US history, the Mexican–American War easily meets your criteria: the US initiated the war, was victorious, and the conflict is not known primarily as a "conquest" in either country despite the massive Mexican Cession.

Similarly, the Spanish-American War sees the US as the primary aggressor, victor, and recipient of territory. The article does not, however, address whether it is viewed as a "conquest" by Spain or her relevant possessions. — Lomn 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with american history - but the mexican-american war based on my quick reading of the page seems to have been initiated by a mexican attack albeit provoked - followed by an american declaration of war, it seems muddied by the declaration of independance of the texans and the subsequent disputed territory.. The Spanish american war seems much more clear cut - thanks for the info.83.100.250.165 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the Second Boer War between the British Empire and some poor south African country ("two independent Boer republics of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic" from the article). We were the aggressors and employed some miserable tactics to defeat some poor villagers or something. Don't know what spin could be put on that to make out like the Africans were in the wrong but I might not have fully read the article... --Seans Potato Business 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes thanks - that is an excellent example. It's a clear case of an empire (in this case the british) flexing its muscles and getting away with it...

But who is "we" (we were the aggressors)? JackofOz 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who answered.83.100.250.165 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Determining who the "agressor" is in a war is difficult. You could say North Vietnam was the agressor in the Vietnam War due to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, unless you believe the American ship was a legitimate target or that the whole thing was fabricated. Nonetheless, here are some medieval and modern wars in which you might be able to say the "agressor" won:

• Second Italo-Abyssinian War
• First Balkan War
• Russo-Japanese War
• Anglo-Zulu War
• Austro-Prussian War
• Second Opium War
• First Opium War
• Polish-Russian War of 1792
• War of the Austrian Succession (Prussian capture of Silesia)
• Norman conquest of England
• Muslim conquests

-- Mwalcoff 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons aggressors often do quite well is because defenders have the "home court advantage" as they say. It is much easier to keep up the morale and anger needed to pursue and kill an enemy, and put your own life on the line, if you are fighting against an enemy invader or if you have the moral certitude of being "wronged" in one way or another. Often though that certitude is manufactured to one degree or another -- i.e. the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Grossman's book On Killing has an interesting discussion of this, if I recall. --24.147.86.187 13:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, the Boer Wars were not against "some Africans" but against Europeans living there, know as the "Boers" ("farmers"). The language they spoke and speak is Afrikaans, which is similar to Dutch (and, at least for me, in written form, mutually intelligible with Dutch) but with a considerable English influence as well.Evilbu 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More recently, the US invasions of Grenada and Panama. In general, as Mwalcoff points out it's normally hard to identify one side in any war as the aggressor due to the complexity of the causes involved, especially since open and avowed aggression has been out of fashion for a while now; even in fairly clearcut cases like the Second World War and the Spanish-American War, the instigators of the war claimed (in Germany's case not very convincingly) a cassus belli other than outright aggression. Algebraist 16:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Demon?

What is meant when referring to people wrestling with personal demons? Could a drinking problem be a personal demon? Or something they regret or are afraid of or anything rooted in their mind that adversely affects the way they live their lives? --Seans Potato Business 22:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's about it. Anything like that. --Anonymous, February 8, 2007, 01:42 (UTC).

There is a biblical story of Jacob, later renamed Israel. He wrestled an angel, and hurt a rib. On his death and burial, his bones was the foundation of the land. The dismantling of Jacob's tomb a few years ago was provocative. Anyways here is a theology link. DDB 09:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The injury was to the sinew of his leg, not his rib and the renaming to "Israel" was his reward for the struggle (rather than it happening on a future occasion, as may be inferred) --Dweller 14:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "Demon" is rooted in the Greek word "Daimon." One's daimon is not necessarily an evil entity, as we tend to think of a demon, but rather a guilding aspect of the self, one that tends to impel us in certain directions. For example, the Greek philosopher Socrates claims he had a personal daimon which told him when a certain course of action was a poor one (although it never told him when an action was good). One's daimon is thus kind of like one's conscious -- one may wrestle with one's daimon when one has a difficult decision to make, etc. Ernst Cassirer, in his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, discusses the ancient notion of a personal daimon and how it relates to the self.

Fiances and Fiancees

What is the difference in the way you are supposed to pronounce fiance(the man) and fiancee(the woman)? The dictionary phoentic makes no distinction.

What is the address?

I don't think there is any difference, if the general rules of French pronunciation apply. What do you mean by "address"? SFinamore 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

February 8

In the US, are auto insurance determined in regard to vehicle type?

For example, would the rates for a sports car be higher than those for a sedan just because it's a sports car?--Arraba 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the make and model of the vehicle are taken into account when insurance premiums are determined. Carom 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "sports car" can be both an objective and subjective term. Some insurance companies go by mere "horse power" of a vehicle, where others have a listing more based on if its listed as a sports car according to "official" standards. Keep in my mind, that many true sports cars of the present and past have relatively low horse power engines. Mere horse power does not make a "sports car". Technically, a sports car must also be a 2 seater. To paraphrase, a true sports car is a 2 seater that is very nimble and quick on its feet, resulting in a very high "fun to drive" factor. Those that have never been in or driven a true sports car usually have no concept of how differently a true sports car drives and feels on the road. Zeno333 20:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, insurance companies set their rates based on the exact make and model of car, with additional modification for optional features such as air bags, antilock brakes, and possibly even the color of the paint. This reflects the repair or replacement cost of the car, the safety of the occupant, the odds of the car being in an accident, and many other factors. --Carnildo 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Washington history Homework (LOL) (A VERY serious question)

What year did the Pacific Ocean flood? Better yet what was the exact date?

Well my (maternal) grandpa was born in 1913 and he never mentioned anything about the Pacific Ocean flooding, so I would assume it was before that date. In fact, I think if it had even happened when his father was born, then my grandpa would have known and told me about it. Now, since his father was born in 1881, it is safe to assume that this event occurred before 1881. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami? --Wetman 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of an ocean flooding. Rivers can flood (ie. break their banks, flooding the surrounding area), but oceans have tides. True, very high tides can cause flooding in certain places on land (eg. the Bay of Fundy in Canada), but this isn't the same thing as saying the ocean itself floods. See also storm tide and storm surge, neither of which mention Washington. JackofOz 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Pacific Ocean never flooded. Rather, due to continental drift, it slowly emerged out of its predecessor, Panthalassa, which, to the best of my knowledge, was not located anywhere near Washington. Loomis 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I've never heard of any theories of entire oceans flooding, the Black Sea deluge theory posits that the Black Sea was indeed the result of a flood occurring c.5600 BC. Of course, if you ask me, I'd say the Pacific Ocean was created on or about September 23, 3760 BC. A good 5500 years before Washington attained statehood. :) Loomis 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would also make a difference between how you define a flood. If a flood is any time it goes above it's normal water level, it floods every high tide. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a question about the Pacific Ocean flooding Washington... and if so, which Washington do you mean? --Dweller 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think it would be very hard indeed for the Pacific ocean to flood Washington, D.C. Dismas|^(talk) 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

After Katrina, DC deserves to be under water. TREKPHILER 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC) (BTW, could Washington swim? {"In the event of a water landing, your teeth can be used as a flotation device."})

Sea Ports

What were some big sea ports in Europe in the Age of Exploration?

If you mean the Age of Discovery, early 1400s to early 1600s, and if by "big sea ports" you mean playing a large role in the explorations and discoveries, then a short list might include: Lisbon, Cádiz, La Rochelle, Saint-Malo, London, Bristol, Plymouth, and Amsterdam. Pfly 06:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This list looks good, but I would add Seville, which was the port from which Ferdinand Magellan sailed and the seat of the Spanish colonial enterprise, and Dieppe, which was at least as important during this period as the other French ports listed. Marco polo 15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, huh. Here I thought Seville was the main city but located off the coast, with Cadiz acting as its port. Thanks for setting me straight! Pfly 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Seville was a sea port until the river silted up. Corvus cornix 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See also the Cinque Ports, of note until the end of Henry VIII's reign. --Dweller 13:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

re-marriage

my first marriage was by church can i be married again by church?

It depends on (a) the church, (b) the priest, (c) whether or not your first marriage ended by divorce, annullment, or the death of your spouse, (d) whether your new spouse is related to your first spouse, (e) probably some other factors I can't think of. Can you be more specific about your actual circumstances? JackofOz 02:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jack's right, but forgot to bring up the issue of spending cash. A lot makes it easier. DDB 08:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The most important question. Where do you live? - 131.211.210.17 09:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the simplest way to find out is to consult the priest in the church concerned. --Robert Merkel 01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Space

So concerning interplanetary colonization and space expolration in general, menstration cyles in women, or so i am told, coincide with the moon, (much like ocean tides) hence every 28 days. How would this be affected in a) zero gravity b)when out of the pull of the moon and c) if one were on another planet which had serveral moons or (b) no moons.

I have read the article on Menstrual cycle#Etymology_and_the_lunar_month However if one looks at the cite, I do not belive this to be conclusive as A) it was done by men. and B) they class their book with the paranormal!?!? There is nothing abnormal about menstration, or it being correlated to the moon :

^ As cited by Adams, Cecil, "What's the link between the moon and menstruation?" (accessed 6 June 2006): Abell, George O.; Barry Singer (1983). Science and the Paranormal: Probing the Existence of the Supernatural.

Thanks guys, and Ladies.

The study was done by a woman, Louise Lacey, as clearly stated in the article. It also says the results have not been reproduced. I have read somewhere, or heard somewhere, that women who spend a lot of time together may potentially have their cycles synchronized. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the experiment done by Louise Lacey only supports the theory of moon-menstral correlation. But that is not my question at all. My question is: How would a menstral/estrogen cycle of a human/mammal be effected through A)zero gravity B)when out of reach of the gravitational pull of the moon and C)If one were in a multiple mooned eviroment. As I feel this would be rather important when considering fertility of man when we manage to colonize other worlds. Thanks

I don't think many studies have been done regarding the effect of gravity on menstruation. This doesn't really affect the fertility of men, since men do not menstruate. You might want to check out [17] ("because of the increased potential for decompression sickness with injury to the endothelium during menstrual periods, space walks should be avoided at the time of menstruation") and [18] ("Gravity is not essential for menstruation to occur"). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay,...(takes a deep breath as this is proving to be difficult to get an answer to) Thankyou for answering A: gravity does not affect menstruation. Of course men do not menstruate! I meant man-kind

As an aside, I was taught that the menstrual cycle of Old World monkeys was in synch with the moon, but the New World monkeys were not. I don't have a source for this.--Shantavira 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Such research is ongoing. The 28 day cycle is not physical, but socially linked, and involves pheremone signals. A woman's menstrual cycle approximates 28 days because her body finds that a convenience for timing in recycling a nutrient rich bed for a fetus. It isn't gravity linked. However, space, with it's cosmic radiation, might pose unique conditions that might effect such. Good luck with your research. DDB 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I can't vouch for its reliability, this [19] article would seem to be a direct answer to your question. It would appear that the similarity in duration between human menstruation and the lunar cycle is most likely coincidental. Besides, I wouldn't worry about human fertility in space in the future. By then we'll probably be either artificially conceived in Brave New World type hatcheries or we'll all be clones. Personally, I'm far more concerned about whether my computer will be able to handle Y3K. :) Loomis 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Y3K shouldn't be a problem. You're more likely to run into either the 2038 problem or the Y10K problem. --Carnildo 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Family Crest or Family Coat of Arms pictures

I am looking for "Family Crest" or "Family Coat of Arms" for two names and I cannot seem to locate where to find them. Is there any suggestions that you can give me. I need printable copies with name history if at all possible. The two names I am looking up are; Jones (Welsh ancestory) and Goltz (German ancestory). Any help will be appreciated...

Thank you. Richard

Jones and Goltz. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In spite of what one may be told, coats-of-arms are not granted to names but to individuals. They are carried only by the direct descendents of those individuals. There are numerous coats granted to numerous Joneses: one may be your ancestor. Or not. --Wetman 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this, but I want to know if there is a site that is available (without cost) to look for the Family Crest (or) Coat of Arms that has been issued to those individuals...(thanks for your help on this)

DJ Career

What is so attractive in this art of so called DJ business? Is it the money factor or why are things so hyped today with such a useless business?

What lures today's youth in this business? User:Garb wire 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean DJ as in radio disk jockey, or as in the turntablist? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DJ to be precise the guy who plays music in clubs and bars ,mixes tracks and old wine ......18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The things that spring to mind are: The potential to become famous, the opportunity to work doing something you get pleasure from doing, being part of the 'music' scene, enjoying having fans/people hear your work, variety - the music is changing constantly so there is something new every week/month. Evidently it is not a 'useless' business since it has enough money to employ people. Whether or not they are 'worth' the money is another matter, but why do people pay to listen to orchestras when a cd of them playing would suffice? The experience of listening to a DJ mix 'live'/work live is presumably an attraction to customers of that nature. ny156uk 00:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DJing doesn't seem particularly lucrative. I think most "professional" dj's barely make even or have to have another work at the side to get by. 惑乱 分からん 02:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• When I used to help out a DJ the money was poor but you got in free to every club and gig in town,got to meet bands,got free records,free beer when I worked(don't know about old wine) and the opposite sex were always interested in you.A good career if you loved music but wern't talented enough to play in a band.Other DJs such as John Peel were seminal in forming the musical tastes of a nation . Without a DJ there would be no music in clubs.Who would give up a night of leisure to spin the platters?hotclaws**== 09:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Two books by Bill Brewster and Frank Broughton give a good understanding of what a DJ does: How to DJ Right: The Art and Science of Playing Records (ISBN 0-8021-3995-7) and Last Night a DJ Saved My Life: The History of the Disc Jockey (ISBN 0-8021-3688-5). --Lph 19:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a useless career ! Just driven by passion for music and mixing old wine in A new bottle ! It can only be viewed as a viable monetary option for an individual!19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Leftist Documents/Books/websites on containment and Vietnam

Where can I find websites and sources analyzing the Vietnam War from a lefty point of view? I'm looking for documents, pamphlets, books and websites that analyze American intervention in Vietnam from a leftist point of view. Specifically I'm looking for sources that analyze the plicy of containment and American foreign policy. Are there any works that examine the racial and economic implications of containment policy?--Jacobin1949 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think any mainstream media site, like CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald and any of many would fit the bill. Many offer search functions on articles. Some still celebrate the triumph. DDB 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post are not leftist. American Power and the New Mandarins might be useful. Skarioffszky 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One journalist whose writings you might find useful is John Pilger. His work is very much from a leftist point of view and he has written copiously on Vietnam, although I can't give you any precise sources. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really looking for leftive perspectives on war crimes or the actual military conduct of the war. Im looking for more of a foreign policy perspective specifically focusing on containment as developed by Kennan, truman and Ike in the 19402-1950s. --Jacobin1949 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• There are books out there written by the Vietnamese.hotclaws**== 09:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Vietnamese are not really "leftist" either in the sense the questioner means. --24.147.86.187 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes are the are certainly dozens of books which have come out since the 1970s which look at containment from a left-liberal point of view, though for the life of me a specific title doesn't come to mind. --24.147.86.187 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if it helps, but you might look at Michael Maclear's 10000 Day War. Trekphiler 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

February 9

Dates

I was wondering when you add an event to a date article (e.g. September 23), can the event be more specific than a "new pope" on that date? Such as a new school that opened in a city a while back? Thank you in advance. -3322 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be more important than a school opening. Clarityfiend 03:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if there is something historically important about the school opening etc., it could be added. So, I'd say that it would have to be a very very very notable school opening. --Cody.Pope 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Firsts" are probably notable (within limits) - beyond that, it's tough to say. Carom 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your e.g. is my birthday. 194.80.32.8 19:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Legislative bill carryover

Do bills in the United States Congress carry over from one session to the next, or one Congress to the next? Meaning, if an bill gets introduced in a committee and then stalls, does it need to be re-introduced in the next Congress/session? I can't seem to find any pages on the process that describe all the ways a bill can die, only how a successful bill makes the rounds. I found that Washington State legislature carries things over between sessions, but that isn't what I'm looking for.

To be very specific, I'm trying to confirm whether or not the bill mentioned at http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=622&tstamp=200702 is dead or not, since it's from the previous Congress. —AySz88\^-^ 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

When a legislature adjourns sine die, all unpassed bills die. So any bill from the previous session of Congress must be reintroduced. However, bills need not be reintroduced if Congress was simply in adjournment. -- Mwalcoff 05:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Allakaket, Alaska - Oil Companies

Hi. I would like to have more information on the relationship between the oil companies (I do not remember company names) and the small Native American towns such as Allakaket. From what I heard, these companies resituted money to the towns or tribes for use of the land in the 50's and 60's.

War with no good songs?

Seems to me that not long ago, I encountered a quotation along the lines of, "It can't be [much of a] war if not even one good song came out of it...", a critical comment on the wars since WWII (if I recall correctly?). This would've been on the Web or possibly the International Herald Tribune or the English-language edition of Haaretz. Unfortunately, the spotty version I've written here is apparently too far from the actual quotation to yield results when I search it online. (I'm looking to cite it for a piece I'm writing about James Taylor's "Soldiers".). Any assistance would be appreciated by... yours truly, Deborahjay 20:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer's Folk Song Army skit had the line "Remember the war against Franco. That's the one which each of us belongs. Though he may have won all the battles. We had all the great songs." I hope that is helpful. DDB 01:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an actual quotable quote in there, but this idea is the basic theme of this book God Bless America: Tin Pan Alley Goes to War and this essay meltBanana 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This was mentioned in the episode "Dr. Pierce and Mr. Hyde" from M*A*S*H. Hawkeye goes for a while without sleep and in this insomniatic state wanders into Radar's office to send President Truman a telegram. He gets off on a tangent of how the Korean war doesn't have any good songs to come out of it. The telegram is eventually sent. It reads "Who's responsible?" The episode predates the book mentioned above by 30 years. Dismas|^(talk) 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The atomic bombing of Nagasaki, and the three parachutes

I have checked several books, but none provide enough detail, and the project I need this information for is due in four days. Since I am animating the event, I need precise detail. My understanding is that a minute before the bomb "Fat Man" was dropped, three parachutes were released, and among the things dropped down were messages to Professor Ryokichi Sagane. But I do not actually know what else was dropped down. I am guessing that it was a blast measurement device such as a seismometer, but don't know what kind. Please respond as quickly as possible.

What was dropped down in the parachutes?

If it was a seismometer, what were American seismometers like in the 40's?

Were the three parachutes connected to the same thing?

Was it just a box containing letters?

Konamiuss 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)konamiuss

The U,S. military wanted to drop a devastating bomb, and to monitor its effects. I have not seen evidence that they had philosophical leanings which would have led them to drop parachutes with letters. This sounds like a hoax. Edison 06:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the book "Downfall" and the wiki page on it mention 'Instruments':

"A few minutes later, at 11:00, the support B-29 flown by Captain Frederick C. Bock dropped instruments attached to three parachutes. These instruments also contained messages to Professor Ryokichi Sagane, a nuclear physicist at the University of Tokyo who studied with three of the scientists responsible for the atomic bomb at the University of California, Berkeley, urging him to tell the public about the danger involved with these weapons of mass destruction. The messages were found by military authorities but not turned over to Sagane"

Konamiuss 14:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)konamiuss

There is a citation on the Wiki article (fn 29). It is for real. As for the philosophical leanings, they had no idea at the time that two bombings would end the war and were in fact expecting to drop many more. --24.147.86.187 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

February 10

Mississippi settlement history

The two articles for Biloxi (Mississippi) and Ocean Springs (Mississippi) both claim to be the first French settlement in the region (founded by Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville in 1699) and to be the first capitol of French Louisiana. Which city really was first--Biloxi or Ocean Springs?

Both of these also make the general article about Mississippi look misleading: the state article mentions no European activity before 1817.

All the best-- --Rick Gagne, Clinton, Mississippi

The Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville page says that the fort, called "Maurepas or Old Biloxi" was built near Ocean Springs, Mississippi. The Ocean Springs page says the fort was maintained into the early 1700s. It sounds like the settlement was originally built near present-day Ocean Springs and moved to present-day Biloxi, Mississippi at some point, while Ocean Springs did not become a town in its own right until the middle 1800s, apparently. The French settlement was never called Ocean Springs in any case. Personally I would say the first settlement was Biloxi, even if its location changed by a mile or two. The Mississippi page looks to contain colonial information to me. It even mentions Ocean Springs as the site of the 1699 settlement. Pfly 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Death and coercion: THE themes of American fiction

I was reading an anthology of science fiction stories, choosing them at random, and it occurred to me that each and every one of them had the theme of death and coercion. Then I thought about other American classic novels - they've also got the theme of death and coercion - even Huckleberry Finn. American movies - lots of death and coercion! (Hmmm, same thing for US foriegn policy). The only novels I can think of without these themes are for example the British novel Pride and Prejudice, although on the other hand the British classic Wuthering Heights also has the themes death and coercion.

Can anyone disprove this idea by suggesting American classic novels that do not have the themes of death and coercion?

Analysis is like statistics, one can find what they look for, and miss what they don't look for. To reduce novels to merely being about death and coercion is equivalent to saying the Christian Bible is about morals or that The Prince is about power by any means. However, without attempting your survey, there is demonstrably, truth to it.

It has been said that there are few stories, all are retellings of others, with changes of scene, not theme. Rites of passage define lives, and so are worthy with which to construct stories. In modern times, it is popular to reduce the rites of passage in terms of importance. Death is unavoidable, but childhood little celebrated. Marriage little respected. Family disendorsed. In such a climate, what does it matter that a mother betrays a child? In a belief without god, death becomes a mighty abyss for which delay is the only response and the failure to delay, the only tragedy. A substantial decoding of this thesis is available as Ursula Leguin's Wizard of Earthsea series.

Love is not merely about sex. Romance, not merely lust. Childhood is not random. Maturity is not an end. Growth and sacrifice are intertwined. Go back to your stories, and if you don't focus on those leftist apologies which diminish timeless values, you will find more ;) DDB 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And now back to the original question, which was whether we can think of classic American novels that do not have themes of death and coercion.

Coercion is a fairly broad term which could describe many types of behavior. Many novels contain scenes in which someone compels someone else to do something, but this does not mean that coercion is a theme. Likewise death - someone may die in the novel without death being an important theme. As examples of American novels in which death and coercion aren't major themes, I give you the following examples, all from the Modern Library Best 100 Novels or Time Magazine 100 Best Novels: On the Road, Catcher in the Rye, The Corrections, Revolutionary Road, The Sportswriter. --Grace 06:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent picks Grace. I've not read them. I think you are correct in suggesting that The Catcher in the Rye is neither about death or coercion, although one might view the motivation of the death of the brother, Allie, or the failure (and dumping) from school might fill both aspects. DDB 07:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As the others have said, a book in which someone dies or is coerced does not mean that death and coercion are themes. I think DDB's response was beautiful! And an idea such as this cannot technically be "disproven". We might be able to suggest examples that will sway your opinion, but proof is another thing altogether—it requires objective evidence, whereas deciding a book is "about death" or "about cats" is highly subjective. I will add to Grace's list by adding The Great Gatsby (F. Scott Fitzgerald) which deals more with wealth and the American Dream (though coercion and death certainly have their part). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Love And Death IN The AMerican Novel" by Leslie Fiedler is pretty interesting on this topichotclaws**== 09:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Interoperability

I have to write an essay on interoperability. I know the specific technical definition relates to ICT, but do you think it can also apply to other standards? Such as electrical plugs, railway lines, shipping containers, or even economic aspects like monetary union and the like? I'd be interested to know how various people have seen it used. Thanks---

Keep in mind it has other meanings. In a military context, it means the ability of units, armies, even nations, to successfully collaborate. Trekphiler 03:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Arabs in Latin America

I heard this Arabian dude that he said lots of Arabs lived in Latin America. Is this true? and which Arab country do they mostly come from? Lebanon?

I have no specific knowledge, however, Nazis collaborators were Syrian and after world war 2, some Nazis stayed in Syria, some fled to South America. I imagine there was some natural, legitimate transport avenues from the Middle East to South America. DDB 07:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians (Latin America#Demographics, Immigration to Brazil). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason the Palestinian Christians of Bethlehem and the surrounding area were particularly fond of emigrating to South America. This began in the 1870s and continued right through the first half of the 20th century. -- Necrothesp 19:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I live in Brazil and I think Arab immigration to here is akin to that to the United States, meaning there are "lots" of Arabs here more or less the same way there are lots of Arabs in the US. Most of Arab immigrants to Brazil are definitely Lebanese. There are a lot of Turks as well, I guess. I found the article Arab Brazilian, which contains among other things the interesting fact that Paula Abdul is the daughter of an Arab Brazilian. A.Z. 20:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if I might've misunderstood you, but Turks clearly are not Arabs. The language is completely unrelated. 惑乱 分からん 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Arab diaspora.

You haven´t misunderstood me. I really didn´t know whether Turks were Arabs or not! Thank you! A.Z. 07:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Jews clearly aren't Arabs either. Paula Abdul is Jewish on both sides. Her father is a Brazilian Jew of Syrian Jewish descent. The Arab Brazilian article is rather misleading. It mentions that some who clearly are not Arabs are still considered "Arab Brazilians". Perhaps this is the source of you confusion. Loomis 04:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Jews could be Arabs if they speak the Arabic language, primarily. See Arab#Religions and Mizrahi Jews. (Of course, the same thing goes for Turks.) 惑乱 分からん 11:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivial stuff

2 things I'm hoping somebody know. First, the first Purple Heart awarded to a woman went to Lt. Annie Fox. Was she a WAC or a WAAF? Second, what show was #1 in ratings & a Golden Globe winner, but never an Emmy winner? Thanks! Trekphiler 03:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this site she was chief nurse at Hickam, which means she would have been in the Women's Army Corps (WAC) rather than the Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, fast service! Thanks. Trekphiler 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

what to do about an illegal marriage?

What should be done about someone who goes to a foreign country and marries behind the back of his current wife? He doesn't suppot the children he has with the current wife, but does send money to his illegal wife in the foreign country. 68.13.61.53 06:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the spousal and parental support and responsibility laws in the country where the father and his legal wife live, as well as (possibly) the marriage and extradition (that's not the exact word I mean but I don't know the word I want) laws in the country where he married for the second time. The people involved should get legal help from experts in those laws. Wikipedia cannot give legal advice, but if you say where they are we can possibly help you look for more information. Anchoress 21:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sinclair Lewis

I'm writing to report abuse and refer you to the wikipedia article on Sinclair Lewis. Please confirm receipt and advise.

It seems to have been fixed. If you see vandalism, you can also repair it yourself. Clarityfiend 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ly

where did the word LY COME FROM IN THE BIBLE OR WHERE?

"Ly" isn't a word. BenC7 12:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

... but ly might help you...-Shantavira 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you'd happen to refer to lye, the word is of Germanic/Proto-Indo-European origin, from a root word meaning "wash". 惑乱 分からん 16:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Parents name on birth certificate

In the USA, in Massachusetts, the mother can put anyone's name on the birth certificate as the father. Is this true in other places such as in other states and in the Bahamas? 71.100.10.48 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? A birth certificate is a legal document. If someone deliberately falsifies that information, in most places they would guilty of an offence.--Shantavira 10:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had two kids; both were born in Massachusetts hospitals, and in both cases, I was the one who handled all the birth certificate form-filling. The resident nurse took my own license as proof of my identity, but then went on to take me at my word for all information given; as such, I could have put any name I wanted down for anything.
Oh, did I mention? I'm the FATHER. The mother was sleeping off a c-section at the time.
This isn't proof of anything, of course, but I fail to see how such a law as the OP describes would be enforcable, or even consistent, with the birth-certificate experiences I've had. Jfarber 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Every state, province, and country has different laws. Since the Bahamas is a foreign country, its laws may be completely different than that in a US state. --Charlene 11:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Irish Migrations after 1606

The Irish who left Ireland after 1606 fled to various parts of Europe. A good number went across Northern Europe and settled in Poland and Lithuania. I should like to know about these migrations and where either the Irish or Scotch-Irish settled in these countries. Apparently they were welcomed as soldiers and tradsepeople. Can you help me, please? Rshainc 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Richard S. Cohen

Your premise is wrong. Most of the Irish who left Ireland after 1606 emigrated to the Americas. alteripse 15:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that's the case. Many became mercenary soldiers in Europe. See Flight of the Wild Geese etc. AnonMoos 21:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No "Scotch-Irish" emigrating in 1606 (that's the start of the immigration), so probably Scots. 1606 is too early for an Irish diaspora. Scottish people should cover this, but doesn't yet. There's a very quick summary of Scottish emigration to the Baltic in Jenny Wormald (ed), Scotland (Oxford University Press, 2005). It mentions Paul Dukes, The Caledonian Phalanx: Scots in Russia (Edinburgh, 1987) among the sources. There's nothing specifically on Poland-Lithuania, although that was a destination for migrants from, well, back when it was still Poland. Webwise, the BBC has some stuff. Try here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the Flight of the Earls? I believe that the very first immigrants left around this time, aboard a vessel called Eagle's Wing, hence the musical of that name.martianlostinspace

February 11

Identify this WWII fighter

File:Demi-unidentified-aircraft.jpg

Unfortunately, the resolution of these photos (other views) is dreadful, but hopefully someone can help me identify this airplane. It's parked at my local airport, and I'm curious about it. It looks like a Zero to me, except the wings have an inverted gull-wing shape. I've found some references to a carrier prototype Ka-14 with the inverted gull-wing shape, but I find it hard to believe such a thing would be sitting around a small airport in Southern Oregon, is it something else altogether? Why Humanities? Seems like a historical question as much as anything else. Demi ^T/_C 07:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a poser, isn't it? From the big red star on the side, you'd think it was a Soviet plane, or possibly Chinese, but I can't find any indication that China had fighters. I've looked at every Russian fighter I could find a picture of, and the thing that's throwing everything off is that square, blocky tail and the elongated cockpit. The Zeros I've found all have rounded tops to the tail and more of a slant, and the gullwing dosn't seem right... not to mention the length of the plane seems odd as well. I'm thoroughly stumped, at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks similar to the Sukhoi Su-2 or the Sukhoi Su-3. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it, The moment I saw this one it looked familiar. It is not a Soviet Fighter but a modified PZL TS-8 Bies a polish trainer aircraft used from 1957 to 1970s. It can be easily identified by it's wheels unsuitable for grass airfields but characteristic for jet aircraft. The two-man cabin, the undercarriage, the shape of the wings and of the tail or are the same as in the PZL Bies (Devil), the air intake can be easily modiffied to look more impressing. A trainer aircraft should be easy to handle and have cheap operating costs so it makes a great war bird. And a soviet red star is more impessing than the markings of the Polish or Indonesian Air Force. In the late 1970's and early 1980's if you had USDs (taking into account the USD/PLZ currency exchange rate at that time) you could probably buy a ex-military Ts-8 for the price of scrap metal, so no wonder someone tried to turn it into a much more prestigious "WWII Soviet Fighter". Mieciu K 15:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction it is not a PZL TS-8 Bies although it looks very similar but judging from the chinese inscriptions on the fuel filler cap it is a licensed copy of the Yakovlev Yak-18A a Nanchang CJ-6 Mieciu K 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great, guys, thanks everyone! Demi ^T/_C 05:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn! You guys are good!Edison 06:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

burberry logo

When did Burberry change from Burberrys, and from when has the logo been stitched into its products?Ardans 08:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

SAT Scores Required To Get Into A Top US College

Hey there. I am a high school student studying in Pakistan, and would like to get into one of the top 10 US colleges. My preferred choices include the likes of Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, Caltech, Ann Arbour etc. After browsing through their respective sites, I found that the only way I could get admission is by taking the SAT. My question is, what score should I aim for out of 2400? Is 2000 good enough, or should I be aiming higher? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

hasanclkHasanclk 11:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This site should give you a general idea of the scores that people who get into these schools are getting. Keep in mind that SAT scores are only one of many things they look at -- GPA, essays, activities, etc. are also important. A perfect score is no guarantee of admission (and a relatively low score is no guarantee of rejection). Dave6 ^talk 11:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The traditional test had a verbal which went to 800 and a math which went to 800 for a 1600 max. Have they added a third test? The elite U.S. colleges have for years taken pride in rejecting students who got perfect math and verbal scores, and were high school valedictorians. But different students may be judged by different standards. Edison 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The SAT has been heavily revised in recent years, including the addition of a third section. It's not the same test we took in our youths. --Diderot 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So what can I actually do to better my chances of getting into a college? 203.135.47.220 13:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could give you some easy answer. The most effective way to improve your SAT score is to go back in time and make sure you were born into a rich anglophone family in an industrialized country, preferably a family involved in a trade that demands an advanced education and that is prepared to send you to a private college prep school. The test is known to heavily favor people from that background. Failing that, there are cram schools in the US that produce moderate score improvements. There are SAT study books that aren't too bad, but their effectiveness is debatable. Mastery of a very high level of English is essential, even for the nominally nonverbal sections.

Of course, many foreign students cheat. There are several ways to go about this, but the College Board has been cracking down a lot lately.

Admissions at elite American universities is fickle and often random, but not random enough to be equitable. Outside the SATs, at some schools participation in community service, school government and other extra-curricular activities is a major boon to admissions. At others, it's seen as the kind of crap people do just to get into a good college. Excellent grades and recommendations will make some difference, but you can be sure that most other applicants will also have excellent grades and recommendations. Alumni recommendations used to help quite a lot, but there's been a crackdown lately. Being a top athlete will open doors, even at schools that claim that it doesn't. It helps enormously to be physically attractive and have good elocution skills if you make it to the interview stage. Knowledge of a musical instrument is more helpful than it sounds. Fluency in major world languages is a huge boon, as most young Americans, even those in top schools, have no foreign language abilities whatsoever.

This all still may not help you. Many top schools in the US impose quotas - either explicit or implicit - on the admission of foriegn students to undergraduate programs. Graduate programs are usually less restrictive, but as a foreign student applying to a top US university as an undergrad, you may well be held to a higher standard than American students.

I'd like try to talk you out of applying to an American elite university for an undergrad education, as they are often quite rotten places to be when compared to the relatively relaxed environments at second tier schools. If you have the talent to take advantage of an Ivy League education, you have enough talent to take better advantage of it in the form of a Master's degree. Good university grades, good GREs and good recommendations from professors are far more likely to lead to admission to an elite Master's after a solid second tier education than the same high school qualifications.

But when I was in your shoes, I didn't want to hear that either. --Diderot 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Second, third, ....nth tier schools are also often just as rotten as the previous poster says the top tier schools are. Less selective private schools are delighted to charge the same tuition while offering fewer chances to get top jobs on graduation or to gain admittance to the most selective graduate and professional schools, to get recommendations from top professors,and to lack the career-long networking of grads from the top schools. Of course there are many less selective schools which offer a fine education, and more interaction with their less famous professors. Cognitive dissonance may explain the feeling that the college we can get into is better than the one which rejected us, just as the grapes we can't reach are probably sour anyway. Edison 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not come to Canada? The tuition is cheaper and the G13 Universities are comparable to the colleges you mentioned. Best of all, you are less likely to be accused of being a terrorist! Whammy, blammy, wowee-zowee! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And in many provinces, they're not allowed to judge you on your extra-curricular activities. It's written right into the Education Act of some provinces. Test results, grades in your final two years, and your entry essay are all that are allowed to count. (This is mainly because in some provinces a large minority of students come from small to tiny communities that simply don't have any extracurricular activities. Basing university enrollment on such activities is considered discriminatory against people who live outside major communities.) --Charlene 11:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

People are deleting posts here!

I´m really sorry to say that, but look at this link and you will see another user deleting posts. I find it repulsive. Could someone please revert it? (even though it wont revert the sick mind which does these things, erasing posts which they don´t like) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=next&oldid=107148410 A.Z. 13:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The post is back. That´s really weird. If you click on the link and then click Older Edit, you´ll see the Arab Immigrants post was gone... A.Z. 13:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What should I do if I think there´s some fundamentalist Jew on Wikipedia erasing things about Arab people and about the relation between Jews and money? A.Z. 14:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes and Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#First_step:_Talk_to_the_other_parties_involved

That deletion is currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#question_about_jews

You should try there first, if that fails you should ask about complaining - one place to ask about how to make a complaint is Wikipedia:Help desk87.102.9.15 14:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., your post is unclear. Could you perhaps clarify it? Loomis 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

english literature

i would like a detailed analasys of chaucer;s general prologue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.175.83 (talk • contribs)

Have you read General Prologue and the links therefrom? That should give you a good start.--Shantavira 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Legally Kicking People

From the eggshell skull article:

In 1891, the Wisconsin Supreme Court came to a similar result in Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis., 1891) (reversed and remanded for a new trial on other grounds). In that case, an eleven year-old boy kicked a 14 year-old boy in the shin while at school. It turned out that the 14 year-old was recovering from a previous injury. The kick resulted in the boy entirely losing the use of his leg. No one could have predicted the level of injury before the kicking. Nevertheless, the court found that since the kicking was unlawful, as it occurred during school and not on the playground, the 11 year-old boy was liable for the injury.

Does this mean to say that had the assault occured on the playground, it would have been quite okay? --Seans Potato Business 18:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the Court is simply implying that a certain amount of playground horseplay is by its very essence not unlawful. Kids are going to get a little rough on the playground, and subjecting them to liability for it doesn't seem to serve a viable societal goal. Something more serious, such as punching another kid in the face, would probably be found unlawful, whether it was on the playground or not. GreatManTheory 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What if you're wearing a mask? ;D — Kieff | Talk 19:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on how cool it was. (Glad to see someone remembers this) - AMP'd 23:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What's this mask thing in reference to? --Seans Potato Business 05:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• There's been some oddball a while back who repeatedly asked if it was okay to commit various crimes if the perpetrator wore a mask. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• In effect, an old reference desk in-joke. 惑乱 分からん 15:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't kicking, but physical aggression. One might accidentally touch someone, even with a foot. Accidents are generally not prosecuted. MacGyver doesn't know it, but my dad knew what my knickname would become when he named me DDBall :D The joke is funnier (for me) because there were many oddballs of the past who believed that what occurred in the dark was not seen by god. One strange expression of the belief resulted in successive newly installed popes sitting in a chair where they were groped so as to ascertain that they were male. The chair had a hole in the middle (it exists!) and a curtain skirting. DDB 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What if he had kicked a seagull? Or contrariwise?Edison 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

February 12

Treason Trials

I am having trouble finding out how treason trials are judged, are they headed up by a three judge panel or do they have a jury? I've already reveiwed evreything I could find on Hanson but he pled out. Any help would be deeply appriciated. PRO.

From Treason#United States: On October 11, 2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he spoke supportively of al-Qaeda. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Treason trial in what country and under what set of laws? A military law treason trial will differ from a civilian one. Rmhermen 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Corinthian column in wood

Does anyone know of a model which shows a SIMPLIFIED model of a Corinthian capitel in wood? I am trying to make a model where the capitel is about 5cm (2") high, and really need help on this matter. Thanks in advance! 213.161.190.228 08:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you just need a picture, a quick Google search turns up this likely candidate [20]. If you need carving patterns, I'm sure you could dig one up with a trip to a good library that has a subscription to one of the many woodcarving magazines. They'd probably be intended to be carved in a larger scale than 2" but it would be somewhere to start. And as a last resort, you might try hiring a cabinetmaker with a CNC machine to make them for you, but that's going to be expensive. Lowerarchy 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perception of money...?

Is there a religion that believes that money is like blood, i.e., that an absolute minimal is necessary to support life but an excess must be shared with others and made available to anyone who may suffer a loss of any amount sufficient to sustain their existence? -- Barringa 02:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a religion, but socialism? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not referring to State beliefs which operate upon the basis of the physical and practical rather than on the basis of morals and the spiritual. -- Barringa 02:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are simply masking this question, which I find despicable. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If that were true then your comment would merely validate a wrong conclusion. Both questions are legitimate and distinct and have nothing to do with your wrongful interpretation or connotation. What is despicable, if anything is your inability to be truthful and honest rather than deceptive and rude. -- Barringa 03:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

...not to mention your Stalking. -- Barringa 17:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitations to debate are best published at one of the Internet's numerous bulletin boards. --Wetman 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not the case on my part. I'm merely seeking an answer to the above question and may have found one outside the Wikipedia. Namely the Hutterites appear to enjoy this perspective although not a distinct and separate religion unto itself but rather a socialized form of Protestant Christian Anabaptist. What I am seeking though is knowledge of a separate and distinct religion which is founded on such principles. -- Barringa 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Despicable indeed, Twas. However this time it's phrased as a "legitimate" question, and, ostensibly at least, doesn't seem to violate any "Wikipedia is Not a Soapbox" rule. I'm truly anxious to see how it'll be dealt with this time. Loomis 04:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The questions are unrelated except in the broad context and only by exclusion (along with many other religions I might add) when considered as an answer at all. However, the topic is very much legitimate and only intellectual cowards would say or hint that it is not. Sorry Loomis. -- Barringa 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite the bait. However, I must point out that religion is not what you think it is if you exclude socialism. Religion is what its adherents claim it to be. In some places, such as the US, but also most of the Westernised world, the right to religion, as distinct from state, is constitutional. This expresses itself in many claiming dispensation for what might not be religious, on religious grounds. Some activities (that have been disputed) include money collecting to terrorist activity.

If you want to relate money to religion, you want a modern religion. Sheep and horse trading, underlying the word pecuniary, are not, strictly speaking, cash. So if we agree to exclude barter and trade, we must ignore religions predating Greco Roman times. This would exclude traditional Judaism and early Christianity.

Later expressions of religion that include money would be Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Modern Judaism, Jehova's Witness, Mormonism and any of many offshoots. Eastern religions don't tend to Westernised cash politics, although recent expressions have become Westernised, eg Moonies.

So how does one dissociate the issue of religion existing to siphon state funding? Such a question depends on the asker’s agenda.

Perhaps the asker wants to criticise the Catholic church for Hypocrisy. Of course, the Catholic church spends every cent it gets on community works, so the point might shrivel. Similarly, many Protestant churchs eschew temporal in favor of spiritual, although some are known money grabbers. There are fantacists who blame jews for everything, even quoting Shakespeare in their heroic effort to reconcile fantasy and reality.

The truth is, acquisition of funds is not religious, but a state corporate activity. One does not serve both Manna and Heaven.DDB 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of any religions fitting the criteria you speak of, but I'm absolutely confused by your premise; that is that to have any sort of excess of money is equatable with "worshipping money" or the "love or lust of money" and detracts in any way from one's relationship with God. Over the years I've lived a rather frugal lifestyle, enabling myself to build up a nice little nest-egg, if I may say so myself, not out of any sort of "lust or love of money" but simply as a matter of financial responsibility. To "save up for a rainy day", or perhaps, dare I say, to better enjoy some of the material comforts life has to offer at some future date. But do I "worship" my mutual funds? How on Earth does it in any way affect my relationship and love for the one true God (i.e., "the guy upstairs")? Loomis 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Socialism is a religion, although it's possibly a faith. (The same thing could probably be claimed about capitalism, however.) 惑乱 分からん 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Judaism, the religion explicitly does not say this. In fact, a traditional reading of Jewish texts is at violent odds with much of what you write. There is no such thing as an excess of money that must be shared. Jews are commanded to donate a minimum of 10% of their income to charity. Most halachic sources stipulate an upper limit too, on the grounds that one cannot impoverish oneself to the extent that one will become an additional burden on others' donations. (I need to check my sources, but think Maimonides fixes this at 50%). So if you're poor, you still have to give. And if you're rich, you can't give away all of your excess. So, if there is an answer of "yes" to your question, it doesn't apply to Judaism. --Dweller 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found the ref online at ([21]). I'm tired and not an expert translator, but my rendering of this excerpt from Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor, 7:4(5 according to some numbering systems) would be as follows: (In response to how much should you give?) "...up to a fifth of your possessions is an outstanding mitzvah. One tenth is average." Using the normal halachic techniques of logic, the implication must be taken that either <10% or >20% is unacceptable. Maimonides concludes the paragraph "even a poor person, whose income is from charity is obligated to give charity to another". Later in the chapter (9/10) Maimonides stipulates that people who refuse to give charity are forced by the courts. For more information about the Jewish view of charity, which differs somewhat from a standard understanding of philanthropic giving, see Tzedakah. --Dweller 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In christian religions giving alms(which see) is considered part of the whole 'thing' - as it is in many other religions. I think this is pretty similar to what you are describing - however I think giving alms does not extend necessarily to giving away all the excess money that a person has - it all of course depends on what you think is surplus to your needs.83.100.255.117 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit of clarification here... What I am asking is whether there is a religion which forbids lust or love of money through restriction on its possession beyond that necessary for survival or existence. In the case of the Hutterites they are allowed essential possessions including many personal possessions including furniture and even cell phones in some cases. The idea is to eliminate money (or possessions) as an item of worship thus clarifying one’s relationship with God as opposed to sponsoring its confusion. -- Barringa 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're being very specific about the rationales for it, that may exclude any and all answers, but in terms of religions that teach abhorrance of material possesion, I've read of cults who've had similar philosophies, but have no sources. Anyone? Also, I believe that the Perfecti of the Cathars, in common with many other strands of Gnosticism were heavily ascetic. Of course, you'd also want to look at mainstream orders of monks. --Dweller 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ascetic does in fact appear to be the basis of the religion I am seeking. -- Barringa 18:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what the questioner is getting at, but as a personal anecdote, my father's family immigrated to Canada dirt poor, as is typical for so many immigrants to the "new world". Basically yet another situation of a family arriving in a new country with only the clothes on their backs and some $7 in their pockets. Fortunately, the Jewish community has a magnificent organization known as Chabad, an organization essentially funded through donations by more fortunate Jews. With their help, their was never any worry about food being on the table, the rent for their tiny apartment being paid, and my father getting a decent education, eventually leading to a university degree. In short, we owe Chabad, and their patrons, the more well off in the Jewish Community, for the comfort we received when we had nothing, and for the modest yet comfortable life we're now able to enjoy in the new adopted country we now call home. Knowing what it's like to be poor, today our family regularly donates to Chabad and similar organizations (there are actually many more; too numerous to list) in order to help them continue with their noble work. The OP recently stated here [22]that "current day Jews draw a line between those who have money and those who do not, i.e., between the rich and the poor". Given my family's experience, I couldn't imagine a more ignorant statement. Loomis 17:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, perhaps I should have waited a week or so before asking this question and going by the timing of your response you apparently did not read the above clarification. I know both rich and poor Jews and non-Jews and I can say that in most cases I find the influence of Judaism by comparison to be of charitable benefit to other Jews. But again this is not what I am asking. Hope the above clarifies that. -- Barringa 17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I see you've nicely clarified your question. Should I take it then that your previous remarks, quoted below, no longer have any relevance to this "new", "clarified" question?

"[T]he true God of the Jews is money - but delete it so as to hide this fact from everyone". - Barringa

"Wikipedia is controlled by Jews who believe that God is money". - Barringa

Loomis 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My dad went to NY in the early sixties and asked cab drivers questions. He noticed many Jewish cabbies who proudly displayed pictures of their children, often studying to be doctors and lawyers. Other minority peoples he saw bemoaned their being similarly poor. When my dad pointed out that they could drive cabs, and their children could go to school, the response he often got was "It's a free country, they can study if they want. Why should I work a demeaning job for them?" The point being that cultural issues exceed religious values in pride. There is such a thing as wealth creation. The idea that wealthy people became so by making others poor is counter to modern experience. In modern times, wealthy people attract affluence, and those who restrict wealth tend to condemn many to poverty. Excuse my lack of referencing here, this is a point of view. DDB 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Some forms of Buddhism and Taoism seem to advocate living simply and giving whatever you can, be it money or time, to those in need. Perhaps this is mainly in the monastic traditions -- not only Buddhist monasticism but also Christian monasticism, both of which often involve vows of poverty and giving. Jainism might fit the bill too. Pfly 09:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody have gender demographics of Wikipedia?

I know getting any kind of demographics about Wikipedia is hard, but can anybody find data on the gender demographics of Wikipedia, either editors or users?

--FunnyMan 07:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you could get some estimates but calculating

1. The number of registered users

2. People who have chosen to include a userbox indicating gender

No conclusive proof, though, since the evidence is insufficient in so many variables.

惑乱 分からん 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is wildly unscientific, but if you count how many people link to the most popular male and female userboxes here: [23] (the "MiraLuka" variants), you'll get 4363 men and 629 women (87% vs. 13%). --TotoBaggins 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Scary statistics. Young computer-oriented guys, old unemployed or retired guys, and the gals who like to hang out with them. Edison 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on the perception, see also sexual fetishism. @_@ 惑乱 分からん 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

invictus

what does this word literally mean? It's actually a title of a poem.

Read the article Invictus: "The title is Latin for "unconquered" ". Flamarande 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Please sign your statements!

Question about Hungarian/Magyar presence

Hello, I have a few really simple questions about Hungarian/Magyar presence in Europe :

1. Is it true that Belgrade used to be predominantly Magyarspeaking at one time? (or at least having a majority speaking a related language)

2. Is it true that during the last centuries, Serbs have been moving northwards, away from Kosovo and to the north of current Serbia, where many Hungarians lived. If so, why don't I ever hear anything about Hungarians claims on that land, just like Serbia claims Kosovo as theirs?

3. Hungary and Romania were on the same side during the Second World War. Isn't this a bit weird, since it seems very likely to me that Hungary was still quite pissed about the Hungarian minority left behind in western Romania (and still there btw).

Please enlighten me and thanks, Evilbu 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding No. 3, Hungary allied itself to the Nazis in the Sudetenland crisis to get a chunk of Czechoslovakia. Romania didn't join the Axis powers until a couple of years later, when the Soviet Union wanted Bessarabia (Moldova). The Germans sent military assistance; in exchange, Romania had to give Transylvania to Hungary. Of course, the Soviet Union defeated Germany on the Eastern Front and annexed Bessarabia, merging it with Transnistria to create the Moldovian Soviet Republic. The Soviets also made Hungary give Transylvania back to Romania. -- Mwalcoff 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first two questions -- It's possible there were a lot of Hungarians in Belgrade in the Middle Ages, when the Hungarian kingdom fortified the city against the Ottomans. But unlike the Vojvodina, Belgrade hasn't been under Hungarian rule since the Ottomans took it in the 16th century. The city remained in Ottoman hands until Serbian independence in 1878. By that time, I can't imagine there were too many Hungarians in the city -- not with Hungary just across the river for more than 100 years. The Historical Atlas of East Central Europe's page on ethnolinguistic distrubution in 1900 doesn't list any figure for Magyars in Serbia.

Finally, you are correct to some extent about a northern migration of Serbs. Some Serbs and Croats settled in southern Hungary after the expulsion of the Ottomans in the 17th century. After World War I, that part of Hungary was given to Yugoslavia. Eventually, it became the the autonomous province of Vojvodina within Serbia within Yugoslavia. A substantial minority of Hungarians still live there, and the degree of autonomy the area should have remains an issue. Extreme right-wingers in Hungary sometimes try to score political points by saying Hungary should try to regain the Vojvodina, Transylvania and presumably all or part of Slovakia, each of which has a Hungarian population. But when you fight on the wrong side of two world wars, you don't get to choose the extent of your territory. -- Mwalcoff 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, during recent wars imigrants were also moving into Vojvodina and Serbia, from Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbian republic (or whatever is its name in English). Dont know about numbers but Im pretty sure there were more Serbian/Bosnian speaking imigrants that came than Hungarian speaking imigrants (if there are any). Shinhan 14:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

February 13

Matrixism

Is Matrixism a real religion or just a parody? 206.188.56.108 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of religion. If you define religions by physical presences (eg. churches), then no it is not a real religion. On the other hand Wikipedia defines religion as the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life. Nonetheless, administrators on Wikipedia do not consider Matrixism a real religion and futher more do not believe it warrants an article. As you can see by the link, the page was deleted several times and is now protected to prevent re-creation. More or less, it's a real religion if you want to believe so. However, it is at best a very small and underground religion with only 963 hits on Google. --The Dark Side 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you did a Google Canada search. There are 9110 hits on Google.com. So this religion might be considerably larger than you indicated. 206.188.56.66 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A parody religion is defined by Wikipedia as either a parody of a religion, sect or cult, or a relatively unserious religion that many people may take as being too esoteric to be classified as a "real" religion. It's up to you to decide whether Matrixism is a real or parody religion. --The Dark Side 01:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism believes that all life is an illusion (maya)- somewhat of a Matrix-esque concept. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Matrix has a lot of Christian symbols and beliefs in its subtext. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Crusades Viewed so Negatively?

Before 9/11, it was acceptable to use the term "Crusade" to refer to any noble mission, such as "the Crusade to find a cure for cancer" or "the Crusade against hunger and poverty". However post-9/11, "Crusade" has become a dirty word, due to its supposed pro-Christian and anti-Islamic connotations.

But these are the historical facts: Having possession of the Holy Land, in 391, Roman Emperor Theodosius I established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Therefore, as of 391 AD, the Holy Land was Christian land. However, 245 years later, in the 636 AD Battle of Yarmouk, the Muslims invaded, and took the Holy Land from the Christians.

What followed were the Crusades, which were essentially the many attempts by Christians to retake the Holy Land they had lost to the Muslims in 636 AD. Of course all these battles, from the Battle of Yarmouk to all the Crusades, were equally bloody and cruel.

My basic question is this: Why the double standard? How was the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 636 any less offensive than the attempts of the Crusaders to take back what they had lost? Why is a Muslim conquest of Christian land so much more acceptable and reasonable than those "awful Crusades" which were essentially attempts by Christians to recover the land stolen from them in 636? Loomis 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, I think your question answers itself. The word "crusade" has long been used in a positive manner, and it's only because of that that people have pointed out the original Crusades weren't all that super to everybody. An equivalent could be the word jihad, which some people say they use in the same apolitical, nonviolent way as Christians who talk about "crusades" against hunger. But use the word "jihad" to a Christian, and he'll be more likely to think of violent struggles -- like the seventh-century conquest of Palestine. -- Mwalcoff 03:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. I am Christian. How can any Christian condone the bloodshed? My New Testament Gospel readings don't depict Jesus of Nazareth leading such an attempted conquest. Some Christians aren't Christian. I am not Muslim so I can't comment on what they did. I doubt if they followed in the best tradition of the Koran. Both sides were despicable.72.92.17.51 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice

I disagree with the statement that the word 'crusade' has always been used positively. Personally, I've never heard the term 'crusade to find a cure for cancer' or anything like it, and I've heard the word used in many negative contexts, like Senator McCarthy's actions being called a crusade, Captain Ahab, etc. Overall, the ways I've seen the word used have generally implied a misguided, invasive, hurtful campaign based on a narrow-minded, self-righteous viewpoint. I think reducing it to a pre/post 9/11 context is flawed. Anchoress 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the connotations would depend on the particular circles you socialize in... 惑乱 分からん 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't think I can remember the last time anyone used the word in conversation; my interpretation comes from print and news media. Anchoress 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have recently seen a thread on the Reference Desk where Islamicists denied that Islam was spread with the sword (by coercion). By this notion, the crusades (wherein Christianity was re-introduced militaristically) would have been more intrusive than the earlier Islamicization of the Holy Lands. Of course the Old Testament conquest of Canaan by Joshua and company provided a model of coercive conversion or slaughter. Edison 06:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the word (as opposed to the historical events) can be either positive or negative in Western culture, with the former predominating. Just from random Googling, I get Dwight David Eisenhower's book, Crusade in Europe and Campus Crusade for Christ as positive examples. Clarityfiend 07:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You state that Roman Emperor Theodosius I had possession of the Holy Land in 391, and so the Crusades were just an attempt to regain these lands. However, these lands were not simply given to Rome as a friendly gesture, they were taken by force. In fact, that region has been through the hands of many, many empires (very interesting link). Ah, the things people do for some dirt. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Twas, you should know that I'd be the absolute last person to deny the fact that Rome acquired the Holy Land in any less coercive a way than did the Muslims in 636, followed by the Christian Crusades. Of course Rome took land that wasn't rightfully their's. All I'm asking about is the seeming double standard in attitudes between the Muslim invasion in 636 and the Crusades. One of the things that really gets me is how when one attempts to list the various dark periods of mankind, I so often here the following associations being drawn, as in the following sentence: "From the Crusades, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Holocaust, mankind has repeatedly shown its capacity for cruelty and inhumanity". Now wait a sec! Those three periods of history are in no way comparable! Perhaps the Inquisition and the Holocaust are comparable on these terms, but the Crusades should certainly not be included, at least not if the 7th century Muslim invasions are excluded. Loomis 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends on the opinions of the author. There are even people, as you know, who would consider all of those periods as good… But I think most historians would not agree with the comparison, since they all arose out of different situations. The Inquisition and the Holocaust are fairly similar—seeking out members of a particular group in ones own country—whereas the Crusades were a war of conquest. I suppose the Crusades and the Holocaust are similar in that sense, since the Nazis engaged in a war of conquest to kill the Jews of other nations. Anyway, depending on their background, different people have different opinions about these periods in history. Are you saying the majority of books you have read on the subjects have compared them to each other? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never read of a positive aspect to Crusade. Even a moral crusader is seen as someone who goes too far. My siblings were always going on crusades, and parents rolled their eyes. I understand the word is related to the fight for the cross (?). If so, it is a Christian, not Islamic symbol. I think the reason for the negative connotation relates to the flowering of corporate social conscience experienced in England circa 1800. England had acquired a sizable empire in 1749, the year Nelson was born, and affluence exerted itself in counter culture. Adam Smith published a treatise on moral sentiment in 1759. Hume was writing on Human understanding in 1740's. During these years, literacy rates sky rocketed in England and social reformers achieved political strength.

The crusades had been successful for Christians. Bad military policy saw the french speaking outremer kingdom collapse in Jerusalem. It was a time when Europe was overpopulated and had muscle. By the time Zionists began pushing for a homeland in the late 1800's, social opinion began to oppose European mid East involvement, as illustrated by T. E. Lawrence.

Western style politics, with the embrace of the 'great argument' dialectic has one 'side' opposing the other. The term Crusade is an easy one to color any government that shows initiative.

More recently, but predating 2001, terrorists making claim to Islamist ideals have used the term to politically color argument. They never used it in a positive sence. DDB 07:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Many excellent responses here, with brilliant and enlightening links. Ref Desk at its best. Just a few historical links - to add that the concept is believed to originate from Saint Augustine's concept of Just War and that the First Crusade was proclaimed by Pope Urban II at the Council of Piacenza in 1095. Subsequent Crusades were declared against the pagans in modern day Germany, a sect that may or may not be regarded as Christian (the Albigensian Crusade) and, (hugely) ironically, the Fourth Crusade ended up in an attack on Christians living in Zara and Constantinople. --Dweller 10:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Crusader&Rags.jpg

Crusader Rabbit and his friend, Rags the Tiger, who went on 23 crusades in the 1950s, and were viewed positively by most.

Edison 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Crusade" used to be used more positively than it is now, and not that long ago - think of Batman, the "Caped Crusader" - but it's true that the real Crusades are not looked back on with pride by most of the Christian-heritage countries of the world. They were a series of imperialist wars driven by religious ideology and fought with often horrific cruelty and zeal, and we like to think of ourselves as better than that now. Those who see the current situation between the west and Islam as a "clash of civilisations" tend to appeal to the Enlightenment to demonstrate our values are better than theirs. Nobody really wants reminded that there was a time when Christians were promised instant paradise if they died killing Muslims. --Nicknack009 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Crusades also pitted Christian against Christian, and the battles tended to be indiscriminate. "Kill them all, and let God sort them out" appears to have been the order of the day. Many Crusaders went on crusades not "to take the cross", but to liberate as much property/steal as much loot as possible. The Crusades also functioned to siphon off the excitable/violent members of Western society (at least the male half) and often pitted these loose cannons against regular armies and civilian populations. --Charlene 11:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Crusade" actually originally was synonymous for "pilgrimage". "Taking the cross" meant "to go on pilgrimage". Originally, military involvement was incidental, not an integral part of the crusade (but something that was common). One could be a "crusader" without having lifted a sword. Over time, however, the military aspects of "crusades" were emphasized, and the term came to have the different meaning it has now. The Jade Knight 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

do humans have free will

do humans have free will — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.201.217 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 February 2007

Yes. If I wanted to I could have avoided answering this question. --Taraborn 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? How do we know it was not your destiny to answer that question? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure since your "theory" isn't falsifiable, therefore useless. --Taraborn 12:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You can start your essay by defining free will. Even if you decide there is no omniscient deity, in any civilised society, can you really do as you wish? Are you not restrained by formal and informal laws and conventions? Your prejudices? Your nature or nurture? Your physical limits? If I decided, with free will, to grow a second liver, how likely would I be to succeed? --Dweller 10:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, my favorite unanswerable question. No philosopher, saint, scientist, artist, or anyone else has ever been able to answer this question satisfactorally. There's no way wikipedia will do any better. I think after all these thousands of years of people trying to find the answer it is pretty clear that there is no logical answer. Perhaps the question is a semantic paradox. The words "free" and "will" undermine one another.

The Tao addresses it through paradox. The Tao Te Ching is full of statements like: The World is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering. The Tao symbol can be taken as the interpenetration of both determinism and free will (or any other pair of opposites). Many koans in Zen force the issue by demanding a definitive answer to questions like this, but reject "there is free will" as unjustified faith, and reject "there is no free will" as nihilism, and reject "I don't know" as defeatism.

The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart addressed the question by inverting the phrase "Thy will be done" into "Will, be thine". The Dark Night of the Soul of John of the Cross says as much.

Then there is Laurie Anderson saying, I don't know about your brain, but mine is really bossy. Pfly 19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think my wife has free will. Is she really human? DDB 19:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, she is a goddess. ;) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a meaningless question. Why dont you ask if heroin addict has free will? 202.168.50.40 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I rolled dice and they said "yes"hotclaws**== 09:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

help! tisha

please help me i searched in the archives the question i wrote here.but the problem is i dont know what question it is but it i remembered that it is as the same day as the question "do humans have free will?"203.76.201.217 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)date it was last year

• You can also read the question above this one. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Probably the same question, although her browser shows a cached copy. 惑乱 分からん 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

February 14

Why -12- roses?

Apropos of the date, I come to wonder why it is traditional - on St. Valentine's Day, in particular - to make the gift of twelve roses, rather than any other number thereof. Clues remain elusive, residing neither in the article for the day, nor the number. Worthy of love, indeed, would be assistance in this most enigmatic of mysteries! 87.242.136.76 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheaper by the Dozen? --Wetman 01:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dozen is a good number to sell things in. It is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. That is the main reason it (as well as 144) has been a popular quantity for sales for so many centuries. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My guess is twelve months of the year, showing a comittment to the whole year. DDB 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A year of love that dies withers in a week. No wonder the divorce rate in the U.S. is so high. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can get away with eleven. I once bought someone eleven because it was all they had left at the flower stall. She didn't count them and it did the trick!--Shantavira 09:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

'Tis classic to say "Eleven American Beauties- the twelfth is you!" Edison 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of people

Does the Wikipedia list the religon of famous or wealthy people? -- Barringa 01:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

While I haven't noticed such, I understand the frustration of not knowing if you agree with someone or not by what they say, because you don't know their religion. Actually, to be really honest, I don't know what that is like.DDB 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of people by belief. They may or may not be wealthy, but they all have some claim to notability or they shouldn't be in Wikipedia.--Shantavira 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You may find Category:Forbes World's Richest People and its "see also" categories interesting. Dar-Ape 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blue Lighting Fad or not?

Do you think that the ubiquitous blue ambient lighting in today's electronics and other industries is a fad, or something that is here to stay?--Technofreak90 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is cool because those who buy them feel that they have something special. When everyone has it, it won't be popular anymore. That is merely a fad. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fad, but I don't think it'll be unpopular, considering blue is a common favorite color. I like my computer case though. It mostly glows blue, with multicolor lighted fans (I got it in 2002 I think). I will admit that I have been getting blue ambient lighting on my other computer parts to match my computer case, including my mouse (which I still think is the coolest thing). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Definately a fad - due to the better availability of blue led's perhaps (though curiously the blue lights aren't always due to led's) - I can remember when just having a red dot on a piece of hi-fi (red led) was 'red hot' - as far as I'm concerned it still is - but it's definately just a fashion thing.83.100.158.13 08:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1st amendment

I was just watching Frontline on PBS about the leadup to what is now "The Scooter Libby Trial". Anyways, at one point the narrator mentions that 49 states carry some law(s) that in someway protect a journalists right to not reveal their sources or protection against a subpeona to testify. I am wondering what is the 50th states stance? do they have no laws? complete protection? what state is it!?!?

Thanks! 72.70.4.120 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)moe.ron

I will research it further. I wanted to see this Frontline. When they say that 49 states someway protect a journalist from revealing sources, the emphasis should be on some way, which is not very much in most cases. Courts protect journalist rights and the need for confidentiality. A criminal defendant's rights always win. Scooter Libby's trial is more bizarre with some journalists freely breaking confidentiality, Judith Miller obtaining a waiver half way through her imprisonment. I hope I can watch the show.72.92.17.51 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice

I don't know where the TV show got its information. The Poynter Institute says 17 states lack shield laws for journalists. -- Mwalcoff 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you visit the pbs home page and search for Scooter Libby and Frontline, a plethora of resources is listed. Instead of stating the one exception, the site lists all fifty for one to casually peruse. It would take me about one week to compare all the statues. Fine gradations of language and policy are involved that will be difficult to compare. I was taught that all respect is given to the importance of journalism in a free society but it is an inferior right when a criminal defendant needs information that could clear the defendant. I wish PBS put in a webcast of the program.75Janice 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice

Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow

How is it that Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow can be elected (however trustworthy the election results are) as the leader of a country and his birthdate is unknown?? Dismas|^(talk) 09:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Many people don't know exactly the date of their own birth. However it may be the case here that the birthdate is known - but wikipedia doesn't have that information yet.83.100.158.13 10:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be due to administrative errors in the Turkmen SSR at the time of his birth, or (more likely, it may be due to systemic bias, as we don't seem to have many Turkmenistani editors around. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Which would be strange, since there are apparently about 20 editors in Category:User tk. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how not knowing a person's birthdate would be a reason not to vote for a candidate... 惑乱 分からん 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean that it would sway a vote neccesarily but that I thought it strange that he would get to such a position and such a basic fact about the man is so unknown as to not be in the article. Dismas|^(talk) 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That said it would be helpful if a turkmen speaking user could see if there is any further data to be extracted from *tk:Gurbanguly Mälikgulyýewiç Berdimuhammedow83.100.158.13 13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain

I hope this question goes to right place. I have heard rumors about Great Britain that are hard for me to believe. Please tell me are these true or false or do they belong to the past.

1. Is it true that most windows have only one layer of glass, and that windows are sometimes so poorly insulated that moss or fungus may grow inside houses?
2. Is it true that houses have so poor heating systems or insulation that you have to take bottles of warm water with you at bed?
3. Is it true that with washbowl there are two water taps, one for cold water and one for hot water, and if you want middle warm water, you have to pour both hot and cold water to washbowl and mix them there?
4. Is it true that water from water pipes is not fit for drinking?
5. Is it true that it is a crime called "anti social" to be too sarcastic or peculiar? 193.65.112.51 11:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Regarding your last question, see Anti-Social Behaviour Order. It makes reference to the case of an 87-year-old man ordered not to shout, swear or make sarcastic remarks to neighbours or their visitors. See this BBC News article for more information. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Which country are you from? Anyway, my responses are:

• most houses are double-glazed these days
• largely untrue, though some people like a hot water bottle in bed on cold nights
• true
• untrue, it's always safe but in a few areas tastes awful
• untrue

--Auximines 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Hmm, let me try:

1. "most" is difficult to define. Many homes have single glazing, rather than double glazing. No, the latter part is untrue, unless you take "sometimes" to mean "very rarely, bordering on virtually never".
2. Some people do use hot water bottles. It's something particularly associated with elderly people. Mostly, it's because it's uneconomical (and not very environmentally friendly) to keep the heating on all night.
3. Some people have mixer taps. Some don't. Like in lots of countries I've visited.
4. There are two types of taps, generally. Some are specifically for drinking. Some, say in bathrooms, aren't. I've no idea how the cleanliness of the latter measures against the cleanliness of water elsewhere in the world where there is no differentiation.
5. Yes, sarcasm is a crime. Sorry, I was being sarcastic. It's a national sport. Oops, there I go again. No, it's not. Being peculiar might be a crime, depending on whether it's about having a funny walk (not a crime) or having a tendancy to kill people.

Hope that helps. Come over and see us some time. We're lovely people. When we're not being sarcastic. --Dweller 12:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I wonder what other countries have separate "faucets" for hot and cold water. Rmhermen 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When you find out, you can add the information to the new article on Mixer tap, if you like. --Dweller 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The degree of insulation which is desirable depend=s on the climate. Per Climate of the United Kingdom the Gulf Stream limits extreme cold, so the higher cost of double glazing is less justified than in, say the northern U.S. where (not even counting Alaska) it can get to −60 °F (−51 °C) (per Climate of Minnesota) and where it sometimes goes weeks without rising above 0 °F (-18 °C). Similarly, it does not get as hot in Great Britain as it does, say in the southern U.S. "temperatures rarely go much above 35 °C (95 °F); but it is not unusual to record temperatures of over 32°C during a particular summer. The record maximum is 38.5 °C (101 °F)" "The north west and north east have cooler summers (average 14 - 15 °C (58 °F)), the south west has rather warmer summers (average 16 °C (61 °F)) and the south and south east have the warmest summers (average 17 - 18 °C (63 - 64 °F))." Double glazing would not be much of an advantage when it is around 18 celsius outside. One thing I noticed in GB was that the homes seemed to have a masonry exterior, more expensive than the wood or vinyl siding common in the U.S.Edison 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I Live in Finland and most windows here have 3 or 4 glasses. I have never seen described 2-taps system here. Its always mixer tap and usuallly with one switch. In some older mixer taps there is 2 switches. Tuohirulla puhu 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An expert in home construction in the U.S once told me that triple glazing was not economically defensible here even if the materials were free. Lots of heat transfers through single glazing, far less through double glazing. Diminishing returns means the third layer has less benefit than the second, and the 4th is basically along for the ride (little if any benefit). Edison 05:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is Edison? (In other words, Edison, please state your jurisdiction.)martianlostinspace 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Where is Edison? (In other words, Edison, please state your jurisdiction.)martianlostinspace 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

to which clan gonge & bagal sirnames belong?

to which clan gonge & bagal sirnames belong? their kuldevat is tuljabhavani.

margaret pearson pendle witch

is there any information regarding margaret pearson a pendle witch other than the mention of her on your site.

many thanks j pearson

Did you visit the sites listed in the external links section of the Pendle witches article, especially: Potts, Thomas, The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster (London, 1613) at Gutenberg[24].—eric

hendrix

u no how hendrix is often cited as THE greatest guitarist in music history? well, u can still put he was one of the most but can u people please post something citing he was the best. u ask anyone on the street if he was the best and they would all probably say yes.Jk31213 06:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It obvious hendrix is the best see http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030828/ai_n12713574

"JIMI HENDRIX has been named by Rolling Stone magazine as the greatest guitarist in rock history."

.

83.100.158.13 19:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone has an obvious bias toward musicians from the 60s and 70s. On their 500 Greatest Albums of All Time edition, the list was composed of the following:

• 1950s or before - 29 albums (5.8%) → low percentage because rock was just in its infancy
• 1960s - 126 (25.2%)
• 1970s - 183 (36.6%)
• 1980s - 88 (17.6%)
• 1990s - 61 (12.2%)
• 2000s - 13 (2.6%) → low percentage because this list was published in November 2003

Ignoring the 50s and 2000s, the 60s and 70s have twice as many as the 80s and 90s. It is also evident that Rolling Stone has a bias toward American and British musicians, and mostly (almost necessarily) just rock musicans. My point? Andrés Segovia was pretty damn good. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of taste. I much prefer David Gilmour and Brian May. Loomis 06:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't everyone just settle with, "considered by many (site Rolling Stone here) the best rock guitarist of all time" ?

Because that is considered weasel words, and is frowned upon here - see WP:WEASEL. You could put "considered by a writer from Rolling Stone to be the best" instead. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. In this case it is absolutely fact that "Jimi Hendrix is widely considered the best rock guitarist of all time." No question. He may not be, in your opinion, but that's not what the statement says. If you asked 1000 people who the greatest rock guitarist of all time was, I'd say at least 30 percent, easy, would go with Hendrix. That's not a statement that needs verification.

i just think that people who think he is not the greatest should look closer at his LIVE playingsJk31213 06:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is about a number of misinformation I found in the encyclopedia

For the attention of

  The free encyclopedia
  Wikipedia organization 
  Wikipedia Italy

Dear Madame, Sir, My name is Luca Benatti and I am writing because I have great expectations from Wikipedia, from the “Internet era”, and I really hope Wikipedia will achieve his educational and reliability targets. For this reason I am to ask the application of the guideline concerning neutral point of view of the information, reliability and verifiability of the sources. In fact I have found relevant discrepancies demonstrating the poor reliability of the sources of the encyclopedia, and I am writing my expectation for a revision of the intellectually dishonest information you publish. I am sure that Wikipedia will have appropriate attention for accurate documentation, for the reliability of the sources of the information, and will take objective distances from any kind of misinformation and intellectual discrimination.

Best regards Luca benatti

A) The missing information

The missing information is concerning intellectual rights in Italy. In fact Italy does not allow patents for public interest technologies or products, and in Italy was never patented or developed any since Italy was established with Italian laws. The documentation of the source of this information is in the Italian Patent Form and Patent Laws. The Italian Patent form is available at any UPICA office of any Chamber of Commerce, or may be asked any Italian Consulate to provide one. On the Patent form you may read the restrictions concerning Public Interest Products, including medical instruments, information technologies and more.

C) Few Consequences

Science: For example mister Antonio Meucci (see Wikipedia) had to go to the US of America in order to try to Patent his invention and to try to make a business of it. But Meucci had to leave his native country because the Italian Patent laws were the first of his problems in developing his invention. And after Meucci, actually recognized the “inventor of the telephone”, many others had to leave the Italian country in order to try to have their intellectual job recognized and have the opportunity for research and commercial development. This “intellectual oppression in science and technologies” is still happening today in Italy, despite the Italian regime organize the propaganda concerning Italian Renaissance scientific traditions

Economy The Italian Economy is poor because the intellectual rights are not protected and “rich industries” cannot exist developing technologies to export. In Italy you may find almost everything counterfeit, and the “counterfeit and forgery” industry is the only flourishing rather than the industry in technologies and science. In fact all Public Interest Products and technologies have to be imported in Italy, with the Ministry Authorizations on top of the price.

Culture Italy is proud of cultural Renaissance heritage, but in Renaissance time Italy did not exist. On the other hand should understand the Renaissance culture was the culture of early modern era science, was the culture of the reformation of the churches. Should not surprise Italy is a Catholic Country and bans the development of science and intellectual rights.

Information and Education Why everybody believes in Italy people is free to patent Public Interest technologies, when is not true? In Italy was never patented any public interest technology since Italy exists, and Italian people have to emigrate because of the Catholic regime imposing intellectual restrictions? Since Italy exists Italy made tradition of scientific and Intellectual traditions “Italy had before existing”, it is written in the evidence of the Italian laws. And concerning the history (see wikipedia) have to say Italy was established as Savoy Kingdom, but in 50 years become Fascist regime. The end of 20 years of Fascism was also the end of the World War II, and that was the proclamation of the current Italian State named republic. In the history Italy changed three states in one century and bankrupted twice, and actually is in economic recession… Again and again.

Intellectual discrimination As far intellectual activities are not protected, cannot make a job and the “intellectual class” has been cancelled with accurate “misinformation” I would indicate as brainwash. It is not in Italy was never invented any technologies because all Italian are stupid, but because Italian cannot do that in Italy, and have to leave with 1000 more problems. In fact somebody went missing and vanished along the way to escape the Italian regime and intellectual oppression.

Ehmmm, if you find any errors in an article, you could fix it yourself, cited sources is preferred... 惑乱 分からん 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Meucci was a false claimant in telephone patent litigation in the 1890's. Although Italian-American organizations, the U.S. House of Representatives, and even the Soprano's TV show have claimed he invented the telephone, his claim is highly suspect, as is his understanding of the technology of telephony. He probably first built a sort of "string telephone" such as may be made with paper cups abd string. He also claimd to have a system with a high voltage battery in which the telephoners held a copper piece like a spoon connected to the battery in their mouth against their tongue and talked, and the electrical current through the other person's mouth was somehow supposed to make him hear. It has little relation to successful 19th century or present day telephones. If he had invented something of value, he could have patented it in the U.S. as he did numerous devices before and after. He had left Italy many years before he ever claimed to have invented a telephone, so he did not have to leave Italy to patent it. Edison 06:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Holocaust

Could i please mention that my question refers to the Extermination rather than the concentration camps? Thank you Ahadland 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I was just wondering why all of the extermination camps, i.e. Treblinka were all in Poland, when the Nazi regime could have placed them in other occupied territories, such as France, Austria or the Czech Republic. I'd have thought Poland would have been a bad choice because it wasn't in mainland Europe and would have been difficult for transport; but, more importantly, if Russia turned on Germany, the Holocaust would have become well known a lot more quickly than the Germans anticipated. So, I was wonderin, why Poland?

Two reasons: Close proximity to the major Jewish centers of Europe and a population that would object far less than the population of France or Bohemia. (Of course, there were many Polish rescuers, but the overall level of antisemitism was higher in Poland than in France or Bohemia.) -- Mwalcoff 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Poland also a rather weak nation at that time? Not a country that would be able to give the German army much resistance? 惑乱 分からん 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Poland had been dismembered by the Germans and Soviets at the time. The country was under German rule. -- Mwalcoff 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "if Russia turned on Germany" ?? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the pact that the Germans made with the Soviets regarding the invasion of Polan. If Russia decided to occupy all of Poland, and boot out the Germans, the Russians would have stumbled across German plans for the final solution. Ahadland 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Theresienstadt concentration camp? It was in the then Czechoslovakia. JackofOz 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course not all concentration camps were in Poland, just a great bulk of them. After all, Dachau was/is a suburb of Munich. Loomis 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Without actual knowledge, I presume the camps were set up, and guarded, by those who were powerless to influence proceedings. I understand that the smell of Dachau ovens was known to locals, but they hadn't considered it to be what it was. I understand few actually escaped the camps, and those who were sheltered had not been sent to a camp, so the rumors of the camps was really only realised after the war.

Those who poured the poison in the chambers must have known what they were doing. Some must have talked, but probably few really believed what they said. I have heard one interview with a guard whose job it was to make sure gas chamber victims had removed their clothes and valuables. One shy teenage girl had been unwilling to strip, but the guards made her. Clearly, few knew, or believed. It would have been easier to set up on territory where the guards did not speak the local language. Also, France would not have been useful, as it had an allied government, whereas Poland's one had been crushed. DDB 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

DDB, I must respectfully disagree with one of conclusions and one of your assertions. I disagree with your conclusion that clearly, few knew, or believed. Perhaps it is so, and perhaps not. I tend to believe that quite a few more new than you do, but neither of us have facts one way or the other, so I'll just leave it at that. You also assert that France had an allied government. This was certainly not the case. Of course France was an ally before it surrendered to Germany in June 1940, but this happened well before the implementation of the Final Solution. Afterwards, the French Government, though "officially" neutral, collaborated to a great extent with Germany. Of course, as I hope you'll understand, that's a whole separate issue that I'd prefer not getting too far into for the moment! :-) Otherwise, I consider Dweller's answer below to be quite accurate. Loomis 17:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a horrible efficiency to this. The demographics of pre-war European Jewry was hugely skewed to the east, with vast numbers in Poland and Ukraine etc. Placing the majority of camps to the east meant less transportation was required for most. Remember, as an administrator, Adolf Eichman made the process of the Holocaust very industrial and efficient. If you're running any kind of large-scale industrial system, you want to minimise transportation inefficiencies as a top priority. --Dweller 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be suffering from a lack of sourcing. Please do not insert your personal opinions as answers to contentious questions - instead, cite reliable sources, or link to wikipedia articles. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One source to consult on the importance of the populace's antisemitism in permitting genocide is Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust; the original questioner will find much to contemplate in that work, though it primarily considers German antisemitism rather than Polish. - Nunh-huh 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that quite a few historians dispute Goldhagen's conclusions. It is a book best read aside one which takes a contradictory point of view, i.e. Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men. Personally I find Browning's conclusions a bit more persuasive, both for their historical content as well as their psychological insight (Browning's is much more compatible, in my reading of it, with other studies of killing and atrocity, e.g. Grossman's On Killing). --24.147.86.187 03:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I hope that message wasn't aimed at me in any way. I think I made it clear that neither DDB nor myself have any hard evidence to back up our assumptions concerning who knew what and who didn't. All I did by responding with my POV is attempted to make it clear that his assumption was just as POV as mine, rather than a factual conclusion as seemed to be implied by the language he used. His assumption may very well be a lot more factually correct than mine. I just wanted to make it clear that it was an assumption, not a fact. As for the France thing, that part was sourced directly to the wiki article on the subject. Loomis 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

With reference to the main question - I feel I should point out that poland is in mainland europe - in fact fairly central to mainland europe - so in terms of positioning placing camps in poland makes sense. From poland '..is a country in central europe..' - if you are uncertain of the geography this image shows how central poland is. 87.102.10.217 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also compatable with a need to rid the east (see:lebensraum) of undesirables (see:untermensch) prior to germany colonisation eg from General Government:

"1941 Hitler made a decision to "turn this region into a purely German area within 15-20 years". He also explained that "Where 12 million Poles now live, is to be populated by 4 to 5 million Germans. The Generalgouvernement must become as German as Rhineland"

Also poland (see:General Government) was under more effective military rule than collaborating states like Vichy France or Hungary (see:Hungary#World_War_II) - western parts of poland had been incorporated into the third reich as well.87.102.10.217 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, I take your point and thank you for the endorsement. I would like to search for the references I have, but time is a luxury DDB 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

February 15

Uncle Sam wants you

Can anybody provide a faximile of the U.S. enlistment contract? I'm not out to sign up, but I'm wondering what its terms are, exactly. Trekphiler 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This site has a link to the contract. - Akamad 09:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanx so much. Trekphiler 06:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Akamad 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ulysses Grant - Family Connections

I have an old Daguerrotype photograph of a woman from the mid-19th Century which is a family heirloom. I have been told that it is a portrait of a neice of Ulysses Grant who was married to a member of my father's family. The surname "Morgan" has been suggested for this person. Can anyone suggest where I can locate a Grant family tree/photo gallery which I can check this against?

Jesse Root Grant and his wife Hannah Simpson Grant had six children. The first, Ulysses S. Grant, became president. Of his siblings, Samuel Simpson Grant and Clara Rachel Grant died unmarried. Virginia Payne Grant married Abel Corbin and had one child who died in infancy. This leaves two possibilities: Orvil Lynch Grant, and Mary Frances Grant. [1] Orvil Lynch Grant married Mary Medary and had four children, three sons, and one daughter, named Virginia Elizabeth Grant. [2] Mary Frances Grant married Michael John Cramer and had two children, one son, and one daughter, Clara Virginia Cramer. So the only two possibilies for a blood-related niece of the president would be Virginia Elizabeth Grant or Clara Virginia Cramer (who obviously could have different surnames after marriage). Virginia Elizabeth Grant married Walter Hunt Turner. Clara Virginia Cramer resided at Paris and married Alphonse Bernhard. Of course, the woman in the Daguerrotype could also be a niece by marriage, that is a daughter of a brother or sister of Julia Boggs Dent, if there were any. There was a Rachel Maria Grant (1829-1853) who married Alfred Gray Morgan. She died childless. (She was the daughter of Peter Grant and Permelia Bean; Peter Grant was son of Noah Grant and Anna (Buell) Richardson; Noah Grant was by his second wife the father of Jesse Root Grant, U.S. Grant's father.) - Nunh-huh 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, this is most helpful!!203.21.40.253 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New theory?

Is it possible that human sacrifices attributed to the priesthood in widespread and varying cultures was (is?) done for the purpose of eliminating the possibility of a serious challenge from any of the priesthood's moral (not mortal) enemies? 71.100.10.48 05:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I think they would simply achieve that by murder (assassination, perhaps?). Perhaps the reason virgins are often sacrificed is not because that is what the gods want, but to satisfy their own sexual desires beforehand. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one needs to specify a culture before attributing purpose, as cultural pursuits are not generic, although humans being what they are, there are surface similarities. The Cannibals of New Guinea ate their enemies. Khmer Rouge soldiers similarly ate their victims, aiming for particular organs to claim spiritual dominance. The Khmer Rouge soldiers acted as individuals, while the PNG activity was communal.

I don't know if the South American practice is known with any certainty, but the African/ West Indian practice is tied to voodoo spiritualism. The witch hunts were linked to ergot poisoning, although, clearly, some were not. In Fiction, Edding's Belgariad included the sacrifice of people, much to the disgust of those worshipped.

Nazi apologists claimed the sacrifices never took place, but if it is accepted that they did occur (as I believe), then clearly this was an example of non mortal enemies being 'sacrificed. DDB 08:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)'

Future of English Language. US vs UK

If spellings in the World English are based on American, rather than British English, is anything lost other than a little British heritage and links to the etymology of those words? If it's an inevitable change, I don't want to cling on like a person might to pounds and ounces. Of course I did read that World English might not completely conform to either standard. --Seans Potato Business 05:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

English is not like French as a language. There are regional additions and amendments. Sound and pronunciation are different within Australia, as they are within the US. The English spoken in Maine is similar to how Londoners may have spoken two hundred years ago. The largest nation of English speakers is China.

What influences English speaking is the regional language preceding it. People tend to a family tongue, and while they might learn English, their native tongue influences it. Hence New Zealanders have a very different sound to Australians. One interesting curio is the effect of learning English from different places. Indian English has some fascinating peculiarities, and Chinese, but compare them to Vietnamese and Phillipine English speakers who learned from US peoples ;)

My tip for the direction of English is to relate it to Indian or Chinese peoples. DDB 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as World English and there never will be. It is a bit of specious nonsense thought up by the British Council to cover up the linguistic provincialism of anglophones and obscure the way that English dominance in global affairs handicaps 95% of humanity. English has no serious standards and it is unlikely that it will have some anytime soon. There is no emerging global standard for English, nor is there any standard of English to which learners can be compared other than the way native speakers use it. "World English" will always be the English of native speakers, and non-natives will always have a disadvantage speaking it. Even Indians - people from a supposedly anglophone country - find themselves at a linguistic disadvantage in global anglophone circles.

China is not the nation with the largest number of English speakers. China is the nation with the largest number of people who've once taken an English class. You can't even begin to function in Chinese society in English, and most Chinese "English speakers" are hard pressed to form comprehensible sentences. The vast majority have never spoken English outside a classroom or ever met a native speaker. Many of them have English *teachers* who have never spoken English outside a classroom. And, the Chinese are every bit as provincial as Americans, may be more so. The wealthier they get, the less English they will study. When a billion people with western standards of living all speak Chinese, it will not be China's problem to communicate with the rest of the world, it will the be the rest of the world's problem to communicate with China.

Children of immigrants who come to anglophone countries and integrate show almost no influence of their parents' native tongues on their English. NZ and Australia speak English somewhat differently but this has nothing to do with "influences from native tongues". It's no different from how people in the UK or US have different regional accents. The English spoken in Maine is no more alike to that of early 19th century London than modern London English is. The two have evolved differently, both retaining some features the other has dropped.

There was nothing inevitable in the rise of English and there is no guarantee that it will continue. It happened for historically grounded reasons, and it may be overturned by the same forces of change. But there will never, ever, *ever* be a World English separate from the English of native speakers; nor will there ever be a World English that is genuinely accessible to more than a small fraction of humanity. World English is an excuse for anglophones to not study languages; it is a thin justification for holding the rest of the world to standards that they do not hold themselves to. It is rank hypocrisy and it does real damage. --Diderot 10:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite apart from the somewhat mad rant on English as the world's second language, the question seemed to me more about a move towards a standardised spelling of words than the language's spread across the world. If American-English becomes dominant in english text-books, novels and on the internet then over time it is plausible that a more standard spelling of words will come about. Dropping the 'u' in things like colour are probably the most likely to occur first, as to most readers the U doesn't serve a purpose (i'm sure someone who studies language can explain that part).

To tackle the 'ignorance' factor of being English-speaking and not learning another language, I fear this point is overly stated. A good 99.9% of my time is spent speaking with english (as a first language) speakers. The other .1% of the time is broken up between those with english-as-second-language, and those who speak their own native-tongue. Were I to move to somewhere where that .1% turned into, I don't know 5% or 10% then, yes, suddenly learning another language is viable, sensible and worthwhile. There is no reason why an international-standard language could not be developed using English as a basis, esperanto tried to be the world's second language and whilst not based on English (it seems to be built from a variety of european language bases) the idea was right. ny156uk 17:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to determine was, whether I should cling to English versions of words or just go with the flow and embrace the American versions? --Seans Potato Business 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't cling to words too strong, the english language is always changing - that's one of the reasons it's so vibrant. You should just go with the flow. ny156uk 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "go with the flow"? Most of the world outside America uses various versions of English which are closer to British English than American English. Use the dialect of English that's familiar to you and be proud of it. Don't try to change the way you speak because of some inevitably flawed perception of what is going to be the "standard" in the future - despite what some American sci-fi films and television programmes would have us believe, there isn't going to be one. -- Necrothesp 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice:

• Do whatever your publisher tells you to do.
• If you're not writing for a publisher, do whatever you want, or whatever the people around you expect.

The US just happens to have a preponderance of speakers compared to the UK (it's a much more populous country). Don't expect the Brits to adopt American English anytime soon, however. The Jade Knight 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, they learn a lot of English from movies and programs with Dutch subtitles. For example a colleague of mine new the word 'flashlight' but not 'torch'. I figure since there is more American media floating around, the world are more likely to be exposed to these forms than British ones. I mean they changed sulphur to sulfur so why not just get it over with an change the lot? No point in me being proud of something I never did. --Seans Potato Business 00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To me, a torch would be a flame on a wooden stick, not a battery-driven device. Maybe that's due to American impact, I don't know... 惑乱 分からん 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sentence Structure

Is there something wrong with the sentence: X-gal (5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-β-D-galactoside) turns colonies which produce β-galactosidase blue. - I dislike the separation between "turns" and "blue". "Turns colonies blue" I would be okay with, but something seems wrong when you add a few extra words. I can't be the first and only person to "notice" this and I would like to know how to describe this situation and how I feel about it. --Seans Potato Business 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is a matter of stylistic preference, not right or wrong. You already know how to describe it: closely related words are separated by a long intervening phrase. --Anonymous, February 16, 2007, 00:51 (UTC).

I think the example you cite is normal English; the complexity of the sentence is what I would expect in technical writing, which is not to say the example is a model of clarity. There is a term for "the separation of words naturally belonging together" (Smyth): hyperbaton. As a reader of Greek and Latin, I think of hyperbaton as involving much more violent and rhetorically effective departures from normal syntax than in your example, but the term is also used in a weak sense (meaning little more than "use of non-normal word order") that could embrace the placement of subordinate clauses as in your example. Wareh 14:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Colonies that produce β-galactosidase are turned blue by X-gal (5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-β-D-galactoside). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is fine in speech because you use intonation to indicate a phrase barrier after β-galactosidase. In print, however, intonation is unmarked, so the sentence is harder to read. You can passivize as Twas suggest, or choose a different sentence structure: "X-gal gives β-galactosidase producing colonies a blue color." --Diderot 09:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Many people find long compound adjectives ugly as well, and in addition, those who still believe in hyphens will demand one in there: "X-gal gives β-galactosidase-producing colonies a blue color." Another alternative rewrite is "X-gal turns colonies blue if they produce β-galactosidase." --Anonymous, Feb. 16, 00:51 (UTC) again.

Without wanting to be a pill, I just want to point out that there is a Language Reference Desk which is a bit more specific for this sort of question. --24.147.86.187 03:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking for further information about finnish volunteers in the soviet red army during the winter war/continuation war

I'm looking for more reading material about finnish people and finnish speaking karelian people who fought in the red army against the finnish army during World War II. I have seen references to "71st division" "106th Karelian National Rifle Division" and "1st Finnish People’s Rifle Corps" but do not know anything more about these units than their name. Several thousand finnish people fled to the soviet union after the finnish civil war, did they join the red army? Also, the puppet regime (Finnish_Democratic_Republic) lead by Otto_Ville_Kuusinen had an army named People's Army of Finland but they were not allowed to take part in the war?

All in all, I'm looking for sources, on this page there is an article in english written as the third post, but no source cited.

I'm not looking for information about people from ingria fighting with the red army. Vildmark 12:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What Generation am I?

Unable to find a wiki article clarifying the concept, I'll ask the question here: Three of my four grandparents were born in Europe, and immigrated to Canada at about the turn of the last century as toddlers. My maternal grandmother was born in Canada, of immigrant parents. Both my parents were born in Canada, as was I. Leaving aside my maternal grandmother for the moment, and assuming all four of my grandparents were immigrants, does that make me a second or a third generation Canadian? Thanks! Loomis 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Encarta [25] defines "first generation" as "having immigrant parents." By this, your parents were first generation and you are second generation. Edison 16:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Edison! The only problem is that as this [26] link shows, there seems to be a serious inconsistency among different dictionary definitions of the term "first-generation". Some dictionaries actually provide two inconsistent definitions, one being the child of an immigrant, and the other being the immigrant him/herself. Therefore, by some definitions, I'm second generation, and by others, I'm third generation. I suppose I've answered the question myself, i.e. that there is apparently no authoritative answer to the question. I was just hoping that someone could perhaps provide me with some sort of authoritative source I'm unaware of, (of course the nature of language being what it is, there are no real "authoritative" sources,) or at the very least to get an idea of which definition predominates. I know I shouldn't really be asking for "opinions" here, but I think that this may be one of those unique instances where it might be appropriate to request several other users to give me their understanding of which definition they would tend towards. But guys, please be civil! :--) Thanks again, Edison. Loomis 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There really can't be a single answer, because in some families only the parents have immigrated, and in others two generations (parents and children) have immigrated. The ambiguity has to be lived with, or resolved by specifying exactly what is meant (e.g.: second generation born in Canada). (I'm a little perplexed by the notion that there's been any incivility in answering this question....) - Nunh-huh 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no incivility, that part was a joke. My grandparents indeed did immigrate with their parents, and, I believe even with their gradparents (my great-great-grandparents). However they were all immigrants. I believe I left out an important factor in the first of the two definitions of "first-generation": I should have said "the Canadian born child of an immigrant". Otherwise, if first-generation applies to any child of an immigrant, It would be possible to say that I'm fourth generation, which I'm clearly not. I was working with the assumption that the older generations that immigrated along with their children were irrelevant to the term. I was working with the assumption that it's only the youngest generation of immigrants (my grandparents), who are the starting point. Am I wrong there? I'm having a little trouble understanding why you say that the ambiguity is necessary. For example, in the case of myself, with all the information I've provided, is there still a necessary ambiguity or has that been resolved? If so, what generation am I? Loomis 20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The ambiguity is between "xth Canadian-born generation" and "xth generation to live in Canada". When you specify which is meant, you resolve the ambiguity. If your great-great-grandparents immigrated to Canada, and the first generation born in Canada was your grandmother, you are in the 3rd Canadian-born generation in that family, and the 5th generation of that family to live in Canada. - Nunh-huh 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If your mother's family had lived in Canada for 5 generations but your father immigrated to Canada from, say, Poland only a year before he met her, how would you describe yourself? You might consider yourself a 6th-generation Canadian on your mother's side, but you couldn't claim that in respect of your father's line. Calling yourself a "6th generation Canadian", without qualification, would lead people to think both your parents were 5th generation Canadians. What about a child born in Canada to immigrant parents who become Canadian citizens only after their child is born. The child would have been born a Canadian citizen to Canadian-resident non-citizens. Would they all be called "1st-generation Canadians"? I don't know, to be frank. JackofOz 00:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that in Tasmania you'd be considered an outsider, as will your children and their children, but great grandchildren might be allowed to play with other Tasmanians at school. ;) DDB 06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric Hobsbawm, English 20th Century historian

Are there any enteies eelating to his books? Gregall

Yes, the Age of Extremes, although that appears to be the only one. Carom 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hieros gamos and incest

I have heard that in some cultures Hieros Gamos myth or ritual contains incest. Is it true and if it is true, which cultures? Tuohirulla puhu 18:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeus and Hera were brother and sister. Corvus cornix 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Hieros Gamos, involves not the person behind the mask, but the deity spirit. So, in the belief system, the two participants are not related. However, practically, any culture that practices such would be suspending incest taboo. Recent research into why incest is generally taboo everywhere, is covered in kinship detector DDB 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Most children

who has the record for having the most children

Male or female? There's a huge difference (both capability and verifiability) between the two. — Lomn 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As a start, Brigham Young had at least 57 children. Muhammed bin Laden, father of Osama bin Ladin, had 55. There are probably men with more. - Nunh-huh 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The 1998 Guiness Book if World Records says that t"he greatest officially recorded number of children produced by a mother is 69 by the first of the 2 wives of Feodor Vassilyev (b 1707-fl. 1782), a peasant from Shuya, 150 miles east of Moscow. In 27 confinements she gave birth to 16 pairs of twins, 7 sets of triplets and 4 sets of quadruplets. The children, were born in the period c. 1725-1765." - Nunh-huh 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

man or woman i would imagine that the person with the most kids would be a man

Ancient Egypt probably set the record. They never had tv. DDB 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rumour has it that Ghenghis Khan wins this award, though the article on him fails to note how many children he had. The Jade Knight 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is definitely a bloke, by a margin of over 1300%. I have heard it said that some evidence God is a bloke can be found in the fact that guys get of relatively easily in reproduction. Anyway, Guinness World Records also records the most prolific father, at somewhere in the region of 900 (why he got that idea, I haven't a clue). Apparently, this excludes polygamous countries - where number of descendents (spelling?) can become uncountable.martianlostinspace 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A second pair of eyes

Hey,

This is somewhat shameless abuse of the desk here, but could someone cast a second pair of eyes over List of countries named after people/temp and note whether I've made any stupid mistake or they can help with classification of some of the unsourced or abberant examples before I propose that this page replace the present page List of countries named after people.

Neil --Neo 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the present page says Saint Vincent and the Grenadines were named after St Vincent Pallotti, I very much doubt this is so. He was born after the islands were colonised, and he was canonised only in 1963. List of places named after people and List of eponyms (L-Z) both say that it was named after St Vincent of Saragossa, whose own article, while mentioning that he is the eponym of the Cape Verde island of São Vicente, makes no mention of him also being the eponym of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The official website of the country has no information about who the country is named after. The CIA World Factbook is similarly silent on the matter. However, this says "Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Day", January 22, is the feast day of Saint Vincent of Saragossa, so it seems more than likely he is the correct eponym. JackofOz 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put temporary pages in the main article space. Create a subpage for that: User:NeilTarrant/List of countries named after people. Thank you − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is foreign investmen so important for the development of a region?

Seems to me that the resources will go to the foreign power and the local people will only be exploited. However, it is regularly mentioned as something wanted by Russian leaders around the year 1900 for Russian industrial development. Why is that? Thanks. --Taraborn 20:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

look at international trade, foreign investment can bring money in that is not available in the country at the time. Both parties win because those investing see a return and the employment/investment that money brings boosts the economy of the local region. Most of the wealthiest nations in the world are exporters of things, ranging from actual products to things that make up the knowledge economy. I am sure someone can point you to more texts on the subject, but essentially your assumption about foreign-power receiving the money and local-people being exploited is wrong. This is not to say that all investment in foreign economies is a success, and that exploitation does not occur but being able to attract international investment is a positive sign for the economy of a nation. ny156uk 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

studies done on progressive economies show that communities benefit from some exploitation. Magic Johnson being paid more for his Nike endorsement in one year, than the Malaysian Nike factory's combined salary is a telling condemnation. Except, without the factory, people would not have had the income and could not have afforded to get a decent education for their children, or eat regularly. DDB 06:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha, fine I think I get it now. Thanks. --Taraborn 10:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How many people die of poverty?

How many people in the world die every year as a result of lack of food and clean water, including sicknesses caused by this? Multiple sources would be appreciated, even if they are high or low extremes. Thanks. Clq 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Since poverty itself is never the proximate cause, any "statistics" will be rhetorical, the use intended for them here, perhaps. --Wetman 03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that everyone dies. The answer is that all poor people die in poverty, and if you include the middle class, that includes some 99% of the world. Dieing from poverty is a different thing. People die from neglect or abuse, but not from poverty, directly. DDB 06:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

According to netaid.org, more than 8 million people around the world die each year because they are 'too poor to stay alive'. Very sad. BenC7 10:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this BBC article, "17,000 children die every day from hunger-related diseases". - Akamad 11:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "middle class" could be considered "poor", at least not in developed countries... 惑乱 分からん 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

February 16

Nigerian oil crisis

What was the main cause of the nigerian oil crisis happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.232.52 (talk) 02:16, February 16, 2007 (UTC)

The main cause is the guerilla attacks by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, which is comprised of Ijaw people. The Ijaw live in the Niger Delta, where most of the oil comes from, but they don't get much of the oil profits. So they've decided to fight to gain a larger share of the money. See also Conflict in the Niger Delta. Picaroon 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What were the main events of the oil crisis in timeline types of ways because im making a timeline for it to go on a poster board in my school project.75.64.232.52 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to find those yourself. Try the links I gave above. Picaroon 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A Nigerian doctor is in the office next to mine. I asked him about this a while back. If you want a complete picture, take into account the religious divide between the north and south, the education divide between the north and south, and the financial structure of the north and south. Also, you can go back to the pre-oil days when Nigeria was a large peanut producing country, mainly in the north, and the south had almost no production to bring in money. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I see that you were talking about the 2004 Nigerian Oil Crisis. I thought you were referring to the current oil-related fighting. Anyways, yes, Kainaw's completely right about this. Picaroon 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that I was only repeating what I heard (from a Christian doctor from southern Nigeria). I have no first-hand experience with anything happening in Nigeria. That is also why I avoided repeating specific comments by the doctor, which were all extremely anti-Northern Nigerian. I guess the conflict continues even when a Nigerian leaves Nigeria. --Kainaw ^(talk) 05:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The 1980's - Why? -

Alright, 80's rant: I was watching Growing Pains, and I can't believe the culture from that time period! It differs so much from now, especially, and it differs dramatically from the 1970's, a time of social liberalism and social progress. It's almost like the 80's is a 'lost' decade that doesn't belong between the liberal 70's and the resurgence of liberalism in the 90's. I really just don't understand how the frame of mind changed so dramatically, and how the people who would have been liberals, became social conservatives. I really need to know this from the point of view of someone who lived through this transition, because I don't think I can fully understand it without living in it. Thanks --Technofreak90 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was only a small child during the '80s, so I can't really give a first-hand view, but it is pretty much inevitible that periods of strong liberalism will be followed by periods of conservatism (and vice-versa) - the same thing happened between the liberal '40s, and the strongly traditionalist '50s. To give you a slightly different angle (a bit closer to home for me), in Australia almost the opposite situation occurred. In 1982, the conservative Fraser government (who had been in control for much of the '70s), was replaced with the progressive Hawke government. During the '90s, that government was then replaced by the highly conservative Howard government. So essentially, the public opinion in a democracy basically oscillates between progressivism and reaction.

Furthermore, note that the détente that had been enjoyed by the US and USSR during the '70s, had basically ended by the '80s, and many were concerned about the threat of nuclear conflict between the two superpowers - a fear that was encouraged by Ronald Reagan's talk of the "evil empire". This led to an increased sense of patriotism amongst Americans, who felt that hardline action was needed to prevent them from mutually assured destruction. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The 80's as a decade, means different things to different people or peoples. Not merely geographically, but within a family too. In music terms, there was a rebellion against the arty progressive rock of the mid seventies, and a rise in Punk. Stylistically, flares were out, and futuristic synthetic fibres became popular. Jimmy Carter's presidency had failed, and Reagan captured the liberal heart through big spending.

At the end of the cold war, Reagan's big spending policy, lifting US arms expenditure to 5% GDP, forcing the Soviet Union to exceed 100% of their GDP (and they were falling short) pushed the Soviets to collapse. Carter's administration had scared children through nuclear policy, so that when Reagan was voted in, scaremongering acts like Midnight Oil got lots of airplay.

The affluence of the eighties was prior to the late 80's correction. Junk Bonds rose and fell. For a while, it was as if spending could solve any problem. One stockbroker salaried himself annually $100 million. DDB 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I lived through it and still don't get it,but I'm an old hippy at heart even though I was in a punk band,hotclaws**== 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Previous to the 80's, credit cards were not extremely common. In the 70's, department store credit cards and gasoline credit cards were just becoming accepted by the majority of the population. In the 80's, it was expected that everyone had either a Mastercard or Visa. That opened a world of commericialism that hadn't been seen before. Everyone could appear to have a lot of money: wear fancy clothes, expensive jewelry, and drive a nice car. Of course, that time was short-lived. By the end of the 80's the yuppie nation was so deep in credit card debt that it simply couldn't continue. To further push this false sense of selfishness, the 80's was unique in that there wasn't any major military conflict for the United States to take part in. Vietnam was forgotten. Nobody considered the Cold War a real threat. Iraq didn't kick in until the the 90's. So, we invented wars on drugs, wars on obesity, wars on illiteracy... anything to make it seem like there was something to rebel against. As for television, it tends to reflect society as Hollywood believes Americans wants it to be. At the time, all seemed well and everyone seemed one step away from being rich. So, that's what television gave in return. --Kainaw ^(talk) 05:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

ritchie blackmore

for as big as he is, shouldnt there be a picture in this article? afterall, he did invent the greatest hard rock riff ever. also, can someone find a reference (not that hard) to any meanings to his tempure? i heard he's kind of an a**hole in the media.Jk31213 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is this image. It mentions in Ritchie Blackmore that:

At the culmination of the performance he destroyed one of his guitars and threw several amplifiers off the edge of the stage. He also struck one of the ABC cameras with a guitar, and in recorded footage can be seen arranging for his road crew to set off a pyrotechnic device in one of his amplifiers, creating a brief but large fireball.

And Ian Gillan, after quitting Deep Purple, said:

"There are certain personal issues that I have with Ritchie, which means that I will never speak to him again. Nothing I'm going to discuss publicly, but deeply personal stuff."

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama

Just two very simple questions.

(1) Does Obama eat pork?

(2) Does Obama drink beer? 211.28.131.148 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You could write and ask him about any and all of his dietary habits. If this is a veiled question (like my pun) about him being a Muslim, then according to our article, Barack Obama is a "baptized" Christian. But I'll assume good faith and guess you're just curious about celebrities' culinary preferences. In which case I've not been very helpful. --Dweller 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm entitled to a correct answer because if Obama becomes the next president of USA, he could change the world. 211.28.131.148 12:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And Obama's beer-drinking/pork-eating would affect his competency as president? Did you read the response? A person's dietary preference is not common knowledge, so there is no way to know unless you contact Obama's office yourself. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, beer drinking would affect his competency, though in the negative. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood that this is intended to be tongue in cheek, but I don't see how the act of drinking beer (not getting drunk, but drinking any, at all, of any quantity) would affect competence...negatively OR positively...unless we accept current scientific evidence that alcohol in moderation on a regular basis has a positive impact on heart-health, or Obama is a SERIOUS lightweight. Jfarber 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't alcohol affect health positively in some areas, and negatively in others? 惑乱 分からん 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Does George W Bush eat pork? His pork-eating is hardly relevant to his ability to "change the world". Why ask these specific "simple questions" about Obama, and not Hillary Clinton? If you want to know, Is Barack Obama a Muslim? ask that. And the answer is no. --Dweller 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Obama's Christian faith imposes no dietary restrictions on pork, but this meme about him being a Muslim is tenacious among some parts of the population, he should make sure all of the traditional New Hampshire "eating with the common people" campaign stop photo-ops he attends include pictures of him with a pork chop in his mouth. Plus bacon for breakfast. :) --TotoBaggins 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many African-Americans who don't eat pork, regardless of their religious faith. Corvus cornix 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard about that, but I haven't understood why. 惑乱 分からん 01:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Some possible reasons. ---Sluzzelin 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTCs)

I heard a theory that trichinosis might have been the reason pork became impure in Judaism to begin with. Animal welfare would be a reason for vegetarianism/veganism, not abstainment of pork, in particular. 惑乱 分からん 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting theory. Doesn't really explain why Jews are forbidden to eat cheesburgers. Or indeed any of the other myriad dietary laws. --Dweller 12:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is he anti-pork, he sponsored a bill in the Senate to that effect: [27]. --Mathew5000 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone who doesn't have the time to click the link, it's about Obama sponsoring a bill trying to establish a database to track "federal grants, contracts, loans, and "earmarks"". The latter is nicknamed apparently "pork". --Dweller 12:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Lord Brahma , the god of creation, does not have temple?

I have seen many incarnations of Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva being worshipped and also they have temples for them . But I have never observed temples or special worship or prayers for Lord Brahma , who is considered as God of Creation. I would like to know about the reason behind that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyasingaraju (talk • contribs)

Brahma#Temples. There are temples, but not very many. It is a very curious thing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also Brahma#Attributes third paragraph and Brahma#Appearance second paragraph explains why.87.102.20.186 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

recognition

hi. i think that wikipedia should start up an article that says opinions of the most recognizable rock singers. just to give you one, i personally think brian johnson of acdc is the most recognizable, easy. just an idea.Jk31213 16:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a list be blantantly pov? "Recognizable" seems like a vague and unencyclopedic criterion. 惑乱 分からん 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you meant editors' opinions on rock singers, or rock singers' opinions (on whatever). In case you did mean the latter: wikiquote offers some opinions uttered by Brian Johnson. Example: "Punk and all that was just an image that ripped people off. Johnny Rotten's a wanker, and that's all there is to it." ---Sluzzelin 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, i mean like just take other people's opinions on just who do they think is the most recognizable rock singers. it can be people from wikipedia itself or rolling stone magazine or guitar world or something. just not 'expert' opinions'Jk31213 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clarifying. Now, what do you mean by recognizable? Do you mean their level of fame? Do you mean what would the answers be if you asked 1000 people: Who is the most famous rock singer? Do you mean recognizable by how easily they're identified by their voice, by their appearance? Wikipedia does have List of best-selling music artists and Best-selling music artist for hard numbers. And I found List of songs in English labeled the best ever. A wikipedia poll would probably only be acceptable in a sandbox,and would have absolutely no notability. A Rolling Stone poll, or better yet a synthesis of polls conducted by notable sources might have the better chances of surviving as an article or list. I remember a worldwide poll held sometime in the early 1990's asking people around the globe to name famous people. Of the living people I believe Michael Jackson was somewhere way on top of the list at the time. ---Sluzzelin 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean like prably the most famous rock singer done by like 1000 people or wutever. u no how when one listens to the radio and they say, "oh i recognize him!" probably has to do with how many notes they sing until recognized. but probably the most famous done by 1000 people would be a good guess. but im just giving u nothing more than a personal opinion of mine of who the most recognizable rock singer is and thats brian johnson. again its up to wikipedia to start an article with a title saying list of most recognizable rock singers. doesnt have to be in order from 100 to 1 or anything but just a list taken from different people.Jk31213 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well,I wouldn't Recognise him if he called round to my house and bought me a pinthotclaws**== 08:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

UN Millenium Development Project

I found a statement in the MD Project internet pages that the nations wishing to receive Project financial assistance are "encouraged" to improve their governments, presumably to come up to one or more of the standards of the "Ten Economic Freedoms" stated in the "2007 Index of Economic Freedoms" published by the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal.

My Question is: Will the UN MDP only "encourage," or will if make such improvements mandatory before money is disbursed?

The MDP internet pages are too vague really to pin this down.

( Note that a similar organization, our State Department's "Millenium Challenge Corporation," sits down with the nation's leaders in advance of disbursing funds ≥and agrees on which changes must be made, and then withholds aid until the changes are accomplished ).

If you would be so kind, I've enabled my email address in my Preferences, so would appreciat such an email. Thank you.

°≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→·§ Harry E. ThayerHarry E. Thayer 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sturgeon?

Can someone identify this fish please, in the link [28], also the language of the commentator in the video as well if possible.

Thank you.87.102.11.134 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a skate to me. ---Sluzzelin 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't think of that - could be. thanks87.102.7.220 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

February 17

Worst possible condemnation...?

Both Moses and Jesus condemned Jews who demonstrated their love and worship of money, wealth and possessions above God. (Moses and the Golden Calf, Jesus and the Money Changers). Is not then the worse possible condemnation of Jews demonstrated when a person or group possess, loves or worships wealth, material possessions and money above God? -- Barringa 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks somewhat like a leading question. Leaving that aside, there seems to be a logical link in the terms you've provided. Wealth and money should be considered one and the same, and material possessions can be easily considered merely an extension of money. What, then, is the particular weight of a condemnation of simply "money"? How is it weighed against a condemnation of hypocrisy? A condemnation of arrogance? What of the fairly common doctrine that sin simply "is" or "is not", without a distinction of "more sinful"? — Lomn 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In regard to forms consider then the physical body and the various organs including blood which are essential to life and one’s love of the life such organs bring above one’s love of God. -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't specify that the person or group is Jewish, so presumably it's no condemnation of Jews at all for some arbitrary person or group to love wealth. I know I sure love having a little scratch, and I'd hate to think I'm impugning "the Jews" by doing so. --TotoBaggins 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The question does not pertain to persons or groups who do not claim to be Jewish. -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation with the Golden Calf was not about money, if you read it. Neither was the situation with Jesus and the money changers, really. Jesus made it clear that the most important thing was to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, [and to] love your neighbour as yourself". If you want to know what God says to people, it's not hidden away in the Bible to be discovered by the intellectual. It's there, stated fairly explicitly. BenC7 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I differ on this point believing the Golden Calf was a symbol of money, wealth and material possessions which the Jewish people demonstrated that they held in higher esteem than God. (Exo. 20:3) The situation with the money changers was that they were using the Temple, the place reserved for worship of God and the House of God to conduct their worldly business which demonstrated they held their business in higher esteem than they held God. (Mat 21:12-14) -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just because you belive it doesn't make it a facthotclaws**== 08:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It most certain makes it a 'fact' for the believer. -- Barringa 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the message of this 'question.' The statements regarding Moses and Jesus are wrong. The links provided don't support the argument. The statements that follow a fallacy are fallacious. The assertion that Jewish peoples are not acceptable to god because of a faked observation is unworthy of anything less than condemnation. I appreciate the politeness of those who have pointed out the clear deficiencies. DDB 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mat. 21:15 -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I too think your question doesn't make much sense - the golden calf is about idolatry not money. The story about the money changers is often read as a message that temples are not places for worldly things. Note the money changers exchanged money - that was used as an offering to god - there is not any mention of 'profit'.

My reference to the Golden Calf is as a symbol for the Idolitry of money. As for profit me reference is for the selling of doves: Mat. 21:12 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. Mat 21:13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[e] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'[f]" -- Barringa 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you meant that 'loving or worshipping money' was the worst thing a jew could do in terms of their jewish faith?87.102.7.220 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is whether the act of a greater affinity for worldly things is by its expression the worst possible form of anti-Senitism since it serves others who are looking at Judaism from the outside as an example of what Judaism is truly all about. -- Barringa 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if Jews have a greater affinity for worldly things than they have for their god it helps make people anti semitic? Note: the phrase 'by its expression' doesn't make any sense - is it supposed to mean something like "if jews love money/worldy goods more than their god it serves the to confirm the views of anti-semites" or something like that?87.102.13.148 12:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comments, DDB. You seem to have a very good handle on the OP and his seemingly endless series of condemnable questions somehow trying to link up Jews with the worship of money. I also don't understand the repeated references to the Golden Calf. As I've mentioned before, the story speaks of a Golden Calf being created and worshipped, and then, upon seeing it, Moses, with the help of God of course, gave the Israelites a choice: Worship the Golden Calf (representing idolatry, materialism, money etc.) or worship God. Those who chose the calf were swallowed up by the earth (along with the calf). Those who chose God were left to survive and go on to being the ancestors of today's Jews. I can't imagine a better illustration of the fact that Judaism is about worshipping God, not money. Loomis 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately history has a tendency of repeating itself and once again today there are many persons who worship money and yet claim to be a Jew. -- Barringa 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti Semitism does not merely refer to denunciation of Jews. It includes attempts to discredit the faith and people. Even were it the case that the Golden Calf underlay Modern Judaism, and even if it represented the totality of Jewish philosophy, as the question assumes, it goes nowhere near the actual praxis of Judaism involving Jewish peoples.

Okay then put in a more direct way: Does not the love of worldly possessions above the love of God by a person claiming to be a Jew represent the worst form of anti-Semitism there is? -- Barringa 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So your saying that somebody who is antisemitic might act as if they love money and then pretend to be a jew - to increase disrespect for jews? Yes I'd say that is bad. But please note that you're asking a rhetorical question there as far as I can tell - that's not really the sort of thing the reference desk is for.87.102.13.148 12:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OP has also referred to genetics and an 'evolutionary war.' It is not just money or Judaism that OP is targetting.

DDB are you on crack? Your comment above is so out of context as to make this question about your mental health real. -- Barringa 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an observation that many Jewish people are wealthy, although that is not the case for all, or even many, Jews. Jews do not control the world. I thought, for awhile, my father did, but I matured. DDB 00:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Again DDB and in response to your email and postings to my talk page the question I am asking is whether the Jews by their own acts such as worshiping the Golden Calf extrude a greater degree of anti-Semitism than those who on the outside do who observe such things and ask if there are two kinds of Jew - one who love worldly things and one who loves God. In my own personal opinion and in conformance with Loomis' comment above those Jews who choose to love the Golden Calf are no longer in my regard considered Jews. Therefore comments or questions regarding them can not be in any way anti-Semitic. However your repeated misinterpretation of my questions and comments most absolutely certainly is. -- Barringa 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Barringa, you said on the 3rd of February "Brothers and sisters are restricted from marrying each other in most cultures with few exceptions (Hawaians). Brits and American already pride themselves on the different starting point of their respective heritages since the Revolutionary War, not the evolutionary war. -- Barringa 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)" Have I misquoted you to earn your accusation about Crack? Or is that an uncomfortable reference for you, as you do not wish to stand by your assertions? I don't mind debating you, but I would feel more comfortable were you to not resort to anti semitic rhetoric that holds Jews are lesser people (through marrying kin) that love money and nothing else. Your questions are largely fools errands, with no real academic merit, but often such questions are asked by very young people who have been brought up poorly, but who are beginning to question why the world is as it is. The nature of your questions lead me to believe that you are not so very young, but an apologist for a discredited ideal that underpins Nazism, Islamo fascism and racism. I am not Jewish, nor were any of my mother's ancestors Jewish. I was raised an atheist. I am not giveing you my POV, I am giveing you worthy argument, which you are arguing ad hominem. DDB 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Barringa. What Barringa said on the 3rd of February has nothing to do with the question here. You sound on the other hand like you have some misplaced grudge against Barringa who is obviously only trying to come to an understanding as to why anti-Semitism exists except for the obvious contention between Moslems and Jews. In fact if you trace the ideals that underpin Nazism back far enough you may find that this is where they start although the death of Jesus Christ on the cross of which the Jews are accused is the proclaimed beginning by the Nazis. As for racism and Jews it is only those Jews who have lost their right to call themselves Jews by virtue of their own actions such as loving worldly goods more than God who want to uphold Judaism as a race instead of a religion so as to escape consequential excommunication. Had you been raised Christian or Jew you might know this. Baked Beans 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Barringa, it's overwhelmingly clear to all that you're an anti-semite. Yet, representing a significant segment of the world's population, I'm totally against having your questions and comments censored or removed. That would be to no one's benefit. To me, sweeping anti-semitism under the rug is nothing but a cop-out. Rather, despite the ugliness of the phenomenon known as anti-semitism, I believe it's in everyone's best interests for it to be explored, not dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. If only we can come to better understand the inner workings of the mind of an anti-semite, i.e. what makes you "tick", perhaps then we'd all be the better for it, and perhaps we'd all, yourself included, benefit from a discussion on the topic. Perhaps you'd even reconsider your hatred, and be cured of the ugly disease you seem to be afflicted with. You obviously bear some sort of hatred toward Jews, one that I, as well as I'm sure the great bulk of RefDesk editors and all the good people of the world simply cannot make any sense of. Your case in particular is a rather confusing one. So far you've asked about a half dozen questions linking up Jews with the worship of money. Yet your questions seem to be tangential at best, which only further confuses the rest of us. Perhaps it's time for you to stop beating around the bush and to finally get to your point, or at least the fundamental, central question that's on your mind. If only you'd do so, I'd be pleased to discuss it, not only for my benefit, or for the benefit of other readers, for yours as well. You seem to continously base your tangential questions and rather cryptic anti-semitic remarks on what appears to be a gross misunderstanding of Judaism and the mindset of modern-day Jews. Perhaps if you got to your central question or point, the rest of us would be in a far better position to help you correct your misunderstandings. However, should you decide to continue with your cryptic and tangential anti-semitic points and questions, I'm afraid that none of us, yourself included, will derive any benefit from this discussion. Loomis 13:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Barringa does not sound like an anti-Semite to me but rather like one who is trying to find consensus on what the definition of an anti-Semite should be. In fact, can't find it right now, but I believe Barringa actually stated he was not. Denouncing Jews who love worldly possessions more than God is not in my opinion anti-Semitism. Instead of succeeding in making Barringa out to be an anti-Semite what you have made abundantly clear is that you want him to be your scapegoat. Baked Beans 13:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WW2 in singapore

i have a few qns on world war 2 in singapore...pls help me ans them...its kinda like a survey or interview...on what ur views are....thx

1)how do u think ww2 would have affeced families ?

2)what do u think of the british as songapore's colonial master?

3)were the japanese any different from the british?

4)How can war be prevented?

5)Is war a solution to all problems?

--203.124.2.24 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) hello??--203.124.2.24 04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I suspect most people are avoiding this question because it looks to them too much like a homework problem. 68.39.174.238 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1)Very much in deed

2)Like any other,flawed 3)yes 4)with difficulty 5)no hotclaws**== 08:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1) My granddad had served for the brits in Gallipoli, and Ireland after the Easter Rising in ww1. His life was framed by the two world wars. He served for Sir Roden Cutler's 7/5th Field Artillery of the AIF in Sudan, and when a change of government in Australia saw the ALP recall our soldiers, survived the journey home. Many returning soldiers had been sent to 'bolster' Singapore, or were killed or taken prisoner when their boats were sunk by Japanese forces on return. While my grandad had been serving overseas, my great grandfather's estate passed to my grandmother, who left home with my dad, and made a new life for herself. The loss of Singapore was a crushing blow to the defence of the Pacific. Only the youngest of troops were available for Australia to defend Papua New Guinea.

2) I think Brits took Singapore for granted. The commander, Arthur Percival had advised London of needed defence improvements, but they were denied as cost cutting. However, had the defences held, I think many a tragedy of WW2 might not have occurred. The Fall of Singapore was a tragedy.

3) Japanese culture is different to Western culture, but no less refined. The Japanese war effort seems to have been an extension of their ongoing policy, as might be seen when compared with the Rape of Nanking. Japanese leaders were generally seen to be treated more harshly for Japanese war crimes by the post war trials than Nazi Germany's leaders, with more hangings.

4) I believe Neville Chamberlain showed that war cannot be prevented, however, Clinton showed it might be sparked, when he involved himself in the Mid East at the end of his presidency.

5) War solves nothing. However, I believe there are some things worth fighting for. I view the Japanese war effort as a fancy case of suicide by cop by their middle ranks. I view the Australian war effort as politically bungled. DDB 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If Mary is a virgin then

Does that mean that Jesus is the bastard son of Joseph? 211.28.131.148 04:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See jesus. According to the bible I understand that Jesus is the son of god, and that god gave Mary the virgin-birth. I also understand bastard is a term for someone born outside of marriage - not sure whether or not Mary/Joseph were married so perhaps the bastard part is correct. I'm sure a theology-enthusiast/expert will be able to clarify further. ny156uk 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To keep Jesus from being labelled a "bastard", there are two ways to approach it. First, you can claim Mary was wedded to God, so Jesus was conceived and born in that wedlock. At the time, it was not considered a sin to have multiple spouses, so it was OK for Mary to marry both God and Joseph. Second, you can claim a bastard is a child conceived of man and born outside of wedlock. Jesus was not conceived of man, so could not be considered a bastard. There's always a loophole when religion is involved. --Kainaw ^(talk) 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything, it seems like Jesus was the bastard son of Yahweh, who cuckolded Joseph. But I don't know of any denomination that uses such terminology. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jo Swinson

Does anyone know anything about her sex life and or romantic relationships.

Anyone? I would assume that she does. However, I'm rarely correct in my assumptions. --Kainaw ^(talk) 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we should feed this troll much more when he just returned after a healthy long leave. 惑乱 分からん 12:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it, and I KNOW it was once here...

A while ago I came upon an articel about some obscure part of Portuguese culture that had to do with, basically, getting something done even if by unconventional means. It was described with one word, "Des[something]çrão" or something similar, and meant something like "untangling ropes", but was really one of those hard-to-translate concepts. The articel was headed with a pic of some dude leaning out an apartment window working on his AC with someone else holding his legs and another out on a balcony.

Did I make it up and forget as much, or did/does something really exist? 68.39.174.238 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Google Translate gives "desembaraçar" for "untangling"; perhaps the word is "desembaração"? I can't find the article you are talking about, but it sounds interesting. --Lph 13:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, "desembaração" only gets around 20 Google hits, "untangling" and "disentangling" bith gets more than 100.000. 惑乱 分からん 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are searching for the word: desenrascanço, verb: desenrascar, adjective (2person singular): desenrascado. It more or less means getting something done despite any difficulties whatsoever even whithout the proper tools. The closest I know in english is the word: improvise. The Portuguese value this highly. I personaly think it has something to do with their great inability to plan and prepare something for the future. Flamarande 14:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, what I had feared has come to pass... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desenrascanço... 68.39.174.238 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The photo, at least, is still available via Google Images... --Lph 16:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Riddle:: One guy lies, the other guy tells the truth - how to determine between?

There's this riddle which I think appears in Doctor Who, where there are two guardians of something and one can only lie and the other can only tell the truth. The idea is that you ask them both each one question and are able to determine from it, which is the guy that lies and which tells the truth. What are the questions that need to be asked? --Seans Potato Business 15:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"How many fingers am I holding up?" --80.0.108.101 15:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha. These are beautiful puzzles. Raymond Smullyan wrote several books full of these riddles. ---84.75.111.138 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Try asking each of them "Is he the liar?". 68.39.174.238 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't work - they'd both say yes. Clarityfiend 05:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ask one what the other would say, and then do the opposite. GreatManTheory 16:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That would tell you what the answer to the question is, but not which one is the liar. --80.0.103.191 07:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is The Riddle of the Sphynx (Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannos), a related riddle, as well as many a koan. Great Man gave the answer. Riddles are an important teaching tool, illustrating and defining issues within the western dialectic. Of the Europeans, French philosophy schools employ logic ultimates to define surroundings (cf Descartes' 'I Think, therefore I am') in the Scientific Revolution, Germanic Philosophy (logical positivism, German Idealism) which overlapped the French, but is distinct. Note, post Kurt Gödel, there has been a revolution of research into logic and philosophy. DDB 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many variations of this puzzle. I can't believe we don't have an article on these? Anyway, this particular puzzle can be solved with just one question. Ask one of the guardians "Would your companion tell me that you are the liar?" If the answer is yes, you are talking to the truth-teller; if he says no, he's the liar. Of course, these questions always assume that the liar is being rigidly logical rather than genuinely trying to mislead you.--Shantavira

POEM ABOUT ABE LINCOLN

In the 1960's I grew up with a set of 10 Junior classic books. #10 was on poetry. I memorized a poem that started out "If Nancy Hanks came back as a ghost seeking news of what she loved most.First she'd ask, where is my son? What's happened to Abe, what's he done." my memory has failed me and with much searching I cannot find the poem. Can anyone help? Many thanks16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Mykidzmom

It's Nancy Hanks. text. Shimgray | talk | 16:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

History

I would like to know about the history of Prudential Bank (bought by Bank of the Philippine Islands). Does anybody know about it? Thank you very much.

Category:Germanic culture

Should most of the countries listed in this new category really be listed. It not only includes the English, the US and the Celts much to my surprise, it also includes Brazil, Caribbean islands, Liberia in Africa (?) etc etc. Take a look.-- Zeitzen^(talk) 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Waht's the point of the category? Is it referring to Old Germanic cultures, or the modern cultures with their diverse origins? Would Jamaican and Austrian culture share traits that are missing between Dutch, French and Polish culture? (Note that the article Germanic culture currently only speaks about the culture of German-speaking Europe.) 惑乱 分からん 21:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone has got confused as to the meaning of 'germanic' - very confused. swedish and danish inclusion is very debateable - ie no. no. no. welsh, falkand isles and samoan WHAT! no.no.no.

Only perhaps dutch and german would be suitable here - mass delete.87.102.2.106 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

here's a clue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=R9tgokunks 16th Feb 2007 edits around 20.00 all the same user - suggest delete the whole page as a bad lot.

Admins help87.102.2.106 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ehhh, don't mix up German and Germanic, Swedish and Danish would probably still qualify, as Germanic speaking countries. However, I still have my doubts about the category. It's too broad and over-generalizing, and tries to draw strong connections between matters that don't really have them. 惑乱 分からん 21:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, while the inclusion of Brazil is pretty ridiculous, there is no debate as to the Germanic status of Swedish and Danish. Methinks the confusion is thine, 87.102.2.106. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you might need to correct the article Germanic culture then.87.102.13.148 13:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bhumiya, do you know how to put up the category on a vote/discussion for deletion? I might be biased, but I think it's impractical. 惑乱 分からん 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed most of the worst, taking into account your comments about the nordic countries. There's still a few I've left such as welsh,scottish,finnish. I'll leave the rest for now. 87.102.13.148 13:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:R9tgokunks got a bit carried away - that's the only possible explanation I can think of.87.102.13.148 13:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about a catchphrase I don't understand

I saw a T.V programme a few weeks back, and the theme on it was history. The episode of the show incorporated a lot of stories that all fitted together. All the characters were trying to re-write their history. At the end of the show, the narrator summarised all the storylines, and concluded with a phrase that I don't understand. The phrase was "What is history anyway, if not lies agreed upon". Isn't history based on fact rather than lies? SOmebody please explain the phrase to me, thanks guys Ahadland 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, history isn't really based on fact, it's based on peoples' interpretations of events. Unless you were actually at an event, you only know about it through other peoples' accounts. Thus, how do you know whether what you have read is what really happened. For example, imagine if the Nazis had won World War II. The way we view the war would be radically different: Hitler would be seen as a hero, and the Allies would be viewed as the twisted, evil people.

Another example would be during the reign of Stalin in the USSR. People were taught that Stalin was an important figure during the October Revolution and ensuing civil war, when in fact, he was an extremely minor figure. He also erased records of the significant contributions of his political enemy Trotsky. You can see Historiography for some more information on the subject. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It expresses a cynical view of the study of history: about how much we can know and how much is simplified to produce a good story. It is a famous quote of uncertain origin, probably by someone French, usually blamed upon Napoleon, Voltaire or Fontenelle. In fact the varying authors illustrates the quotation. To quote from one interesting work of history, 1066 and All That "History is not what you thought. It is what you can remember". meltBanana 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As Winston Churchill once noted, "History is written by the victors." Although, I recall an Egyptian pharoah who managed to turn a crushing military defeat into a "victory" by using the big lie technique. Clarityfiend 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall a much more recent Mesopotamian leader who managed (or at least attempted) to turn a crushing military defeat into "the mother of all victories". Loomis 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

February 18

Christian and Jewish view of future prophets

It is my understanding that Islam considers Muhammad the final prophet. Do the various denominations of Christianity feel the same way about Jesus? Does Judaism have a similar figure whom they consider in practice to have been the "final" prophet, or is it more open-ended? Specifically, do Jews admit the possibility of a future non-messianic prophet, in other words, one who precedes the final messiah but isn't a messiah him/herself? Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand Christians wait the second coming of the Christ. Jews wait the first. DDB 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify DDB, it seems to imply that Jews deny the historicity of Jesus' life, which they absolutely do not. What is rejected by Jews is "just" (!) the claim that he was the messiah. DDB's second wikilink should probably more fairly point to Mashiach. --Dweller 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The role of the messiah in Judaism is generally overestimated by Christians. Classical Judaism views Malachi as the last prophet; and like most established religions, asserts that no future prophet could change the religion in any substantive way (that is, anyone holding themselves out as prophet would be judged to be a false prophet if he purported to change religious law.). Christians generally believe that no prophet will come after Jesus, though some sects calling themselves Christians hold that such prophets exist (e.g. Mormonism, The Summit Lighthouse, etc.). - Nunh-huh 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue of prophecy is open to discussion among both Jewish and Christian religions. The Christian bible is different for Catholics and Protestants owing to understanding and custom. The books that form the bible are largely agreed upon, as it isn't rocket science. The Apocrypha, which I understand to literally mean 'hidden,' used to refer to books that were restricted to non clergy. More recently, it is those books that Protestants don't believe are related to Jesus. The Apocrypha is mainly those books of the last few hundred years before Jesus. They mainly refer to the acts of Angels, cf Tobias. DDB 00:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Christains believe that Jesus Christ is God there is not much credit given to other prophets who want to compete with this. Christains are likewise warned about the Anti-Christ in terms of anyone proclaiming to be the Second Coming of Jesus Christ or the next or final prophet. -- Barringa 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Christians don't believe that Jesus is a prophet. They believe that he is the Son of God. Jesus said "The Law and the Prophets were until John [the Baptist]". Christians expect no other prophet or person to come and give further revelation of God. The next "thing to happen", if you like, is the return of Christ. BenC7 03:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1948 Arab/Israeli War

During the 1948 Arab/Israeli war, did Israel recieve land after winning or did they just maintain and get to keep the land Britain had given them?

-I Choose to Remain Anonymous

According to 1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Aftermath, yes they did gain additional land: the State of Israel's borders increased to 78% of mandatory Palestine, compared to the 54.5% allotted by the UN. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The November 29th, 1947 partition plan agreement (UNGA Resolution 181) was legally valid and binding only if BOTH sides agreed to it, but only the Jews accepted the plan (while the Arabs rejected it). And Britain didn't "give land" to anybody -- it adopted a very open and deliberate law-of-the-jungle strategy in May 1948, whereby the British government and military evacuated Mandate Palestine without handing over authority to anybody or recognizing any successor, instead just leaving the Arabs and Jews to fight over everything. Of course, the Foreign Office mandarins and Arabist civil servants in the British government were convinced that the invading Arab armies would militarily roll over the Jews within weeks, or Britain might not have withdrawn at all. AnonMoos 09:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Middle East territorial disputes

What effect would 20 or more, 100 megaton blasts have for the territorial disputes in the Middle East? Would Christians, Jews and Moslems return to this land, resurvey it and draw up new boundaries or still fight over the old boundaries that were then strewn with creators? Also what would be the consequences of the loss of all artifacts stored or not otherwise removable from there in terms of each religion? -- Barringa 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't have a crystal ball, I can't really answer this question. Nor do I think that committing an atrocity is an effective way of solving conflict in the Middle East. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The disputes would be put on hold for a few hundred thousand years in Chernobyl South, unless they were willing to start wearing lead underwear. Clarityfiend 04:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Chernobyl showed that radiation is not as dangerous as many think. I understand that after the initial deaths of some tweny people from direct exposure to high radiation, there are statistically no substantial long term side effects. Similarly at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the initial death toll was greatest as a result of the blasts. The highly radioactive contamination still has side effects, but people can still live there. However, that is not the point of the question, is it? I gather that OP is still gathering research material for his evolutionary war. DDB 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary war? Are you talking about the new Intel 80 CPU chip and the processor frequency war with AMD that turned into the number of processor core war? Baked Beans 12:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Not sure why you specified "100 megaton" -- neither Israel, Pakistan, nor Iran is likely to have 100 megaton bombs at any time in the forseeable future. I would guess that the last-ditch worst-case Samson Option scenario is more likely to involve nuking about 50 middle-east cities with A-bombs of maybe 50 to 100 kiloton strength.

In any case, Judaism adapted to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem long ago (after 70 A.D.), and the importance of the Holy Land to Christianity is as pilgrimage sites related to Jesus' life, but which don't really play a major personal role in the worship of most ordinary believers. It's Islam which would have to adapt in a more significant way if its holiest sites in the Mecca area were destroyed. AnonMoos 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)