Proposal for guidelines

We are currently drafting a proposal for guidelines at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.
Get involved! Discuss the proposed guidelines, propose your own and help us reach consensus on the associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.

April 5

Mongolia Map

Hi there,

I could see the Mongolia Map on the Mongolia page. that was really detailed with all the 3xx 'sums' included. However I would like to see the map of UlanBaator, the capital, as well. According to the Ulan Baator page, it was said that UlanBaator has 9 districts. can i have the map of these districts (like that of the 'sums' and 'aimags') on the UlanBaator page or the Mongolia Page?

thanks!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.18.170.43 (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If it isn't on commons:category:Maps of Mongolia, then there's a probability that it doesn't exist within Wikipedia... AnonMoos

Infallibility of the Church?

I have four questions on the so-called infallibility of the Church in Roman Catholicism:

1. Couldn't some bad and un-Christian Popes and bishops decide, or have decided, to make up false, or at least fallible, messages, claims, and teachings which they claim and lie that they are infallible and from God but really aren't? Or could they decide to change, distort, or not tell messages from God in the way they like to suit their own purposes?

2. Do we really need some kind of special person like a Pope to interpret the Bible for us? The Bible is clear enough for us to know what it means ourselves. Also, to know more information about how to interpret the Bible, go and see the article Principles of Bible Interpretation.

3. Is Saint Peter really the Rock on which the Church is built on? I thought Jesus is. In John 1:42, Jesus said to Peter, "You shall be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a stone." This shows that Peter is only a small "stone", not the huge "Rock" on which the Church is built on. To know more, go and see the article Peter as the Rock.

4. If the Church is infallible, then there wouldn't be any of its teachings that contradict the Bible. But are there? The answer is probably yes. For example, the Assumption of Mary probably contradicts John 3:13 which says, "And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."

The Anonymous One 03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already done so, you might get some value out of reading Infallibility of the Church, and Papal infallibility, particularly the section "Common Alleged Misperceptions About Papal Infallibility". As for John 3:13, I believe the Church's position is that Mary died and ascended a long time after those words were spoken, so there's no conflict. However, IANAT. JackofOz 04:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anonymous One, what exactly is your question? What kind of response do you wish? A Catholic response? There are numerous Catholic apologetics sites to which you should refer. And to start, a large directory is here.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question, what need of a question, Kirby? This is just the latest instalment in a relentless and tiresome anti-Catholic manifesto. Clio the Muse 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, no need to bite him. Let's assume good faith. Looking at his contribs, he seems to be a good editor when it comes to non-religious articles. Some people just have their quirks, I guess.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dog may growl, but it never bites! My assessment was based both on a reading of the above and past experience. For my part, I have already answered some of these points, when I assumed that genuine information was being sought. This now does not seem to be the case. Clio the Muse 05:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes the growl is worse than the bite =P. This is getting off-topic, perhaps a talk-page "debate" is in order? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dog, now being quiet and introspective, has decided to grip this 'question' in the terms in which it has been pitched, and in the forlorn hope of some final resolution. I remember seeing a pocket cartoon in an old political weekly, possibly the New Statesman, published here in England, in which a well-dressed businessman comes across a tramp (a hobo, for the benefit of you Americans!) sitting on a pavement, with a notice beside him reading Prejudices Confirmed-£1.00 only. The said businessman duly drops his coin in the tramp's hat, and receives the following captioned response-Yes, I am on welfare; no, I have never done a day's work in my life. Anonymous One, it has long seemed to me that you are the businessman in search of your own particular tramp; so, for your benefit, let me take on the role, without any request for payment: yes, Catholics are not really Christians; yes, Anti-Christ could sit in the seat of St. Peter, and he would immediately be followed by the uncritical mass; yes, we do not need priests or the Holy Catholic Church, and we should all interpret the Bible for ourselves; yes, St. Peter is not a rock, merely a little stone. Does that satisfy you? I could attempt to finish on a slightly more sober note by saying that the Bible is a rich and complex document, that requires intelligent and informed interpretation, and we live in an age where we must all be acutely aware of the dangers of the literal reading of sacred texts. But, what the hell, why bother? It is time for the Protestants among you to get out there and start burning 'All of them Witches.' Clio the Muse 07:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I believe that the use of the word "stone" in John 1:42 meant something different in 1611 English (in which the KJV was written) than it does today. And furthermore, who cares what the KJV says? The KJV is a translation. The apostles didn't write in English.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 09:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Koine in which the gospel of John was written John 1:42 has "κηφας ο ερμηνευεται πετρος". The word πετρος ("petros") is generally seen as a masculinization – more appropriate for a man, like Simeon was – of the feminine word πετρα ("petra"), which can definitely mean "rock".[1] That word is used in Matthew 16:18: "thou art Πετρος, and upon this πετρα I will build my church", confirming the πετρα meaning. Actually, it is perhaps of more interest what Aramaic kefa meant in Biblical times in Palestine. There are various claims, the most common ones being that the word means "rock" or that its meanings can range from "stone" to "rocky hill". For an unusual interpretation, see Kefa. I could not find the word in an online Aramaic lexicon; it did not help that I don't know how it is spelled in Aramaic. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

raising short-term interest rates

How does FRB's raising short-term interest rates affect our daily life? Kymotegi 04:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Kyosuke[reply]

Raising interest rates is likely to raise local currency, take investments from stocks and place them in the cash market. It dampens demand, encourages saving. It is occasionally useful in strong economies to raise interest rates so as to prevent economic bubbles, where growth is created from growth, and not from legitimate wealth creation activity. DDB 11:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it reduces inflation. But how does an interest rate hike take investments from stocks and places them in the cash market? --Khunter 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When interest rates rise, the disparity between stock offerings and bank returns is less. It is rarely worthwhile to leave money with banks, but always safer. The result of higher interest rates, then is for people to take money from stocks and put money in banks, who in turn put the money into short term cash. To provide an example, in 1991, Australian interest rates were 19%, far exceeding the return of the stock market. Many put there money into 90 day term deposits, wiser people put there money away for five years at lesser rates of 16%. DDB 08:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are various kinds of interest rates out there such as 1-year deposite rates and mortgage interest rates. Can the FRB control all the interest rates through raising or lowering the federal fund (short-term interest?) rates? If it's not possible, is the monetary policy really effective? Kymotegi

Dirty dancing carried to its logical extreme

Has anyone ever danced (for instance) a ballroom tango nude and with genital insertion? Is such a thing possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.183.116.25 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There are over 7 6 billion people in the world, so chances are that someone has tried that at least once.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that's how many people there are today. You asked "ever", so all people that have ever lived are included in the calculation, which makes it all the more probable.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's probable that someone has tried. But is it possible without coitus interruptus raising its ugly head? JackofOz 06:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, our article on world population (and pretty much every other source i've ever seen) disagrees with your statement of "over 7 billion". Do you have a source for that value? Or just a mind blip? Capuchin 11:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 21:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to be very skilled to dance in that fashion!! Think outside the box 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ [69.183] Yes. (see also Frottage Grinding (dance)). dr.ef.tymac 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's only rubbing though, what about the genital insertion? 212.159.16.175 17:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article links give context. The details and proof are documented elsewhere. I will defer to the capacity of your imagination and discernment to flesh out any other specifics. dr.ef.tymac 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago, a veteran Finnish tango singer anwered an interview question about the weirdest event in his long career with quite a memorable anecdote: It was a dance night at a small-town restaurant, and the house was half full but the people were having a good time. One particular middle-aged couple really hit it off with each other, at first they were just kissing passionately as they danced, but soon their dancing got more and more physical, and after a while they lowered their pants just enough and performed the entire act standing up, at a corner of the dance floor, and they even were discreet enough that few people noticed. The singer however had the best view, and all he could do was to try to concentrate on the singing. According to the story there was no commotion, and the couple did soon leave for a more private place. 84.239.133.38 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has happened at the local high school during one or more dances. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but were they dancing while having sex? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.142.149 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Poppy pomegranates at the Metropolitan Museum

The Opium article states At the Metropolitan Museum's Assyrian relief gallery, a winged deity in a bas-relief from the palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Nimrud, dedicated in 879 BC, bears a bouquet of poppy capsules on long stems, described by the museum as "pomegranates". Can somebody tell me who is correct? Are those poppy capsules or pomegrantes?--202.164.137.91 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim familiarity with all varieties of poppies and pomegranates, but according to what I see in today's Israel: the poppy is indeed a long-stemmed flower that develops a seed pod, whereas the pomegranate is a fruit attached by a short stem to the branches of a small-leaved bush. The pomegranate shape, however, is a popular folk motif in the Middle East symbolizing fertility due to the fruit's many seeds; I don't know if the shape of poppy seed pods is as familiar. So perhaps the museum curators were conflating the two images? -- Deborahjay 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article here [2] on The Pernicious Opium Poppy, says that 'the two fruits, which have a similar outline, have often been misinterpreted.' This does not really take us that much further forward; sorry. I've looked through some material on Assyrian mythology, and all I can find is a reference to the godess, Nisaba, who is often depicted with poppies growing out of her shoulders. I suspect that the only way you will be able to get a definite answer to your question is to contact the museum directly. There is, however, a wider mythological connection between the poppy and the pomegranate, though this belongs to the Greeks, rather than the Assyrians. Persephone, the daughter of Demeter, the godess of fertility, was obliged to stay in Hades for part of the year as the wife of the god, Pluto, after she ate six pomegranate seeds. To forget her grief, Demeter went into hibernation, bringing on the winter. To aid her sleep, and forget her grief, she ate poppies. The poppy plant then became one of her symbols, often depicted alongside corn. The poppy-head is to be found in the hands of various of the Greek gods, and because of the number of its seeds is associated with abundance and fertility. Eastern cults have a tendency to transfer from one culture to another, so it is possible that the Assyrian deity depicts an earlier example of this practice. Clio the Muse 01:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advancing the article to legitmate status

Pjt48 15:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I'm stymied about how to get my article to meet the WIKIPEDIA standard of submitting it for other to edit. I was trying to convert my particular on a poet to an American poet stub with no avail. If there is a clear step I can take to advance my article to take it to a legitmate standing, please advice me. I've tried reading about WIKIPEDIA'S templates and formats hoping to incorporate my article into these frames but I'm simply overlooking the steps. Where my article stands now, it still has unhidden codes that I can't seem to rid it of in order to make the article clean and professional. I see no evidence that I've made any contact with other users. I think of my userpage of being in a state of isolation and wonder how long does it stay in this state.Pjt48 15:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The help desk is probably a better place to ask about this. I'll answer the question here, though. The "unhidden codes" are probably signatures. If you type four tildes (~) in a row, or press the button on the edit toolbar that looks like a signature, that's what produces your signature. I'll send you a welcome message (on your talk page) that gives pointers on how to edit pages and all of the other stuff. In the meantime, since you wanted to create an article entitled Robert Peters, I moved your user page to the Robert Peters article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data on women in paid workforce in the states of the US

I am looking for data on what percent of women (or, if possible, mothers) are in the paid (i.e. out of the home) workforce, in each state in the United States. I have heard that my state is the highest, but I can't find anything to confirm this.

Thanks,

206.176.19.201 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Robb Campbell, Spearfish, S.D.[reply]

According to the table on page 4 of this document, which draws on 2000 census data, South Dakota had the 7th-highest labor force participation rate for women over 16. At the top of the list is Minnesota. Despite much searching, I could not find similar data broken out by state for mothers. Marco polo 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Tucker article

The Wikipedia article about Preston Tucker needs cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.61.38.108 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Never fear -- Wikipedia is a work in progress! If you're informed enough about the topic to clean it up some yourself (and you're not Preston Tucker, or some other biased observer), click on "edit this page" at the top of the Preston Tucker page to get started. (On the other hand, if you just need some info on him right now, might I suggest Google?) Jfarber 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Corporations sell these:

--Khunter 18:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the data on the image page the one on the left was built by Advance corporation, but I haven't found which of many corporations of that name it would be. The one on the right is from McNeilus. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just looking for corporations that sell "Concrete transport trucks". Does wikipedia have an article regarding "Concrete transport trucks"? Does wikipedia have an article regarding the corporation McNeilus? --Khunter 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McNeilus is a division of the Oshkosh Truck corporation. Marco polo 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Mixers are apparently made by Terex, formerly part of General Motors, per this page. Marco polo 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article concrete transport truck redirects to concrete mixer where there's a section on the trucks. Whenever you're looking for an article, your best bet is usually to try the "Search" field on the left side of the page. It would have gotten you an answer even faster than the reference desk. --JayHenry 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McNeilus does sell them, or at least they try to.[3] Although we don't have an article on McNeilus, the company is mentioned in the articles on Oshkosh Truck, Dodge Center, Minnesota, and Morgantown, Pennsylvania. Oshkosh itself also sells mixer trucks.[4] --Lambiam ^Talk 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very gratefull for the answers provided, thank you; --Khunter 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last name (family name) conventions in Mexico

I am often bewildered when reading articles about Mexican politicians and celebrities. For instance, I've seen articles that referred to former President Carlos Salinas de Gotari as both Salinas and as Salinas de Gotari. Likewise with Andrés Manuel López Obrador. I've seen him written up as both López and López Obrador. Can you please clear up my confusion regarding the proper usage of last names (family names) for Mexicans?Jimbofromwilco 18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Spanish naming customs and Family name#Spanish Language areas. The two components making up the surname are the (first components of) the father's and the mother's surnames. For every-day use often only the first of the two is used. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and unanimity

What is the difference between consensus and unanimity? Even if there's no short answer, I'll be glad if people post any good information about the subject. A.Z. 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your question relates specifically to Wikipedia, then Wikipedia:Consensus is probably the best place to start. --LarryMac 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but it's not about Wikipedia. I want to learn more about consensus and unanimity. A.Z. 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is less strong than unanimity. It implies that there is some discussion, bargaining and compromise involved. Clarityfiend 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post. I think an unanimity could have discussion involved. It could even have been reached only after a lot of discussion. For instance, if there was a group of 100 people and only 99 supported something, and then all of them worked together to convince the dissenter of the rightness of their opinion and the dissenter was eventually totally convinced of it, then it would be a unanimity with discussion involved. A.Z. 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Unanimity on some issue means that every individual agrees with, or at least does not oppose the majority, without a single exception. Consensus is the agreement resulting from a group decision making process. Normally this does not require unanimity; there may be some dissenters. However, just a simple majority is not enough; you can use the term only if there is broad agreement in the group. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that, Lambiam. But who decides how many people a "broad agreement" takes? And is then consensus the same as a qualified majority? A.Z. 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose you're chairing a meeting, and as chair, next to making sure that the discussion on some item on which a decision should be reached proceeds in a fair and pleasant manner, you also have the task to promote conclusions being reached, rather than the discussion continuing interminably; after all, there may be more items on the agenda, and there is a limited amount of time, and, furthermore, endless discussions are demoralizing. So, when, after some time, no further new arguments or new compromise proposals are being introduced, and no-one appears to be inclined to change their positions anymore, the time has come to try to reach closure. If everyone agrees with each other, that's easy. If it is close to fifty-fifty, you probably have to call a vote – or have the decision postponed, if possible. But what if there is a clear majority? You could call a vote, but (a) that takes time; (b) it puts the minority of opponents in a visible position of being losers. Instead you say something like: "I think that the consensus is to ... Do we all agree?" The opponents, knowing that they are going to lose anyway if it comes down to a head count, can now just refrain from voicing disagreement, thus not losing face nor (further) goodwill from the majority. This notion of consensus, which plays a role in group dynamics, cannot be expressed in terms of a qualified majority. It is not a numerically expressible requirement agreed upon in advance. What also plays a role is the strength of the conviction of the participants; if the majority has a weak preference for A, but a sizable minority finds A totally unacceptable, then don't suggest that the consensus reached is A. If the same majority as before has a strong and deeply felt preference for A and further has made some serious compromises to satisfy the minority, while the same minority as before thinks that A as amended, while not bad, is not a real improvement, then you can reasonably suggest that a consensus position has been reached. Note also that consensus means the agreement itself, and not the criterion by which something is decided. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to compare with the term plurality, which means the largest group (not necessarily the majority) supports this candidate or view. Also, see quorum, which is the minimum number of people needed for a vote to be valid. This is used to prevent occurrences like only 10 legislators showing up to work during a hurricane and rewriting all the laws. StuRat 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a political scientist, so this is more of an etymological view than a technical one, but my sense is that unanimity is when everyone agrees (is of one animus), while a consensus is when everyone consents (which is weaker, since while each member might not agree, s/he doesn't disagree strongly enough to deny consent to the group action). --TotoBaggins 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of consensus is often contentious, no rhyme intended. Some people complain about the commonly heard statement of a scientific "consensus" that humans are contributing to global warming, because there are a few guys out there who disagree. Merriam-Webster gives two main definitions for consensus: unanimity, and majority opinion. -- Mwalcoff 01:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my wife about this. The consensus is that we are entirely in agreement, on all points, and so unanimous. She is right and I was wrong. DDB 08:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will have a long and happy marriage. Bless you. JackofOz aka Jack the Guru

I complement you, DDB, on your perfect comprehension of the feminine will! Jack is right: you will indeed have a long and successful marriage. My regards to your wife. Clio the Muse 09:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What were Samuel Beckett's political views

What were the political views of Samuel Beckett author of Godot? --Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency! 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Samuel Beckett: Damned to Fame, James Knowlson writes: "He was deeply committed to human rights; he firmly and totally opposed apartheid and was hostile from an early age to all forms of racism; he supported human rights movements throughout the world, including Amnesty International and Oxfam; he supported the freedom movement in Eastern Europe; and, although as a foreigner living in France he was wary of having his residential permit withdrawn, he was involved in a number of specific political cases." I don't think Beckett subscribed to any specific ideology such as socialism. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In The Cambridge Introduction to Samuel Beckett, Ronan McDonald says that he was 'an opponent of totalitarianism in all its forms.' Although he was involved in the wartime French Resistance, largely dominated by the Communist Party, he appears not in any way to have been politically compromised, or to have been attracted to Stalinist doctrines. Like Lambiam, I too have never come across any evidence that he had any specific ideological or party political commitments. I have to say, though, as a general observation, that the pessimistic tone of his major work is about as far as it is possible to get from the left-wing aesthetics of his day. In addition to Damned to Fame, Knowlson's Beckett Remembering: Remembering Beckett: Unpublished Interviews with Samuel Beckett and Memoirs of Those Who Knew Him is also quite useful. Clio the Muse 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

Sweeping the floor

A child is instructed to sweep a floor. He concludes that to sweep every single bit of the floor- he must sweep it in a systematical way, going up and down the floor, then moving a broom's length to the left or right. By doing this, it is deduced that the chance of sweeping every part of the floor is 100%. Therefore, it is deduced that if the child did not sweep it systematically, there would be a much less chance of sweeping 100% of the floor.

Would this be true, or is it a flaw in our logic? --Howzat11 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the alternative is that the child would sweep at random, then there would be a lower chance than the systematic approach. However, you can probably think of some other non-random, systematic approaches that would work just as well. For example: A) sweep any tile, then b) sweep any tile that has not been swept yet. Right there you guarantee that the floor will be swept after a given amount of time. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail )

Also, this question might be better suited at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being systematic only guarentees efficiency. Even random sweeping may end in the floor being completely swept. DDB 02:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! What was I thinking. After a given period of time, all of those method will eventually get the floor swept. But like you said, some methods are more efficient and get the job done sooner than others. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical idea?

Is there a phrase in philosophy (or any general study) for the attempt to forcefully shift one's own worldview, and how there's always a certain leap of faith required, beyond the simple tweaking of a couple minor points? An analogy might be living one's whole life underwater, then deciding to take a risk and go to the surface, even though by definition one has no experience to give any sense of what the surface might be like.

This might be equivalent to religious conversion, or even an "emotional conversion" — the way in which, say, an angry or nervous person has to "break through" a certain something (the nameless idea I'm trying to get at) in order to calm down, even though doing so currently makes no sense in his/her mindset. Or the way a nihilistic person might choose to break from nihilism, despite the fact that nihilism should in principle perpetually feed itself. Generally, those who don't believe in free will would no believe in the concept I'm trying to describe either, I would imagine. What major (or minor) philosophers have explored this realm? 66.195.208.91 02:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howabout the oft-misused and semi-buzzword paradigm shift? Or you can go back to Kuhn's own inspirations in psychology with the Gestalt switch. Or move into more Foucaldian territory with talk of changes in your episteme (though that's a much bigger shift than you are talking about — it's the shift of an entire era of thought). --24.147.86.187 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is really what you had in mind, but your preamble reminds me of Louis Althusser's contention that Karl Marx underwent an 'epistemological break' in about the year 1845, shifting away from his earlier roots in German idealist and humanist philosophy towards a fully developed historical materialism. Assuming you accept his contention-and there are many who do not-this is perhaps the best example of a paradigm shift in the history of western thought. Clio the Muse 03:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@[66.195] For another oft-misused, hackneyed expression (in some circles), look for "shifts in Assemblage point" (see e.g., Nagual (Castañeda)). Since your question did not request an assessment of credibility, none is offered. There are myriad other expressions that the classicists will offer when they respond to your question, and there are myriad others. dr.ef.tymac 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is too simple, but the attempt to forcefully shift one's own worldview sounds like doubt to me. Pfly 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt is not the shifting of a world view, Pfly: it is the beginning of wisdom. Clio the Muse 09:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kant experienced some kind of shift that he said was caused by Hume, but I don't really know much about it nor do I know if it was as dramatic as you're saying. Other editors may know about this and explain it better and say whether this applies to the question. A.Z. 04:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He said that reading Hume woke him from his 'dogmatic slumber' and sent him on the way to becoming a critical philosopher, uniting the rationalism of Leibnitz with the scepticism of the Scottish empiricist, his so-called 'Copernican Revolution in philosophy.' In practice, he simply slipped back into an even deeper sleep, haunted by unknowable things-in-themselves, lying beyond the limits of experience. Clio the Muse 05:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, there is the Derrida Stutter, whereby the true believer is not aware of the disparity between sincerely held, but oppositional, ideals. I liked the Logan's Run aspect of your question. I suspect Guantanomo Bay is not yet an adverb DDB 08:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive dissonance. Vranak

Daimonic. dr.ef.tymac 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh thanks for all the thoughtful responses. It seems that there's currently information lacking on the "Derrida Stutter" here, but I'm sure that can be amended — I might do it if I find the time. "Gesalt" and "Daimonic" are fun words to say (all right, and useful ideas to), and I also liked the elegance of the answer "doubt" (though I wouldn't quite equate it with the beginning of wisdom, given that one might start out with too much as well, even if we don't see that often in contemporary thinking).

The inherent issue I'm grappling with, the paradox-that-isn't-really-a-paradox, is the seeming truth that you will never be able to break out of your worldview from nothing but that worldview itself — you can't use pure Xian thinking to become a Zist, the ideological enemy of Xianists. You need to learn about Z, or at least something similar, in some form. This seems to overlap a good deal with the people and ideas y'all directed me to, so thanks again.

PS: What do you mean by "I suspect Guantanomo Bay is not yet an adverb"? 66.195.211.27 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this person meant "adjective" and not adverb, as in "I liked the Guantanamo Bay aspect of your question," possibly meaning something like breaking free from a maximum security prison (of the mind, in your case). Incidentally, check out stuff on relativism if you think there isn't enough doubt going around. Relativists, some may argue, are too sure of themselves, but they often doubt the most basic principles of everything else, even (especially?) science and mathematics. The Mad Echidna 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then. Hmm, paradigm as distopia, food for thought… well, I've never been a fan of relativism per se, at least when people make the mistake of thinking that's all they can be if they have any uncertainty in their beliefs. Anyway, thanx, Echidna. 66.195.210.117 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medæval Haircut

Whenever I see peasants portrayed in movies which take place in the Middle Ages or Medæval Times, the men always have the same haircut: sort of a bowl cut across the middle of their heads. A representation of the haircut can be seen on the image on this website(guy in the middle) . I want to know, did the peasants of the Middle Ages really cut their hair like that, or is it just something invented by movie directors? Also, what is this haircut called (other than "Medæval Style Bowl Cut" or the 'bob cut')? Thank you. --Codell^«T» 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Henry V of England-no peasant he-for the perfect 'pudding bowl' haircut! Charlton Heston emulated this look in The War Lord, a movie from the mid 1960s. And if you have a look at the sixth century depictions of the soldiers in the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna, Italy, you will note that the Byzantines have cuts not that different from the English king. The cut in your illustration is fairly typical of medieval styles, though they would be a lot less neat than that of Henry and his royal kin. What might be called the 'peasant fringe' survived until quite late in European history, and was still to be found in the nineteenth century in Tsarist Russia. It should go without saying that the peasants depicted in Holywood movies are a lot cleaner, and far more uniform in appearance, than the real thing would ever have been. If are able to look out a library copy of History Today, (you can call it up online-for a fee!) the May 1999 issue has an article entitled Scissors or Sword? The Symbolism of the Medieval Haircut by Simon Coates. His focus is more on 'upper class' coiffure, but it still gives some useful general guidance on a much neglected subject-the politics of hair! Clio the Muse 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for what the haircut is called, I suppose you could call it a pageboy. —An gr 14:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou.Codell^«T» 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating in a Relationship

1) How common would you guys say is it for someone to cheat in a relationship? Either normal or marriage. I'm starting to notice that many married couples, or just couples, cheat.

2) Is it REALLY a bad thing to cheat on your partner? I don't think it's really possible to say there's such a thing as "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong". Everyone has an idea of what their morals are because of experiences or what they've been taught, so it can't be concrete.

3) Psychologically, what drives people to cheat? (for the people that cheat, or want to) Making my own conclusions, I think it may have to do with evolution. We're supposed to have many partners to reproduce with for the safety of our species...? (safe from extinction) I still want another possible answer though. =) PitchBlack 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just a quick edit, I've also heard a phrase along the lines of "If you don't or can't get something from your partner, he/she's gonna find it somewhere else. PitchBlack 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Infidelity. 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. .dr.ef.tymac 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure that was the fairest response, given that that article is currently in a state of major flux, and really needs a bit of cleanup. It does, however, appear to list statistics for married couples in the United States,. Other statistics might be found by other research methods, but I'm not sure what source will give a reliable number on "general" infidelity.
As for "Is it REALLY a bad thing to cheat on your partner?" you might want to check out Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to see why a Wikipedia article would never give an answer to this. Anyway, if you assume that the cheating involves dishonesty (as opposed to being part of an open relationship), then what you're really asking is whether it's morally wrong to lie; see honesty for a couple of philosophical answers to this (although I think it could probably be expanded a bit as well). My personal, totally-not-Wikipedia-endorsed answer is yes, it's wrong to lie. But it doesn't have to be the end of the world either; many couples seem to forgive, get past that, and go on to live happily. A dissenting opinion might be provided by sex columnist Dan Savage, who occasionally advocates infidelity as a way to keep relationships healthy.
Ideas which may help you with your third question may be found at Evolutionary psychology, and hopefully that article will point you to some good sources on the subject you're specifically interested in. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From an evolutionary perspective it is good for the individual cheater because they can 'hedge their bets' by combining their genes with a more diverse gene pool, so it is more likely that some of their offspring will survive. It is bad for the cheated-on partner because they may end up spending resources helping someone elses offspring to survive. So a cheater promotes their own reproductive fitness while possibly decreasing their partners.

Hopefully someone can provide a good wiki link to some articles on reproduction strategies, i don't know where to look. -- Diletante 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for #2 it depends on the individual couples — some people have more open relationships than others. But the sure-fire way to know whether it is "bad" or not is to ask yourself, "Would I mind if my partner cheated on me?" Usually when people think in the hypothetical they end up finding ways to excuse behavior when it is their behavior but not their partners (i.e. the common trope of one partner wanting an "open relationship" but being horrified when the other partner starts dating someone else). While one cannot generalize for all relationships, one usual factor in any close romantic relationship is trust, and cheating is usually, by definition, a violation of trust. In that sense I would say it is generally not healthy for a relationship, but I might also add — just to complicate things — that in many cases relationships themselves aren't healthy for individual psychologies. Which is kind of the double-bind for relationships — part of humans seem to not want to be monogamous, while another part does way monogamy, at least in respect to how their partners act. If I were going to generalize wildly I'd suggest that this is the essential conflict at the heart of every relationship. --24.147.86.187 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not cut and dry what cheating is. Does one include 'window shopping' as cheating? A newlywed friend of mine was on honeymoon, walking with his wife. They passed a woman in a bikini and my friend walked into a telegraph pole. His wife accused him oif not watching where he was going, but the girl .. It is human behaviour to test boundaries. It is poor form to cross some boundaries. People today live longer within a relationship than they were conditioned in the past. However, some couples manage to survive without cheating. Mental maturity is not acquired in males before age 25, on average. I don't judge immature behaviours, accept in social terms. Society does not encourage monogamy, but beauty worship. A mature adult is responsible for their choices. Some don't choose monogamy. DDB 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Powers Plans

Did the Central Powers have any plans for the reorganization of Europe for if they had won World War I?

--Shadarian 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, Shadarain, you should have a look at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which will give you some practical indicators. The book you need to refer to on this subject is the by now classsic Germany's Aims in the First World War by Fritz Fischer. Germany's chief aim was essentially to eliminate France as a world power and to chase Britain from its traditional role as a power broker in European affairs. A new political and economic unit would have been created, which Chancellor Bethman-Hollweg and others, refered to as Mitteleuropa. By this Germany would have retained control of Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, the Baltic States and large parts of northern and eastern France directly, and the Ukraine, White Russia and other parts of the east indirectly. It is also likely to have demanded considerable colonial gains, though I do not believe there is any precise information on this particular subject. Austria-Hungary had much less to gain for itself, other than parts of central Serbia and possibly the western Ukraine and Rumania, but would in essence have been an economic and political dependancy of Germany in the said Mitteleuropa. Bulgaria would have attained the borders it formerly gained by the Treaty of San Stefano, subsequently lost by the Treaty of Berlin, and the Ottoman Empire parts of the Caucasus and possibly Egypt, though again I have no precise information on this. Clio the Muse 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the spelling of Mitteleuropa above. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lambiam! Clio the Muse 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary to the above I found this lovely propaganda map [5] illustrating what some sections of the French press feared might be the outcome of the war! The French state still exists, just, but Britain has been reduced to a German colony, the implications of which can only be guessed at! My God, just think: all that Wagner! The horror, the horror! Propaganda aside, there was, I have since discovered, also a plan for Mittelafrika., paralleling that for Mitteleuropa , which would have given Germany control of a huge chunk of territory around the Congo Basin. Clio the Muse 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A millenium of imposed Wagner would indeed have been a horror, but just think of the upside - all that lovely Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Mahler and maybe even Mendelssohn. JackofOz 04:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could take Mahler in very large doses, but he was Austrian, was he not? You probably know, Jack, that Mendelssohn was a great favourite of the Victorians, including the dear old Queen. Did you also know that when Wagner was in London he would only conduct the music of the Jewish composer while wearing gloves? Clio the Muse 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mahler was born in modern-day Czech Republic (then the Bohemian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), but moved to Vienna. And Mozart and Schubert were Austrians too, however the Germans did incorporate Austria into Germany, so under the map you provided there would have been no distinction made - they would all have become propagandised into "German composers". Same for the Johann Strausses and the other Viennese waltz kings. And many, many others.

Mendelssohn was much loved in England, and chose England for the premieres of some of his major works. The German composers have always had a strong following across the Channel (just as English composers like Elgar, Delius and Holst had their early strong following in Germany when England wanted little to do with them). However, listening to, say, Beethoven because you want to is a different proposition from listening to him because you have no choice (even if you love his music). Even the British would have railed at that. JackofOz 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's resistance to Ireland's independence

Having recently seen The Wind That Shakes the Barley and read our articles on the Irish War of Independence and on Irish history during the late 19th century, I am left wondering why Britain was unwilling to grant effective independence to Ireland, or to the 26 counties that later became the Republic. When it was clear by 1918 that Irish public opinion (outside of Ulster) was overwhelmingly behind some form of independence and by early 1919 that the British would face violent resistance to their continued rule, why did Britain undertake such a brutal and bloody campaign of repression? Why didn't the British government call for an early truce and the dominion solution that was ultimately adopted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a solution that had long since been tried and tested in Canada and Australia? Marco polo 18:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a highly complex issue, Marco, but Britain had a far greater emotional, political and strategic attachment to Ireland than any other territory under its control. In the nineteenth century Prime Minister Gladstone's attempt to grant a measure of Irish Home Rule effectively split the Liberal Party. The Home Rule Act of 1914, the only of three such measures that passed into law, may very well have brought Britain into civil war but for the onset of the European crisis. Neverthless, the measure remained in place, and is likely to have been implemented in whole or part at the conclusion of the Great War, but for the new radical dimension in Irish politics, brought on by the Easter Rising of 1916. In the wake of the victory against Germany few in the British government were immediately prepared to grant concessions to political terrorists, as they perceived the Republicans, instead embarking on a campaign of militant supression, which had the backing of Winston Churchill, among others. A political settlement was finally reached, but with Michael Collins and the less militant section of the Republican movement, which would leave the north under the direct and the south under the indirect control of Britain. On your wider point the concessions granted to Canada after the Durham Report were born, in part, from the failure to make similar concessions to the thirteen Colonies. Wisdom is sometimes born from experience. Clio the Muse 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it a mistake to interpret Ireland's current structure as being solely a result of London's decision making. which isn't to suggest anyone has. Ireland's Northern state has not wanted to leave the UK. The separatists (from the UK) have been vocal, but not representative. Overseas support for terrorism in Ireland has not helped issues.

The solution negotiated with Michael Collins was good at the time, but the IRA, whom Collins helped found and train, killed him under orders from later Irish Statehead Éamon de Valera. de Valera later admitted his mistake, but the killings continued. I feel, had Northern Ireland wanted to unify with the Irish Free State, London would have let them. DDB 03:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as Ireland's 'current structure' is concerned, DDB, you might want to look at the page on the Plantation of Ulster for some background information. In Ireland history has the longest of shadows. You are quite right, though, that London would long have conceded the wish of all of the people of Northern Ireland ( a province rather than a state) to unite with the Republic, a move that clearly would have saved a lot of expense and much trouble, if such a wish had ever been expressed. It has not, nor is it ever likely to be. However, it may be that, in the course of time, the process of European integration will supersede history-even history in Ireland. Clio the Muse 08:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the reference, clio, very enlightening. I usually view rulers in terms of their times. Eliz 1st needed to juggle, finesse and occasionally do nothing in order to obtain her goals. James first was in the sorrier position of losing anything he touched, unless he became a despotic tyrant. Still, it doesn't excuse modern people who hearken back to excuses they know little of, and are unrelated to, so as to justify their petty extortions. DDB 09:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chak De

This question applies to Punjabis only. What does "Chak De" means in Punjabi?

You might be better off at the Language desk.

\sim

Lenoxus " * " 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can try the Language Desk, but we rarely have respondents who speak Indian languages. A more fruitful approach might be to contact one of the people in the list of Wikipedians whose native language is Punjabi with this question. Marco polo 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a gesture along the lines of a high five. No, I do not speak Punjabi, but I asked a friend who does! Clio the Muse 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus' crucifixion

If Jesus was crucified, I have a few questions about it. My first is, why did the Jewish people, allegedly, call for his execution? Second, why did they choose crucifixion over other forms of death? My last question is to do with Jesus and not his execution. Why do people believe he was capable of performing things that are seemingly impossible; for example, walking on water, or feeding the five thousand with just a few loaves of bread. Forgive my ignorance, but it all seems a little far fetch'd. This question is from a Jewish person, who has a limited understanding of Christian doctrine --Hadz^Talk 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews. The Jews had no right to capital punishment, only their Roman overlords had that right. Corvus cornix 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, why are Jews labelled the Christ-killer --Hadz^Talk 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corvus cornix is right that, according to Christian scripture, Jesus was executed by the Romans, who often used crucifixion as a means of execution. However, according to Christian scripture, the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, was urged to do so by Jewish elites, particularly the Sanhedrin, who saw Jesus' following as a threat to their power. In the scripture, guilt can be assigned to both the Roman governor and the Sanhedrin. Interpretation of these passages has shifted over the centuries. Some have suggested that early Christians blamed Jews in general as a way of distinguishing themselves from the Jewish religion, from which they had broken away, or as a way of currying favor with Rome during and after the Jewish-Roman wars. Modern Christian scholarship has generally rejected blaming Jews for the death of Jesus and instead see his execution as the fault of all humanity, for whose sins Jesus is sacrificed. This makes sense in the context of the doctrine that Jesus' resurrection and message of forgiveness is a sign of God's forgiveness of humanity for sin. As for the miraculous stories, most mythical founders of religions have fantastic stories associated with them. Fundamentalist Christians see these stories as literal truth, while most mainstream theologists see them as metaphorical. Marco polo 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) According to Matthew 27:11–26 – which many Christians believed or believe to be the word of God, or inspired by God, or in any case an accurate historical account – when Pilate offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and a "notorious prisoner" named Barabbas, the crowd, persuaded by the chief priests and the elders, chose to have Barrabas released and Jesus crucified. As to the ability of Jesus to perform miracles, wouldn't it be stranger if God could not perform miracles? After all, most Christians believe that Jesus was God. See further Christian views of Jesus. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(also after edit conflict) They are no longer called Christ-killers by anyone with a fair view of history. Pope John Paul II apologised to the Jews for the persecution they suffered over 20 centuries at the hands of Catholics. In Christian theology, it was essential for Jesus to die in order to fulfill the prophecies about the Messiah, so blaming the instrument of that death was always problematical. As for the impossible things Jesus is said to have performed, these come under the category of miracles. They have no scientific explanation, so one either simply believes he had such supernatural powers and he really did do them (after all, he is said to be the Son of God, that is, God himself in human form), or one does not. JackofOz 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for why people would believe in miracles then, this was before the rise of science, and people would believe just about anything. Moses, if you recall, not only performed miracles, but also met an Egyptian priest who performed miracles (turning staffs into snakes). Moses, however, was able to perform more impressive miracles, which supposedly showed that his God was stronger than the Egyptian gods. Another possible interpretation is that the Egyptian priests were faking their miracles, but this also suggests that Moses would have known the same tricks, having been raised by them. StuRat 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle#In Japanese philosophy. Vranak

Hadz, the Easter story forms the basis of much Christian faith. It is also an expression of fulfilment of Old Testament doctorine. What the others have written so far is valid. We know some facts regarding the crucifixion that sheds light on the story, from a modern perspective. Most people crucified suffocated, as their feet did not support them. However, when Jesus died, a roman soldier opened him with a spear, revealing blood and water. When a person suffers a major heart attack, their blood can seperate under the centripetal forces to blood and water, which is a nineteenth century discovery.

While no sane person blames Jews for the crucifixion, there is a suggestion that those tribes present have been cursed. I understand that most Jewish peoples today are decended from tribes that had migrated away from Judea before the crucifixion. Migrating to Russia, before spreading to the rest of the world during the times of persecution from Tsars and Communists. Those tribes that had been present at the time of the crucifixion were dispersed by the Romans throughout the empire. Those Jewish peoples that went to Western European nations endured persecutions so that today, most Jewish peoples have Russian sounding last names. PLO propaganda has it that there are no decendants of Jewish peoples from biblical times, that Jewish peoples of today merely adopted the faith from migrants. Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ movie is a dramatic representation which doesn't explain what happened very well, but which shows the apparent story. DDB 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assigning culpability to the descendants of those present at the Crucifixion (Jews, Romans, authority figures, rabble, et al.) is an issue in itself. Apart from that: the relative proportion of Jews throughout history whose origins were linked to the population of Roman-occupied Palestine early in the First Century would require an understanding of Jewish migration patterns, which are far more extensive and somewhat other than what DDB has indicated. -- Deborahjay 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Jews of the 1st century had no right to capital punishment, then why were they able to stone people to death? Dead is dead, whether by crucifixion or stoning. See Saint Stephen as well as the woman Jesus is reported to have saved by saying "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone (John 8:7)." Edison 04:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, Romans tended to allow civil administration. Death by stoning was for certain offences like marital infidelity, which wasn't an issue Roman civil administration needed to involve itself. Jesus was accused of insurection, Barrabas accused of theft. Both capital offences. Well done Deborah for those references. They are appropriate, and I approve. DDB 06:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jesus's miracles: Yes, Jesus (allegedly) performed miracles, but according to Devarim 13, miracles can come from other than God.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

New motive revealed?

Did the Iranian terrorists capture the British sailors and marines and force them to confess to straying into Iranian waters simply as a logical basis to back up their claim that the waters the British were in were not Iraqi waters but their own? Nebraska bob 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly going to take some time-if ever-for all of the details of this affair to come out. I'm not sure, though, if it is either helpful, or meaningful, to refer to the Iranian coastal units as 'terrorists.'. What I would really like to know is why such a small British force was allowed to operate in such dangerous waters without adequate back-up or support, especially foolish when one considers that this has happened before? On a more general point, Iran is an important regional power, and there can be no solution to the political and strategic problems in the area without dialogue. Clio the Muse 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure in which news report the captives were quoted that the Iranian "coastal units" changed from their uniforms into black with hoods and lined the captives against a wall but that is certainly the behavior of terrorists and everyone I know is defined by what they do or do not do and how they act or do not act. Nebraska bob 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a reference desk issue, but opinion. My opinion is that the Brit troops were doing, as they were supposed, the job of looking for pirates/smugglers, and were not equipped to deal what is an act of war. A similar incident has happened when North Koreans opened fire on a south Korean police boat, or when China forced down a US spy plane. The activity is typical of the cold war. DDB 03:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mankind has always been faced with the problem of sewage but as time has progressed mankind has improved its dealing with the problem while knowing it will never go away. This is how I characterize terrorists. They have always been around and a problem for mankind from the beginning but mankind has learned to deal with them better just like it has with sewage. Terrorists will never go away because they are the result of the workings of society but they can be delt with by society in the same way as society deals with sewage under normal conditions and whenever a mishap occurs. Nebraska bob 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It always worries me when people use expressions like 'mankind has done this or mankind has done' that, just as the use of injudicious terms like 'sewage' in reference to human beings worries me, with all of the horror this 'distancing' has conjured up over time. It may not be very fashionable to say so but, in the shade of Euripides, I too believe that only reason can overthrow terror. However, it's obvious to me that you are on a soapboxing crusade, Nebraska bob, and there is very little I can say that will make any difference to your manner of thinking or your mode of expression. I do hope you begin to think of these matters, though, with a little less passion. My best wishes. Clio the Muse 07:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sewage can be quite a good thing if it is handled with knowledge and respect. It has abundant nutrients which are needed by the plants upon which we feed; allow it to contaminate a field of spinach, on the other hand, and it may present a problem no one needs. Acts of war inspire passion in me especially when they are to serve a soapbox crusader who is on the wrong side of the law, like the President of Iran. I consider my reaction, though not my feelings, to be almost benign. What concerns me and what you might like to think about is that terrorists may be doing these things for no other reason than to inspire passion in people who are even more dispassionate than you might like me to be. Nebraska bob 09:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is obviously within your power to deny them that victory, if at no other level than the personal. You may never have any other opportunity to do so. Clio the Muse 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand the emotinal need for answers and resultion when the world goes wonky. But questions about motive (WHY someone did something) are only able to be answered via reference if a guilty party admits motive...and, even then, people lie. Until an official representative can provide proof of their reasoning and justification leading up to an act, all we can offer is conspiracy and conjecture.

Which is a long-winded way of reminding folks that conspiracy and conjecture are inherently POV, and are anathema to the reference desk. Questions like this are emotionally valid, but -- due to their inherent inability to be answered with any certainty or fact -- out of place here. Jfarber 13:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jfarber Although the recent Nebraskan musings and speculation about political motives may indeed be inimical to the ideals you cite, the ongoing discussion suggests not everyone agrees this kind of conjecture and emotional invective is off-limits for the "reference desk." dr.ef.tymac 14:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I see (but do not agree with) support for conjecture as a valid response for some TYPES of questions, it is true. But I've been following those discussions, and nowhere have I seen it suggested that questions which are fundamentally ONLY answerable by original research -- that is, by asking people as-yet-unasked questions about their own motives, and then accepting those answers as fact -- have a place here. But I may have missed something. Can you help me find where, in this discussion, there is support for such types of questions -- that is, for questions which are inherently not answerABLE by reference work of any type? Jfarber 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jfarber since, personally, I agree with your conclusions, I'd rather not elaborate here, and thereby inadvertently lend credibility to the alternate viewpoint. It's enough to know you've been following the discussion, which was not obvious at first because you make noteworthy points here that I do not recall seeing there. But then, perhaps *I* may have missed something. dr.ef.tymac 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the Iranian units were outside of their own territory, but calling them terrorists is extremely biased and makes a decent discussion impossible. If they were terrorists, they a) would have just killed then b) would have killed civilians instead. Their treatment might have been harsh, if that makes them terrorists, the USA-ers working on Guantanamo are terrorists just as well.

Concrete Mixing Trucks & Corporations manufaturing them

Which corporation has the lion's share, or market share in manufacturing concrete mixing trucks??? Are the corporations Terex & McNeilus the only corporations that are competing??? --Khunter 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no data about market share, but in Europe Stetter GmbH is definitely a player. The Liebherr Group is another manufacturer[6], but my browser does not agree with their web design, and I could not quite figure out what and how. Here is a claim that SANY in China makes them, but I could not find a mention on SANY's own product page. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiro Agnew vandalism?

Spiro Agnew, former US Vice President Under "Trivia and Pop Culture" near the end of the article:

In Yippie phone phreaking newsletter TAP Issue #22 (October 1973) it is noted that Spiro Agnew's name is an anagram of "Grow a penis."

Is this vandalism??? or not? VK35 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not vandalism; the source given verifies it. In the future you'll want to post questions like this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Picaroon 02:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, so it is! (the anagram, I mean). Trivial, yes; vandalism, no. Clio the Muse 02:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our style manual says that "lists of facts, as found in trivia sections, are better presented within the context of the text rather than in a section of unrelated items." If the "true but trivial" bothers you as much as it bothers me, feel free to restructure the article accordingly. Jfarber 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism, but typical of those beholden to leftwing ideology who feel it acceptable to insult, belittle and lie those that don't share their views. Views and tolerance as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That last link was the one I was looking for, the rest are related sidetracks DDB 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why pointing out that someone's name anagrams to something funny and slightly offcolor is insulting, belittling, and it certainly isn't lying. The anagram isn't a commentary on the person anymore than my friend BRAD is DRAB; the only difference is that BRAD isn't famous, and DRAB isn't really noteworthy enough to mention in the press. Jfarber 04:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. There was already a vote on it in the discussion page (14 to 6). Clarityfiend 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing here is not so much about trivia as about relevance. I sometimes learn a lot from relevant trivia but if it’s not relevant and not trivia it still belongs in the trash. Nebraska bob 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ DDB The misdeeds of some interloping malcontents notwithstanding, it is disappointing to see such a broad and unqualified generalization against leftwing ideology. dr.ef.tymac 15:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Check again with what I wrote, dr.ef.tymac, you should notice I was specific, not broad and sweeping. To further clarify, I only meant those who felt it acceptable to .. I'm disappointed if you identify with them. DDB 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come now DDB, you can see that the grammar of the sentence can be easily parsed both ways. But such pathetic duplicity in language is typical of those beholden to rightwing ideology who feel it acceptable to generalize wildly. ;-) --24.147.86.187 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I get the joke, but for the record, I'm conservative, not right wing. I have a distrust of the politics of those who excuse the dropping of an atomic bomb on a civilian population .. twice. Smile Harry. DDB 01:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ DDB I'll buy that. Thanks for the clarification and for correcting my mistake. I'll call my buddies and cancel the scheduled protest outside your flat. :-D. dr.ef.tymac 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quick! I was going to add, dref didn't identify himself with that group, but it is really easy to impute meaning. DDB 01:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keys of musical instruments

Orchestration would be simple if all instruments were in the key of C. Why are trumpets in B flat, French Horns in F, etc etc, etc? Plus many compositions are written for an instrument in one key but universally transposed to the actual key of the instrument used. Edison 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest explanation is that then one can use the same fingering, and read the same notes with that fingering, for instruments of different sizes within the same family. See transposing instrument. The clarinets and saxophones are good examples of this, with more than four sizes of each. Read a middle C on the staff, and it sounds respectively a Bb below for the standard Bb clarinet, Eb above for the high Eb clarinet, Bb a ninth below for the Bb bass clarinet, Bb two octaves and a second below for the Bb contrabass clarinet, etc. These days many composers write their scores at "concert pitch" so the conductor does not need to read the transposed part (but the player sees the part transposed). Antandrus (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for award list and particular book

Sorry if this is impossible, but I knew it once, forgot it, and it is now driving me nuts. I once came across a list of young adult books ranked by the number of awards and honors each book recieved; I know Monster was near the top of the list. Any idea of the name of that award and a link where I can find that list again? All my keyword searches are netting me nothing beyond a list of hundreds of awards or something aimed at adult readers, not young adult literature.
The second question, is I remember a novel near the top of that list that was based in a small town slightly in the future just as the county became invaded; a girl trys to evade the occupying forces. Any idea what the title of the book might be? I know, shot in the dark, but an bibliophile can hope. Thanks! ~~ubercreatrix —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.164.85 (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think this is what you are looking for: [7]. Enjoy. --Sn0wflake 12:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin usage in the House of Lords Minutes

I've asked this question elsewhere (not the Ref Desk) and got no response, so here's hoping.

In the article for George Jellicoe, 2nd Earl Jellicoe is this: The House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings for Die Martis 23° Novembris 1999 records ....

Why is Latin used for this reference?

(In case anyone wonders why this isn't posted to the Language desk, I know the meaning of the words but the issue is why Latin is used in this context. I'm sure the reasons are historical, hence the Humanities desk.) JackofOz 07:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[8] This pdf says it used to be all in Latin once, and then eventually things started to be written in English and only the dates in Latin remained. A.Z. 08:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But why? Clio? Anyone? JackofOz 04:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, never ask why when it comes to the dear old House of Lords; just be thankful that the minutes are not all in Latin. They still, so I understand, have pegs for hanging up their swords! Clio the Muse 04:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, you surprise me. For one normally so replete with scads of curious historical minutiae, you are somewhat reticent on this occasion. Has the Easter bunny got to you? I'm quite happy to accept that they do it this way because they've always done it this way, and one simply does not question hallowed British tradition. I'm not questioning the tradition, I'm wondering how it came to become a tradition. Might it have something to do with those who wrote the transcripts of proceedings back in the good old days - presumably the scarce literate people such as monks, who wrote all their Church-related texts in Latin? JackofOz 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jack, I though it was the residue you were interested in, rather than the history of the record keeping practice as such. But, yes, you are quite right, this is a tradition that dates back to the monkish scribes of the Middle-Ages. English only began to make its rude appearance in any volume during the reign of Henry VIII. By the beginning of the seventeenth century, Latin had given way in all but some formalised residues, including the use of dates, as you have noted. And as far as my Easter Bunny is concerned, he is still curled up in bed, warm and toastie! Clio the Muse 07:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Clio. Does the House of Commons have a similar tradition? If not, why (and when) did they change to English dates if the Lords preferred to retain Latin? JackofOz 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They did have a similar tradition, though as far as I can determine the use of Latin in the records of the Commons ceased to be standard practice in the nineteenth century, though I do not have a precise date for the change. Clio the Muse 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-American Latino Presidents

Besides Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Fidel Castro of Cuba, are there any Anti-American Latino presidents? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.133.10 (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It really depends on what you mean by "anti-American". That is a very loosely defined term. Many presidents of Latin-American countries have made remarks, or pursued or supported policies, that may not have been in the best interests of U.S. companies – and particularly not those with an interest in their countries. Some people indeed consider Evo Morales and Lula, for example, to be anti-American, but with that looseness of the concept you could in the same vein call the current POTUS anti-Brazilian, anti-Bolivian, anti-French, and in fact about anti-most-of-the-rest-of-the-world. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chavez claims to be anti-Bush, not anti-American. A.Z. 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would go further than Lambiam and-sticking my neck out-say that there are no, nor have there ever been, Latin American Presidents who were 'anti-North American' as such. That is not to say, of course, that there have not been a great many opposed to specific aspects of American policy in the continent. Even in the good-old, bad-old days, when Latin leaders were largely US sponsored dictators, they could sometimes stand up and kick, as did Alfredo Stroessner during Jimmy Carter's human rights crusade. Clio the Muse 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rhetoric employed to get in government in South America is no more sincere than elsewhere. Hugo Chavez demonising US leadership is not very different from those employed within the US for electioneering purposes. Both Chavez and Hilary Clinton have labelled President Bush as 'stupid' or 'incompetent.' One might think that Communist leaders like Castro did not need to employ such rhetoric, as they are not elected through popular election of the general population, but that would ignore realities; Castro needs to justify, constantly, keeping his people in poverty. Because the US has, and has had, such power and influence in South America. In much the same way as political decisions made under James 1st of England motivates separatists in Ireland, decisions made by the US influence internal politics of South American nations. Further, the feeling that is anti US is as strong as the IRA's militant opposition to London based politics. DDB 22:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am probably as opposed to Communism as you are, DDB-just as I am opposed to dictatorship of any colour-but Castro has done far less to 'keep the Cuban people in poverty', as you put it, than the economic embargo imposed on the country by successive American administrations. I would even go so far as to say that this strategy has effectively shored up Castro's dictatorship over the years, allowing him to draw on the deep wells of Cuban patriotism. More understanding, and considerably more subtlety by Washington, would, I believe, have driven him from his throne long years since. He did not survive the tsunami that swept the Communist world in the Revolutions of 1989 by force alone. Clio the Muse 22:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view the anti American rhetoric in terms of anti Communism, nor do I lay poverty solely at Castro's doorstep. Rhetoric is a device. I think it impossible for any reasonable person to endorse Che Guevarra's acts, but for some, rhetoric has given them license. It is true that much of the Rhetoric is personal, and directed against the US President, but it still remains anti US Rhetoric. DDB 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I occurs to me that every Latin American political leader must share some of the sentiments of Porfirio Diaz, one time President of Mexico, when he said Poor Mexico; so far from God, so close to the USA. Clio the Muse 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Chechens/Greek/Turkish ethnic tensions and population transfers

Hello, I was reading Wikipedia articles and I have some more questions that some might be able to answer.

1. How many people were living in Greece after the population exchange in 1923. I'm just trying to get an idea of the impact of the transfer.~

2. Where did those Greeks settle? Did they take Turkish homes (I guess not since there were less Turks moving out)? Did the Greek government build thousands of new homes?

3. Didn't this create tensions between Greeks and the thousands of "new Greeks" joining them? Can Greeks still hear whether or not people moved in from Turkey by listening to the family's accent?

4. What exactly was the criterion for Turkey's modern borders? Judging from the population transfers, I'd say the idea was to make a quite homogenous nation state, for people who'd say they themselves were Turks (and spoke Turkish?) But what could have been the reason to include the lands with a Kurdish majority? Was is just brute force or were they unwilling to let Turks living there become a minority themselves in an independent Kurdish nation?

5. Why is it that some ethnic groups in Russia turn against Moscow and seek independence, and others don't? I mean : Chechens are (mostly secular) muslims and speak another language, but Ossetians speak a different language as well and many of them (including victims in Beslan) are muslims just as well!

6. I find it amazing to hear that almost all Chechens and Ingush were deported to Kazakhstan.. what happened to their homes and cities when they were gone? Just left to go to waste?(I know Ossetians took some of the land)

7. How exactly do the Armenians justify their claim that Nagorno Karabach is theirs, I was reading [9] and it seems obvious that it used to be completely Azeri.

8. How exactly were the borders of nations like Kazakhstan and Ukraine determined? I mean, they used to be part of the Russian Empire and after the revolution, they constructed those constituent republics. Isn't kind of their own fault that some many Russians got stranded in other countries. Since the Russians pretty much ruled the Soviet Union, would it have been more interesting for them if they held a census every ten years to expand Russia's borders? (I mean : what makes the Russians in the eastern part of Ukraine more Ukrainian than Russian)

Sorry for the many questions, they are sort of related in a way. I will be very grateful if you can answer some. Evilbu 15:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, Evilbu, what a lovely set of complex questions! Your mind has clearly been working out of hours! Anyway, I will respond in like terms in trying to provide you with at least some answers.

For the Greek and Turkish part of your inquiry there are several pages of relevance: Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the Treaty of Sèvres, the Greco-Turkish War, the Treaty of Lausanne and finally-phew!-the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. If you have any energy left I would also suggest, assuming you wish to go into some of these issues in greater depth, that you read Atatürk: the Rebirth of a Nation by J. B. Kinross, and Atatürk by Andrew Mango, a superb biography of the great Turkish leader which I cannot recommend highly enough.

As a result of the Turkish victory in the War of Independence, and the subsequent peace settlement of Lausanne, approximately one and a half million Greeks were expelled from eastern Thrace and parts of Asia Minor, contrasting with the half million Turks who were forced to leave Greek territory. Clearly at least part of the Greek diaspora would have been accommodated in former Turkish homes, but this would still leave a million people adrift. Most of them were settled in parts of Attica and Macedonia, where the government established a number of new townships and suburbs. There was also wider settlement in the towns across Greece, and even today many still have what is called The Refugees' Quarter. It is a reasonable deduction that there would have been tensions between the local people and the migrants, some of whom came from as far away as Trebizond in eastern Anatolia, but I have no specific information on this. Accent, and dialect differences, must have been acute at the time, but I imagine these have declined over the years.

In essence the Treaty of Lausanne was no more than a recognition of political and strategic realities. The Turkish army already had possession of Smyrna, the main Greek base in western Anatolia, and was widely established across the rest of the Asian hinterland of the old Ottoman Empire. In Thrace, the border between Bulgaria, Greece and the new Turkish Republic was essentially that which existed prior to the outbreak of the First World War. The new agreement also subsumed the earlier Treaty of Ankara between France and Turkey, which established the border between the Republic and the French Mandate of Syria (not, incidentally, the exact border that exists today). The fate of the Kurds was left undecided, in the rather empty and pious hope that the matter would be settled by the League of Nations, though the earlier Treaty of Sèvres had, in fact, provided for the creation of a separate Kurdish state. In political terms Turkey's south eastern border became something of an open wound. Established there by force of arms, the Turks successfully supressed several rebellions, including one that had been backed by the British from the nearby Mandate of Iraq, which led to the brief establishment of the Republic of Ararat in 1927.

If anything the pattern of ethnic tensions and conflicts bequeathed to the world by the old Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Union are even more complex. Largely owing to the superficial treatment of contemporary news media, most people are unaware that the present Chechyn conflict is merely the reappearance of a very old pattern. There is a Wikipedia article on the Caucasian War, not, I have to say, among the best, but at least it will give you some clues on the topic, as will the slightly better History of Chechnya. The Chechyns did not settle down easily to Russian occupation, rising again during the war between Russia and Turkey in the late 1870s. A further conquest of the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus followed by Communist forces in the early 1920s. During the Second World War the entire Chechyn population was exiled to Kazakhstan on the orders of Stalin, where a great many died. They were only allowed to return to their homes in 1957, where they found a statue of their old Tsarist conquerer, Aleksey Yermolov, erected in 1949 by the Soviets, of all people, with the inscription There is no people under the sun more vile and deceitful than this one. Other Muslim minorities have indeed, as you indicate, adjusted more readily to Russian hegemony; but they do not have the history of the Chechyns.

Whatever the historic population of Nagorno-Karabakh may have been, it is now predominantly Armenian, and it is upon that alone that the area has established a shadowy independence. Most of the former Muslim population of what was, at one time, the Karabakh khanate moved to Persia soon after the Tsarist conquest in the early years of the nineteenth century. Under the encouragement of the Imperial Government, many Armenian families moved into the vacated area, particulary after the 1828 Treaty of Turkmanchai. Geographically and ethnically, the area is still surrounded by Azeri territory and people, hence the current problem.

The precise borders of both Khazakhstan and the Ukraine were established during Soviet times, though these had both been Russian territories for some time before this. I'm not quite sure how to respond to your question about 'fault', as patterns of Russian migration were well-established, with government encouragement, predating the political upheavals of the early 1990s by many years. The people in the eastern Ukraine are 'more Russian' than Ukranian, to reverse your contention, because they, well, speak Russian, rather than the Ukranian dialect, more dominant in the west.

I hope this helps, but please hit me with more questions, if you wish! Regards Clio the Muse 19:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My ex-wife and my children are descendants of Aleksey Yermolov. Beat that! :) JackofOz 04:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really and truly? Did you, perhaps, feel the distant whip of Tsarist oppression, Jack? Clio the Muse 04:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really and truly. When my wife and I separated I vowed never to speak ill of her, so I must decline to make any comment about whips or oppression. :) JackofOz 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Says that Existence Precedes Essence?

Are there major modern phylosophies, other than existentialism, that purport to existence precedes essence?--JLdesAlpins 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, the concept belongs uniquely to existentialism in general, and to Jean-Paul Sartre, the man who coined the phrase, in particular. Clio the Muse 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is that philosophy, related to the worship of Science, which notes that people are comprised of star matter made before they ever became their individualised selves? It sounds similar to your question .. DDB 21:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That, DDB, would be just the reverse-essence preceding existence. Clio the Muse 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ Clio. I understand Essence to be that spirit unique to an individual, comprised of generic elements. The movie Metropolis explored the concept regarding an automaton. Even more interesting, parts of an individual tend to only be with that person for some five years max, except maybe the calcium of bone. In such a case, the elemental existence precedes the identity formed person :D (I had to clarify that with my wife). DDB 22:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, DDB, but what you are saying is far more akin to traditional concepts of the human soul, the very thing that Sartre was placing under challenge in his contention that existence precedes essence. But, please, do not simply take my word for this, read Being and Nothingness, Nausea, and Existentialism is a Humanism, and say goodbye to your personal life for some considerable time to come. Clio the Muse 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It always puzzles me to see people forwarding analytical exposition of Being and Nothingness. Admittedly, I read it a long time ago without the benefit of a scholarly context into which to place this work, but it always struck me as the linguistic equivalent of abstract expressionism ... fun to look at, thought provoking, but not amenable to any single authoritative explanation. I'm sure someone out there will be happy to prove me wrong. dr.ef.tymac 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's great fun, though, Dreftymac! Try reading it side-by-side with James Joyce's Ulysses (one of my all time favourite novels), chapter about. A whole brave new world will open up in the eye of your mind! Incidentally, H. G. Wells, in an early review of Ulysses, described it as 'cultural Bolshevism', which, I suppose, comes close to comparing Sartre with abstract expressionism. However, you should really attempt to roll your boulder up the hill of Martin Heiddeger's Being and Time, then you will really know what abstract expressionism is all about! Clio the Muse 01:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreftymac, I understand that statements like "Consciousness is a Being that, within itself, is consciousness of the Nothingness of its being" may indeed sound 'expressionismly abstract'. I would like, however, to add a caveat: Sartre's uses of the French language is extremly precise, so much so that subtilities are bound to be lost or broken in any translation. Sartre even created new words such as "néantiser", which has no equivalent in any language. That is what I noticed when I reviewed an English version a while back. And this is not because the translation was not correct--in fact, the use of the English language was impeccable. You have to consider that Sartre did not invest much effort to use an easier French. The text was written during an hellish period of European history. Sartre has even been a Nazi's POW during that time. Sartre admits it himself: this is why he called his book an 'essay'. L'être et le néant, in its French version, may be abstruse, but is certainly not abstract.--JLdesAlpins 13:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Existence precedes essence" is Sartrean, but it's an offshoot of Kierkegaard. "Essence," as in the "is-ness of the thing" or the irreducible expression of ideal form, cannot come before the actual, the existent. If it does, there is "human nature" and other things related to a universal soul/nature which Sartre rejects. Geogre 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews

Some orthodox Jews in Jerusalem and elswhere, where the big fury hats. Others were shorter regular hats with a rim all the way around and have those long hair loks. What is each group called. I am confused, is it Haredim, Hasidim, Chasedim, chasidic..ect.

In short, your question is fundamentally unanswerable -- variation among subgroups and regional communities (and even in individual preference) in Jews, AS IN ALL RELIGIOUS GROUPS OF ANY TYPE, is common enough that neither dress nor headgear will tell you "which group is which". In general, I'd suggest, "how can I tell what kind of person someone is based on how they look" is always a null-set question.

In long, however...

Charedim (or Haredim) are members of the most theologically conservative groups OF Orthodox Jews. Chasidim are a subset of Charedim -- all Chasidim are Charedim; not all Charedim are Chasidim. Hasidim and Chasidim (two spellings of ONE concept) are people who are Hasidic or Chasidic (two spellings of one concept).

The section of our article on Hasidic Judaism which discusses dress says:

It has been said that within the Hasidic world, one can distinguish different groups by subtle differences in appearance, though this is not necessarily the case. Many of the details of their dress are not peculiar to Hasidim, and are shared by many non-Hasidic chareidim. Much of their dress was historically the clothing of all Eastern-European Jews before and after the start of the Hasidic movement. However, it is mainly the Hasidim who have continued with these styles to this day, although many non-hasidic haredim do also don such clothing. Furthermore, hasidim have attributed mystical intents to these clothing styles.

as we see, we can't assume...but some dress styles are more typical of some groups for some occasions than others, and this goes for hat-wearing, too. Happily, there is a great section on headgear in the article on Hasidim which will prevent me from having to write seven pages about the difference here on the Reference Desk!

As with hats, the "long hair locks" you describe are worn by many Hasidim, and some others, and thus are not a useful way to determine who is who either. If it helps, our informative article on Peyot tells us that they result from a biblical commandment in Leviticus, which states "You shall not round off the corner of your head, and you shall not destroy the edge of your beard".

The long hair locks you describe would generally be worn by any Jews who take seriously the commandment to grow them, which would generally include both types of hat-wearers you describe. You may not have noticed it before -- maybe their locks were hidden under or obscured by their hats? Jfarber 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer...thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.243.61 (talk • contribs)

Just one correction. There is a biblical prohibition for a Jew to completely remove the corners of one's head (so you won't find any Orthodox Jew with shave sides), growing them long is a custom unique to certain haredi sects. Jon513 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like agreement, not correction. But perhaps clearer. :) Jfarber 17:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Government

What Is Definition Of Politics Terminology " Emergency Government " ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.42.21.83 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do you mean forms of rule established during a State of emergency, or the kind of administration that may emerge after a Coup de etat? Clio the Muse 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a test question. Geogre 01:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Congressional committees

How are members of congress placed into these committees? Is it by voting or do the members just willingly go into whatever committee they choose? You never hear about this process, which is why I'm asking. Once all the people are in the committee, is it then that they, in the committee vote for a chairman or does the house/senate as a whole vote for each chairman? _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In brief, it's by seniority. Members ask for certain assignments, and the leadership of the party caucus approves them. The chairman and ranking minority member are chosen by the party leadership. (Actually, it's a steering committee, which includes the leadership, that recommends the assignments, and the full caucus votes on those assignments, but in essence, it's usually the leadership making the decision.) There has been some movement toward democratizing this process in recent years. Notably, there are now term limits on committee chairships. -- Mwalcoff 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand correctly, each party chooses who should be in which committee, usually by seniority? Is this mainly figured out before the House or Senate convenes for the first time in January? Do House or Senate rules dictate how many of each party should be in a certain committee, or is it left to the Democrats and Republicans to negotiate this? Thank you very much. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first two questions are "yes," although you should be aware that seniority doesn't technically guarantee a plum committee assignment anymore. (If everyone hates you, they can still assign you to the District of Columbia Oversight Committee or something.) Regarding the committee party ratios, I don't know if there's anything in the rules that addresses this, but it's worked out between the two party leaderships at the beginning of the session. In practice, party ratios on committees tend to reflect the overall party ratio of the chamber, with the majority party always having at least a bare majority on all committees and subcommittees. So in the current Senate, for instance, you can expect that every committee or subcommittee will have one or two more Democrats than Republicans. See this document from the Government Printing Office website. -- Mwalcoff 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the chairperson of each committee tends to be of the majority party in that chamber. StuRat 04:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by "tends to be" you mean "is always", then you are correct. Corvus cornix 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could imagine a case where it might not be, say if the minority party says "we'll stop our filibuster on bill X if you agree to give us the chairmanship of committee Y" and the majority party agrees. StuRat 05:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has that ever been done? It seems like a highly unlikely way to give in on the part of the majority. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 12:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Economics problem!

Ok, I'm stuck with an economics problem. It looks easy to me, but somehow my brain isn't functioning. Problem : In a market, for in increase in price from $1.50 to $2.00, the elasticity coefficient of demand is 0.97, which is almost unitary. The question is, "Should the government consider increasing the tax on fish at a price of $1.50 as a way to generate revenue?" From what I think, the government should because at this point the response not only is close to unitary meaning the revenue will stay the same, it also is a bit inelastic which means a bit of profit. So if the government does add the tax, they can generate a revenue. Am I right? --(Aytakin) | Talk 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have better luck posting this under the Science Ref Desk. StuRat 04:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes logical sense, so the science desk might say yes. The humanities desk might say no, because in many places fish is considered a staple food, and the government has a responsibility to ensure healthy food is affordable by everyone. In any case, it would be difficult to administrate a tax on fish, which are freely available from the sea where catches are difficult to monitor. Far easier to tax the manufacturing industries.--Shantavira 08:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone identify this painting?

This is a photo I took back in November '06. It's a guy copying out a painting which looks like it's from around the Dutch Golden Age, but I can't identify either the original artist or the name of the painting. Can anyone help? —DO'Neil 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's The Cardsharps by Caravaggio. It belongs, of course, not to the Dutch Golden Age, but to Italian baroque, painted by an artist who really liked to live dangerously, in every conceivable sense of the term. Clio the Muse 04:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, Clio's good! --Wetman 04:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, Wetman, are invited to my party! Clio the Muse 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pavement artist is pretty good too!--88.109.20.242 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln`s cabinet

i was watching the daily show with jonh stewart and he was interviewing jonh bolton (u.n. Ambassador) , during the interview stewart made a referance ton abraham lincoln`s cabinet and how it was democraticaly the oposite of goerge bush`s because lincoln placed his rivals in high position to make for a well balanced democratic party and boltn replied that he was historicaly wrong and that you cant have an efficient democratic party where there are members constantly opposing the president.

from what ive read in the wiki article on lincoln , jonh stewart seem to have been right and ive seen this comparison a 2 or 3 times with similar out comes ,i would like some insight on this matter clockwork fromage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.113.99.58 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I can tell you this much: John Bolton is about as wrong on this issue as it is possible to get. Lincoln's Cabinet was conceivably one of the most devisive and back-stabbing collection of men ever assembled in the whole course of American political history! Almost every member thought he could do a better job than the President, and it is to Lincoln's credit that he somehow managed to get the barnyard hens all clucking to the same general tune. The beginnings were not at all auspicious, because the new government included all of Lincoln's main rivals for the Republican Party nomination for the 1860 election, including Salmon P. Chase, Simon Cameron, William H. Seward and Edward Bates, some old Whigs, others former Democrats, all divided by politics and ideology, all united in resentment of the President. Stanton, the Secretary of War, had openly refered to Lincoln as the 'original gorilla.' Writing to James Buchanan, the former president, after the Battle of Bull Run, he said, "The imbecility of this administration has culminated in that catastrophe, and irretrievable misfortune and national disgrace are to be added to the ruin of all peaceful pursuits and national bankruptcy as a result of Lincoln's running the machine for five months." It was only later in the war that he turned into one of the President's strongest supporters. Salmon P Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, to take one other example, was said to be so unlike the President as it was possible to get, and even William H Seward entered office highly sceptical about Lincoln's abilities, and convinced he was far better suited to the position. "No President", one contemporary wrote, "ever had a cabinet of which the members were so independent, had so large individual followings, and were so inharmonious." If some of them resented Lincoln, they resented and hated each other even more! At the close of 1861 Bates noted in his diary that the administration was not a cabinet but a collection of seven independent officers "each one ignorant of what his colleagues are doing." I suppose you might liken Lincoln a little to Caesar in the forum, surrounded by 'friends', all with daggers in their togas. But, as I have already said, he got the job done, by a mixture of common sense, decency and quite authority, the very qualities that make him one of America's greatest Presidents. Clio the Muse 08:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a topic that Bolton

is not a terrible dolt on?

--Lambiam ^Talk 13:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

veterans of the punitive expedition against Pancho Villa (1916-7) and the Russian expedition (begun during WWI, and lasting for over one year)

When did the last veteran of the Mexican Expedition die? I believe there was at least one as of last year.

When did the last veteran of the Russian Expedition die? I know that most of them were sent over late in World War I, but at least some reinforcements/replacements were sent over in the spring of 1919, and possibly later.

Thank you. Fred —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fmlondon (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fred, I thought I should let you know that your request has not been ignored. Unfortunately, I can find no specific information on this subject. You might be best contacting the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs directly. You will find their website here [10]. The best of luck. Clio the Muse 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If care to read the article Polar Bear Expedition, you will find that the last one died quite recently. However there seems to be another expedition at the same time. Flamarande 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, American Expeditionary Force Siberia went to Vladivostok. There were other Allied expeditions into various parts of Russia, but only those two major ones for American troops IIRC. Shimgray | talk | 20:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people call her Maurice

Is there any history of the name Maurice being given to a girl? Are there any famous female Maurices? Anchoress 08:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Maurice (prénom) says "Maurice est un prénom masculin, mais il peut aussi être féminin." Skarioffszky 11:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In English, "Maurice" for a girl is as self-conscious as "Sam" (ostensibly for Samantha). --Wetman 12:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to have been female people named "Mauritia", which would be the Latin feminine form of the name: Mauritia "Moritz" Mayer (1833 - 1897) - Find A Grave -- AnonMoos 14:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really cool web site if you're interested in this sort of stuff. nameplayground.com. I did an econometrics paper on a similar topic once. The site uses data from the United States Social Security Administration on naming trends (which became a really hot topic after Freakanomics). Anyways, the data on this site is fun (though limited, because it only has data on top-1000 names in the years that they were top-1000 names, leading to some seriously damaged statistics on names that have fallen off the list). Here's the entry on Maurice: http://www.nameplayground.com/Maurice. Indeed, from 1913-1931, Maurice was one of the 1,000 most popular names for girls! --JayHenry 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball (Z and GT too)

What was censored in the manga and in te anime Dragon Ball? --Vess 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US vs. Iran in 1980s/naval conflicts

Is it true the USN sank most of Irans navy in the late 80s? If so I didnt here about it at the time. What happened? Did the USS Nimitz take part? Please advise, thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.187.36.112 (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The information you are looking for is in Operation Praying Mantis. The Americans damaged the Iranian frigate, Sahard, and sank six speedboats. Clio the Muse 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Operation Prime Chance in which a SEAL team destroyed an Iranian mine laying ship. GreatManTheory 20:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

It has been shown that France's slogan is also the official slogan of the Grand Orient. They have been caught on video admitting their political heists. [11]

In fact, according to Father Le Tourneau, the motto is called the Republican Trinity and is based on the christian Trinity : Father, Son and Holy Spirit. [12]

In 1791, the motto was adopted by the Cordeliers [13], ie Danton, Desmoulins, Marat, Fréron, Chaumette, Hébert, Legendre and Robert.

Many these men were rumored to be masons. In fact, there was a famous and controversial book called Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire du jaboninisme that made similar claims.

In 1998, it was revealed that the freemasons had been infiltrated by French trotskists. [14]. They began fighting over benefits, rituals and personal benefits. [15]

What will happen to the famous motto if the freemasons begin to decline ? Inside sources claim that they have lost influence inside the EU and were absent from the 2005 referendum [16].

In 2006, Eric de Montgolfier published an major book called Le devoir de déplaire [17] in which describes financial and political scandals caused by the masons. Indeed, several top cabinet ministers are members of the group. [18].

By these accounts, what can we tell about the future of Europe and France in particular ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.232.52 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not much. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are far too generous, Lambiam. The real answer is that is that it tells us nothing at all, which is fairly usual with conspiracy theories of all kinds. Clio the Muse 19:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a mathematician, Clio, and to a mathematician, nothing is not much. Both answers are perfectly true, although one is more specific than the other. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. ‘Utilitarianism can only ever lead to the treatment of individuals as means rather than ends in themselves.’ Discuss

Hello,

i think someone else has already asked this question but i cant find the link to it, so would it be possible for you to post any comments you have again please. I really dont know where to begin with this essay!

Many thanks xx