Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

April 18

Why Uppercases With Comic Strips?

The use of uppercase for dialogs with comic stips must be some kind of established standard (example). Why are uppercases always used? Does anyone know of a reference for this? Thanks.--JLdesAlpins 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the comics industry would adopt an formula, but I can easily imagine why newspaper editors would demand upper case letters: readability. The majiscule is much less likely to be confused, and, since the comic strip has "hand lettered" writing, demanding all upper case would increase readability. This is the same reasoning that the US Post Office uses when preferring (demanding, really, if you want a bulk discount) upper case only lettering on address fields. In the far past, with the origins of the cartoon in newspapers, there would be a printed caption in the newspaper's fonts or a "script" font, but once the strip had dialog balloons and thought balloons and other instances of the artist's own handwriting, upper case would have been much better for the job. Geogre 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't know for a fact why the lettering in comic strips is traditionally all caps, I find it doubtful that legibility was the reason. Quoting from our article Typography: Some commonly agreed findings of legibility research include: text set in lower case is more legible than text set all in upper case (capitals). Rather than being demanded by newspaper editors, I find it more plausible that it is a matter of the artists' choice. The early examples of comics, such as The Yellow Kid, Mutt and Jeff, and Krazy Kat, all used all caps, and my guess is that other artists just followed the conventions they saw in successful comic strips.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur that upper/lower case together is more readable and less tiring on the eye. Another possible reason why comics are always in upper case is the kind of words they are. It's a different kind of representation of speech from the kind you encounter in novels, for example: it's more declamatory and rhetorical, it's all about getting the point across. In that sense upper case is arguably more appropriate. It would be very interesting to know if there are any examples of comics/graphic novels with lower case text. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure there are some among contemporary daily comics. For example, the venerable strip Gasoline Alley, which started out all caps in 1918 or 1919, now follows the conventional mix of upper and lower case used in ordinary writing. I don't know when the switch-over happened. Concerning the history, I found a statement that [F.] Opper was the first cartoonist who used speechballoons in comics on a permanent basis starting with the new century, in 1900.[1] He used all caps.[2]  --Lambiam^Talk 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jump Start cleverly uses mixed case for children's speech and all-caps for adults. Ziggy uses all-caps except for the word "I," which seems to emphasize Ziggy's lack of self-esteem. -- Mwalcoff 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's simply that text in all lower case can be read faster, and text in all capitals can be read easier. Dr Zak 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. Read Lambiam's first post above again. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A related question is why, at least in Disney comics, is every utterance followed by an exclamation mark (except for question marks after questions). JackofOz 23:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott McCloud expresses ideas about uppercase lettering in his book Making Comics. I can't find his sentiments at the moment but maybe later I can add something. Root⁴(one) 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think All capitals is used because the text is drawn, not written. The text is more legible this way if you dont write much.Polypipe Wrangler 22:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

longest prison sentence

what is the longest prison sentence ever? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Er, life? - Eron ^Talk 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The question cannot be answered. There have been many instances of individuals given multiple life or multiple 99 year sentences, but "longest" ever is simply something no one can know or reliably report. Geogre 01:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that prison sentences are on the public record, it must be technically possible to compile a list and work out who had the longest sentence in history. But whether this is feasible is a different matter. JackofOz 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And in fact if you Google "longest prison sentence" you come up with this page. It looks about 30 years out of date. This page offers another possibility (which seems legit) — a guy who was sentenced to 10,000 years in prison. In any case, it's amazing what sorts of things people decide cannot be known without even looking! ;-) --24.147.86.187 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamal Zougam, Otman el Ghanoui and Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras were each sentenced to 43,000 years in prison for their participation in the Madrid train bombings. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7071990.stm Article retrieved 2007.10.31 (31 October, 2007) Allan Gabston-Howell 06:23 (UTC), 2007.11.01 (01 November 2007)

Prison sentences are on the public record in Western countries. They may not be on the public record everywhere. There is no certainty that the longest prison sentence would have to be in the West. --Charlene 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. That's why I said "to the extent that ...". JackofOz 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, guys. That's why I said it couldn't be answered. No one is going to know even in the West, but only in the West since records have been kept and where records have been preserved and survive. In the 14th century, all sorts of hyperbolic sentences were given by legal courts, but generally prison was not a place of punishment as much as a place where a person awaited execution of the sentence. Therefore, no, it is not an answerable question even in state courts. Take in various ecclesiastical courts, and you have the possibility of damnation and eternal punishment, and that would be the longest of all. Geogre 11:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, what exactly is the point of 10,000 year sentences anyway? My initial reply was not entirely facetious; the longest sentence that can be served is from the effective date of sentencing until the end of the convict's life. Anything beyond that is meaningless. - Eron ^Talk 02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of perpetrators of multiple murders (eg. Martin Bryant), it's a symbolic statement about justice being seen to be done in respect of each of the victims, not just one. Also, a person may later have their conviction quashed in respect of one or more of the murders, but the other convictions would still stand. JackofOz 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, some jurisdictions allow the prisoner to be eligible for parole after a certain percentage of their sentence has been served. By setting a long sentence, that percentage also becomes a very long time. Possibly longer that the prisoner is expected to live, thus giving them a life sentence. Dismas|^(talk) 06:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up question (morbid curiosity): any reliable sources on the longest prison sentence actually served? --Ouro (blah blah) 07:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I found references to people in various countries serving for 30 years before a pardon or parole when sentenced to life in prison. Per [3] in the U.S. numerous children as young as 13 have been sentenced to "life without parole" when convicted of murder. Per [4] there are 9,700 prisoners in the U.S. serving life sentences for crimes committed before they were 18. Thrill-killer Nathan Leopold served 33 years of a life sentence before parole for killing a 14 year old when Leopold was 19. The Birdman of Alcatraz , Robert Stroud, was imprisoned for 54 years, until his death at age 73. He murdered a prison guard while serving a sentence for manslaughter. Nazi official Rudolph Hess was imprisoned 46 years by the Allies from 1941 until his death by suicide or murder in 1987 at age 93. I could not find a specific claim of a given person being the longest time served, but clearly 80 years would be possible in the extreme case of a 13 year old who survived to the age Hess did. Edison 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I make no claims about the validity of this source, but a "Richard Honeck" was apparently released from prison in 1963 after serving 64 years for the murder of a school teacher. See [5]. I'll see if I can't dig up some confirmation. Carom 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Saturday Evening Post on March 14, 1964 had an article entitled "Richard Honeck Released After 64 years in prison" per a listing of a copy of the magazine at EBAY [6]. Looks like the makings of a Wikipedia article if someone finds the magazine in their library. Another EBAY listing [7] says about this article "After 64 years, the prisoner comes home ... by Robert Gannon." and " Robert Gannon, a free-lance writer who lived with Richard Honeck during his last few days in prison, found conditions and methods strongly geared to the rehabilitation of inmates -- not like in the old Bogart movies at all." Edison 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Richard Honeck added, based on research in contemporary issues of the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. It's an interesting story, to say the least. Unfortunately I live in the UK, which means the Saturday Evening Post is hard to find (the only run I know of is at the British Newspaper Library at Colindale), but I'll add it when I get the chance. Mikedash 06:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Zhang Xueliang was a Chinese warlord who arrested Chiang Kai-shek in 1936. When Chiang regained power in 1936, Zhang was imprisoned for ten years for treason, followed by "house arrest." Chiang took his prisoner to Taiwan when the KMT was forced out of mainland China in 1949. Zhang remained a prisoner until 1990 at the age of about 90, after the death of Chiang and his son and successor, for a total of 54 years, resulting in a claim he was the longest serving political prisoner. He lived to be about 100. Edison 16:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

William Heirens, convicted as a serial murderer, has been imprisoned since his arrest in 1946. He is 79 years old, so he has the potential to surpass the 64 year term cited above, especially if his pretrial jail time is included. Edison 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do hunters with illegal firearms register their weapon in Japan

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-04-17T184607Z_01_T370433_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-JAPAN-SHOOTING-DEATH-COL.XML

Japan has very strict gun control laws and illegal firearms are mostly in the hands of "yakuza" gangsters or registered hunters.

202.168.50.40 00:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding the sentence. Illegal weapons have been found in possession of registered hunters who obviously are breaking the law. The illegal weapons haven't been registered at all. Flamarande 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hunters have to register *as hunters* in Japan. That doesn't include the registration of their weapons. So a hunter who wants to use a rifle (and good luck to him) needs both a hunting registration and (were it possible) gun registration. --Charlene 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? When I was looking up Japanese gun laws for another question, I found that only shotguns are allowed to be used by hunters. Hunters aren't allowed to use rifles and pistols still, afaik. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

：that's right. In Japan, possession of gun is strictly banned, but only police officers and hunters are allowed to have guns. A police officer is allowed to have a pistol only while working,( It's forbidden to take it out of work). And hunters have to resister every gun(Actually, the kind they can have is only shot-guns for hunting ). Of course, in big cities, there's no place for hunting in Japan now, so I have never seen a shot-gun which a hunter has in my whole life though I've lived in Japan for 30years. Yes, hunters can have shot-guns for their activities in Japan, but hunting itself is not common anymore. In hence, Having a gun in Japan is still really rare and nothing like in America at all.(You know,people can get guns in shops). In addition, people in Japan are sure Japanese gangs,Yakuza posses guns, in fact , murder cases by guns are often happened in Japan. But most of people never see guns and I don't know about Japanese gang's gun possession things.

List of Chinese Fraternal Communist Parties in the USA

The Chinese Communist party has had numerous sister or fraternal communist parties inside the United States although Chinese sister parties have never had the same relationship as say the Soviets and the comintern. Nevethlees I'd be intrested in learning the history of the links. From my researh it seems from 1919-1960 CPUSA 1960-1970 PLP 1970-1976 ???? 1976-1980 Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) 1988-2007 CPUSA

If anyone could provide more details on the relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and and the intenrational communist movmeent especially post1991 I would really appreciate it.

--Lee1863 02:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You can read something about that in our article Maoism, in particular the section on Maoism internationally; unfortunately it is somewhat shallow and gives no references for further reading. See also our articles Communist Party USA, Progressive Labor Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (also for some time a CCP-aligned "fraternal party"), and Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) (USA).  --Lambiam[[User ^Talk 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, concerning the post 1991 relationship between the CCP and the international communist movement, I think no groups outside China who label themselves "communist" would consider the present CCP to be communist other than in name.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

warrior cats volume 2 book 6 sunset

why is Ashfur so jealous of Brambleclaw?! I bet he had enough time with Squirrelflight.75.36.218.55 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a question on a question: What is this person talking about? Bielle 03:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It would seem the question is about motives in a series of texts called "Warrior Cats". Reference desks don't do questions about literary motives, however, except where resources exist which themselves explore motives in the text under consideration. Given the name of the series, I suspect there is no such resource set out there. Without such resources, we cannot answer without offering original research, and that's counter to Wikipedia's standards. Worse, without such resources, we can offer only opinion. Perhaps an internet forum on/for similar types of works would be a better place to ask the question. Jfarber 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This person would be talking about a series of books called "Warriors" by Erin Hunter. To awnser the question though:Ashfur is jealous because he feels that Brambleclaw has stolen Squirrelflight from him.

Lawyers & Law Offices/Firm (Legalities) Sites.

Hi, > > I have some questions regarding on how can I find or > search for some office addresses in malaysia, more > exactly on Law Offices/Firm or check for thier > legalities as well as some Lawyer Names? > > Thank you and hope you could help me with this > matter. Hope to hear from you asap. >

Neil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.104.2.80 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Check Martindale-Hubbell--you can select Malaysia from the drop down menu. GreatManTheory 11:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Boudica's age

I couldn't find it in the Boudica article, but does anyone know how old she was when she began her revolt? When she died? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.67.174 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Her place and date of birth and her parentage are not known; nor in fact are any details of her early life except that she married Prasutagus, who was allowed by the Romans to rule his tribe, the Iceni, as a client king. By him, she had two daughters who were probably teenagers by A.D. 60. It seems likely that Boadicca was born circa A.D. 20 to A.D. 30. (Magill, Frank N. (1998) "Boadicca," Dictionary of World Biography: The Ancient World Vol. 1, p. 136)

—eric 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The date-and the circumstances-of her death is not known with any precision. She is said, according to Tacitus, to have poisoned herself to avoid capture soon after her defeat at the Battle of Watling Street by Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, though Dio Cassius says she died of natural causes. There is some confusion over the date of her rebellion. Tacitus says it broke out in 61AD, though it seems more likely that it began in 60AD and continued to the following year. Clio the Muse 05:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Tacitus did not use the AD system. More than likely that he used the 'year of a consul', or perhaps even the Ab urbe condita. To use these two systems today to backtrack the "correct dates" is very difficult. Despite what the article List of early imperial Roman consuls suggests, the 1 January was not always the beginning of the 'consular year' and the Julian calendar was not perfect, likewise for the Ab urbe condita system. Flamarande 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, absolutely right, Flamarande, and it should, more correctly, be expressed as 'in accordance with calculations based upon Tacitus'. Clio the Muse 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Calculations which might be wrong (or not). Flamarande 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, hence the ambiguity. Clio the Muse 18:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

books

what is the book with the most volumes

The 11,095 of the Yongle Dadian?—eric 03:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, it's the Book of Sand, of course, or it is one to be found only on the shelves of the Library of Babel. Clio the Muse 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Book of Life? The Book of Fate? Whitehead and Russell's set of all sets? (For a serious answer, we need some definition of "volume" other than the author's, because authors gamed the designation pretty early, sometimes for commercial reasons.) Utgard Loki 12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. But I bet it was Elsevier that published it. Dr Zak 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Identify a famous impressionist painting

I need to identify this painting: [8]. I think it's mislabeled and need to find a free alternative to replace this recent upload. DHN 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is by John Singer Sargent, DHN, and is entitled Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose. It was first exhibited at the Royal Academy in London in 1887. Clio the Muse 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! DHN 05:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Amount of deaths of witches and accused witches

Can anyone tell me the most accurate estimate of how many people were executed during the Witch Craze/ Burning Times? The period of time I am looking fo is 1450 to 1700. I am looking for the murders that were done in Europe and the early U.S. to actual witchcraft practitioners and those who were falsely accused. I have searched thoroughly throughout the web and witch related Wikipedia entries, but I can't seem to attain a direct answer or even a ballpark range. I have been told 40,000, 100,000, 9 million, etc. Help! 67.142.130.18 07:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the number of Witches burnt. The amount is dependant on their weight, which is a sensitive subject. Witch-hunt has some broad figures. There is a theory regarding wheat fungus and witch burnings ;) DDB 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is among the best web pages on the subject [9]. You may also wish to refer to the Wikipedia article on Witch hunts, with related links. The short answer to your question is that we will ever know for certain. However, the true figure would seem to be far closer to 100,000 than the absurdly high 9 million, a holocaust, in the literal sense of the term. The intensity of the persecution increased dramatically with the onset of the Reformation, especially in Germany, in an outburst of collective hysteria. The last execution for witchcraft in England was in 1684, though the Scots held out until as late as 1722! Incidentally, the preferred method of execution for witchcraft in the Anglo-Saxon world, by which I mean England and the American Colonies, was death by hanging, unlike Scotland and Continental Europe, where burning was the method of choice. For more detailed information on the whole subject I would urge you to read The Witch-hunt in Early Modern Europe by Brian Levack. For the mindset behind the persecutions you could do no better than to dip into the infamous Malleus Maleficarum. Double, double toil and trouble; fire burn and cauldron bubble. Clio the Muse 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Salem witch trials mentions the ergot rye poisoning theory. DDB 08:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Burning Times" identifies the questioner as at least employing a term coined by Wiccans. Within that context, the period extends vast centuries and places. Mainline historians reject the concept. From my point of view, for example, the answer would be "zero." I have never seen evidence that there were any witches in England who were taken to trial and executed. As for the number of persons executed (by hanging, most of the time) under such a charge, the number is relatively low. In England, witch trials and the personal religion of the King are tightly correlated. James I, while still King of Scotland only, wrote an On Demonology book and made it very clear that he believed that there were witches and Satanists all about. When he became King of England, the number of witch trials exploded. When he passed from the throne, they all but stopped. (See Jane Wenham for the lady who was the last convicted witch from my point of view (people disagree).) Geogre 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you discount the case of Helen Duncan, Geogre, the last person in England to be convicted under the Witchcraft Act of 1735? I have little doubt that you do know this, but, for the benefit of casual readers, Shakespeare seems to have been very well acquainted with On Demonology, and all of James' views on witchcraft. His play Macbeth shows just how much insight he had into the psychology of the royal obsession, and I believe even makes oblique reference to a real life incident-the North Berwick witch trials. Clio the Muse 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To add to what Clio said, the people convicted and executed for witchcraft included heretics, apostates, and various people who confessed under trial by ordeal. For example (and not to open another giant historical pot) the Templars were accused of Satanism, and they were executed for it (see Jacques de Molay). Well, they were defenders of the faith, protectors of pilgrims, etc., so the idea that they were practitioners of paganism or animism is beyond silly, and yet the entire order's executed population (which might not be very, very high) could be included. Inasmuch as the authorities in Germany, Italy, Scotland, and France were vague themselves about what constituted "witchcraft," we cannot be any more certain. Utgard Loki 12:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want to know how to find a witch, etc., see Matthew Hopkins. It looks like much of that article, though, is taken from Charles Mackay's always-interesting Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. There is an inexpensive edition of that out these days, and every Wikipedian should look at it (because Wikipedia is often cited in the "Wisdom of Crowds" counter-argument). Utgard Loki 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Logic argument

Is there a name for the argument that can be summed up as "If it were possible, someone would be doing it"? I realize it's a (very) poor logical argument but I figure someone would have made up a name for it by now. Dismas|^(talk) 09:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is not a logical argument but a statement of statistical probability (slightly expanded, what you are saying is "if x were possible, it would be highly probable that at least one out of 6 billion human beings would be doing it"). This might be classed as an argumentum ad ignorantiam ("I don't know of anybody doing x, therefore x is impossible") or an ignoratio elenchi (x being possible or impossible does not directly follow from the fact that nobody is doing it). -- Ferkelparade π 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems strange that every possibility is instanciated in the actual world? Or are you saying that if it is possible it ought to be done? Then it is an issue in deontic reasoning but also that seems wrong. Take some extreme torture where you peal someones skin of - it is possible - ought we to do it - hardly.

Maybe the saying is expressing something weaker: If x is possible then x is necessaryly possible. That is the S5 axiom in modal logic. And it is debatable if it is true. RickardV 10:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the poster meant something along the lines of, very simply 'if you keep tossing a coin indefinitely eventually it will happen that you get 100 heads in a row'. i.e. given enough time, everything that can happen, will happen. --Alex16zx 10:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should expand on what I meant. A person sees a process and decides that it's, for whatever reason, too complicated, therefore it should be simplified for greater productivity/cost savings/etc. But what they don't realize is that the process is so well known that there are already a lot of people who have deteremined that process X, although it appears complicated, is actually the best way to do things. Therefore the person should concentrate on something else because if there were an easier/more cost effective/etc. way to do process X then it would be done that way already. More clear or more muddy now? Dismas|^(talk) 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's a bit different than how it sounded in your first post. In that example, we have a classic case of argumentum ad populum -- Ferkelparade π 10:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How about argumentum defeatism? Definitely not a productive argument for would be inventors/innovators :) --38.112.225.84 11:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I keep thinking that it's just a bad set of assumptions, but the assumptions seem linked to the medieval notion of plenitude. The universe fills every void, and humans fill every occupation. Therefore, if no one is doing a thing, it is because it is not a void. Otherwise, I think Ferkelparade is right that the original was a form of ignoratio elenchi. The "we've always done it this way, so this is the best way" is argument by authority/tradition, which is a subset of ad populum. It was formerly very popular. Utgard Loki 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One of Nietzsche's aphorisms addresses this. He said something like "everything than can run, does run". In other words, the only proof of possibility is manifested possibility: actuality itself. The only proof of ability is the actual instantiation of that ability, the act itself. It's like someone saying, "If conditions get bad enough I can always kill myself". The proof for that ability is lacking until the suicide is actually carried out. Vranak

translation of the Qur'an used in the Baha'i Writings

I have a copy of the Kitab-i-Iqan by Baha'u'llah, the Prophet of the Baha'i Faith, and one of the Qur'an, translated by JM Rodwell. It is fairly clear that the quotes from the Qur'an in the Kitab-i-Iqan are essentially based on the Rodwell translation. I've compared them, and they match very closely, however, they are not the same. Does anyone know if there is another translation of the Qur'an based closely on Rodwell's? If not, I shall be able to conclude that the Kitab-i-Iqan is using a revision of Rodwell's translation. The Mad Echidna 10:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for asking this, as I've just done some more reading, and found the answer to my own question. I don't know if it would now be good form for me to just remove this whole question, so I'll leave it, but others are free to just remove it if they wish. regards, The Mad Echidna 12:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can post the answer you found, to quell the unrest caused by unanswered questions felt by the illimitably curious amongst us.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kitab-i-Iqan was translated as well. Also, can you cite was verses of the Quran are being quoted? You can check them for yourself against the three most popular English Translations of the Quran, Pickthal, Yusuf Ali, and Shakir.here.--Kirby♥time 05:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

history question

Can anyone here tell me where I can find a list of cities founded between 500-100BC? Also any information about major cities that existed before then would be useful. I am interested in all cities, not just those that still exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.142.207.208 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found a specific Wikipedia list of cities by age or a timeline that would directly answer your question (though one may exist). However, helpful information can be found in the City entry and in some of the links from there. You could also look at List of oldest continuously inhabited cities, Lost city, and Historical urban community sizes. These should provide you with links to articles about cities that meet your criteria, though none will be a complete list. - Eron ^Talk 14:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to find a copy of the DK Atlas of World History, which has maps of the world in 500 BCE, 250 BCE, and 1 CE. These maps show the major cities at each date. Among the cities that appear between 500 BCE and 1 CE are Teotihuacán, Moche (surrounding Huaca de la Luna), Huari, Nazca, Tiahuanaco, Carthago Nova, Lyon, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Seleucia, Pratisthana (today known as Paithan), and Kashgar. To this list, I would add Axum, which probably became a city during this period, Minnagara, and many cities of southern China, such as Guangdong and Hangzhou. There were many cities already in existence in northern China, northern India, the Middle East, southern Europe, and northern Africa before 500 BCE. Marco polo 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how pedantic the questioner wishes to be about the cities being founded in that period. It's very rare that we have a specific date for the founding of a city... and of those we have, some are based on shaky evidence. Anyway, where's Clio - this question's right up her street! --Dweller 09:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is one instance where Clio is more than happy to sit in the shadow of Marco Polo, the great explorer, whose answer could not really be bettered! I would also have recommended the same atlas, as well as the Oxford Atlas of World History and perhaps the slightly more narrowly focused Penguin Atlas of Ancient History. However, this is one of these questions that could conceivably produce an impossibly detailed answer, depending if a settlement is defined as a city already existing within the time period mentioned, or one that merely dates its foundations to then, like, for example, Paris. You are also quite right, Dweller, to emphasise the quality and uncertainty of much of the evidence-skins within skins, shells within shells! Clio the Muse 16:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

how do i form a state in the US?

out of another state or out of a territory.

Get a petition on the ballot and get the majority to vote for this. The best chance in the near future would be for Puerto Rico to become a state. StuRat 06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The state would also need to be confirmed by Congress. Here is the relevant passage from the US Constitution. I would consider it very unlikly that any new states would be admited at this time. The balance of power is so close in the USA that any new state (Puerto Rico, Washington DC) would likely tip the balance in favor of the Democrats and would thus be vigorously opposed by the Republicans in congress. -Czmtzc 12:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Republicans are unlikely to ever allow Puerto Rico to achieve statehood, just as they are unlikely to ever allow the District of Columbia to elect a congresscritter, because both areas would vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. The same calculus will apply if you're trying to split a state (so NorCal won't be allowed to split from SoCal).

Atlant 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Congress is working on legislation that would give DC one real representative, while also adding one representative to Utah for balance. Czmtzc 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys are ignoring the huge negatives involved in refusing to allow a state to enter the union. If Puerto Rico voted for statehood, and Democrats supported them, while Republicans rejected them, this would move the Hispanic vote heavily into the Democratic camp. That would likely have more of an effect on the balance of power than the addition of a 51st state. StuRat 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as negatives go politicians can be VERY short sighted. Some guy in a safe district in say Alabama would care more about keeping Puerto Rico out than on losing hispanic votes. If Republicans cared so much about the Hispanic vote, they wouldn't pull out the Illegal_Immigration card so often. Luckily for the republicans, Puerto Rico does not particularly want to cahnge its status. Czmtzc 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At some future date there could be a compromise in which, say, a "blue" state such as Illinois, New York or California split, gaining 2 more Senators, and at the same time a "Red" state such as Texas also split. (The barrier to that might be the Texans fighting over which state got the Alamo). All the smaller states which now achieve extra power by having a disproportionately high number of senators would see their power inthe senate and the electoral college diluted. It would work against proportionate representation if the District of Columbia, far smaller in size and population than many U.S. cities and counties, gained not only a representative but 2 senators by becoming a state. It would be more democratic to turn it back into "Washington County" Maryland, from which it came, thereby giving every resident the same representation as every other citizen in the country rather than a disproportionately "overrepresented" rotten borough. Edison 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This idea is called "retrocession." I believe former Maryland governor Parris Glendening supported it. But the people of DC presumably don't want to give up their independence, even if it means getting to vote for Congress. The GOP would also be hesitant to effectively kill the chance the GOP could ever elect a senator in Maryland. If DC were "given back" to Maryland, it couldn't be called "Washington County" -- there already is one.

Also, it should be noted that Wyoming has fewer people than DC but still gets 2 senators. -- Mwalcoff 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been talk of retrocession of all of the District of Columbia except for the area immediately around the Capitol Mall and the White House, which would remain a "federal territory", and which has few permanent residents. Corvus cornix 20:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have moved this question here from the Misc desk because it deals with society and is thus a part of Humanities Ref Desk. --Parker007 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Let Alberta seperate. Alberta is conservative province. In the last Federal Election it was sweeped by conservatives. --Parker007 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • So if they don't vote in a way you approve of, they're not Canadian enough for you? Perhaps you're unaware that 45% of Albertans vote Liberal and NDP in most elections, and that support for separation has always been in single figures. The squeaky wheels get the media attention. --Charlene 00:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The original question didn't concern society, only the answers do. --172.142.207.208

• New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. --Parker007 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the formation of West Virginia seems to contradict that passage. Corvus cornix 20:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what part of the passage you were referring to, but Lincoln at least made an argument as to why the formation of West Virginia did follow the above requirements. Since he considered secession illegal, the Virginia legislature's decision to illegally secede from the Union meant that the legislature was no longer the "true" legislature of Virginia. Lincoln then formed a new, "true" legislature of Virginia which (not surprisingly) followed Lincoln's lead and agreed to cede territory to the new state of West Virginia. GreatManTheory 23:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Which was the last state in the United States, and is allowed to vote for a President of the United States? And what procedure did the Congress use to do this? --Parker007 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• nvm I found the answer. Hawaii was the last state by Newlands Resolution & the Hawaii Admission Act. --Parker007 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a dumb question...I was discussing this with my uncle, who has become a USA-er, and he pointed out that there is a huge difference between "becoming part of the USA" and "becoming a state" and he showed me a map giving the dates for each state. But I don't get, when a piece of land is not a state... what country does it belong to? What nationality do those people have? How are they represented in a democratic way?Evilbu 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Click on the Puerto Rico link to discover a good example of a place that is, in some senses, a "part of the USA" but is not one of the 50 states. It may one day become the 51st state (unless Australia beats them to it). JackofOz 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The above-mentioned District of Columbia may be the most-analagous thing now to the old western territories. Territories, like DC now, have no separate constitutional status from the federal government. Thus, while the federal government is limited in what it can do it Ohio or Texas, it can micromanage DC all it wants. Congress may set up an elected legislature for a territory, but the residents do not have voting representation in Congress. DC, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa each have one delegate in Congress who cannot vote on the floor but may serve on committees. -- Mwalcoff 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this mean that in a sense, people living in those territories were "occupied"..Evilbu 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because they have civil government. In addition, most people in Puerto Rico and the USVI like being part of the U.S., and there doesn't seem to be much of an independence movement in Guam or American Samoa, either. DC is in a strange situation -- its lack of congressional representation appears to be an oversight by the framers of the Constitution, or perhaps an understandable lack of foresight that one day the district would have 572,000 people. It is increasingly likely that DC will get a congressional representative through an act of Congress, although the constitutionality of that law may be challenged in court. -- Mwalcoff 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Economic status versus the power to kill

I recall a situation in which a very clean professor who enjoyed wearing casual cloths was shopping in a Wal-Mart for rechargeable batteries where a student and her boyfriend were leaving the area of CDs. The girl commented very load as she passed the professor: "What's that smell?" (Mimicking the Capital One commercial in which the daughter with much indignation and contempt spurts out this question while in the box car on the freight train.) Although judging others by the standard of what money they have is a very common thing doesn't the fact that most people possess the power to kill (or at least give you a failing grade) merit respect despite the apparent economic status they may have? Clem 18:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A fair query. The answer: evidentally not. Vranak

Meriting respect and actually getting it are two separate concepts, and some may fear losing economic status more than they fear losing their life. dr.ef.tymac 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are those who have respect from others simply for not drinking. On the other hand there are those who care nothing about respect and rather jump from a train than have to work for a living. 71.100.8.252 10:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The root of all evil after all is greed. Nebraska Bob 19:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, bob, if you have St. Paul in mind, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil. You must know, surely, that greed is good? Clio the Muse 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus to be a good bacterium but still a lower life form. Nebraska Bob 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Portugese people in Boston, Lincolnshire

Hello,

I am just wondering why there are so many migrant Portugese peole in Boston, Lincolnshire? In most other parts of the UK where immigration is an issue it is all ways eastern European, in particular Poland, but Boston seems to be a Portugese hotspot. I find this strange because I didn't think Portugal was a particually less well off country, like in eastern Europe. It has a HDI of 0.904!

Thanks, --Killer 777 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Portugal has a per capita GDP of $18,465 versus $39,213 for the UK, per List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. Even measured by purchasing power parity, the UK has a substantially higher income level. It is fascinating to me that Boston, England, has lots of Portuguese migrants. So does the region around Boston, Massachusetts, where I live. Most of the Portuguese migrants to Massachusetts originally came for the fishing industry. That industry has since declined, but the Portuguese-speaking community has remained a draw for job-seeking migrants from Portugal and other Portuguese-speaking countries, such as the Cape Verde Islands and Brazil. Does or did Boston, England, have much of a fishing industry? Marco polo 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Portugal is, surprising though it may seem, one of the poorest of the "old" EU countries. As to why Boston particularly, two options - a) Immigrants are slightly more likely to move to somewhere with a preexisting local immigrant community, if given the choice, so if one gets started it's likely to grow; or b) some form of industry or business there (once?) heavily recruited from Portugal, and this is the effect. Shimgray | talk | 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why "surprising though it may seem"? Flamarande 23:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Portugal also has had a bumpy political past, and revolutions and change of government seem to be frequent occurrences (at least compared to the UK). My family (which comes from Portugal/still lives there) has also noted a long-standing love between Brits and the Portuguese. They would go North for vacation (or else south, to old African colonies) while the Algarve in the south of Portugal was a regular hotspot for British holidays. Russia Moore 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Brave New World

How is Henry Ford significant in Brave New World? Nick 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)nicholassayshi

Did you read the book? If not, I recommend reading it first, and then our article Brave New World.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You should also have a look at the article on The World State, Nicholas. It is here that Huxley sets the action of Brave New World. Try to imagine a world that combines aspects of the corporate state with systems of technocracy: a material world, based on social control, manipulation and trivialisation. Imagine still further a world devoid of some of the intangible things, like spirituality and curiosity, that serve to make each of us individual and human, then you have entered Huxley's future. Henry Ford has become a replacement for Christ. It is he who has become the new Messiah, the focus for an entirely material set of values. The assembly line is the dominant motif, even at the level of human reproduction, and people live their lives 'in the year of our Ford.' The past is irrelevant, because, in the words of our Ford, 'History is bunk.' The World State's calendar begins in 1908, the year the first Model T came off the assmbly line, and Brave New World opens in AF 632, which would be 2540 in our own calendar. The cross, as a symbol, has been replaced by a T. May the blessings of Our Ford be upon you. Clio the Muse 23:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolivian efforts to end genocide.

Has Bolivia made any efforts to support the prevention and punishment of genocide internationally?

-Anonymous

You asked that question on April 16th. Why not look above? AnonMoos 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But this question wasn't answered above. People merely stated one instance of alleged "genocide" in Bolivia, rather than discussing the stance Bolivia holds on genocide. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolivia signed the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948, but never ratified it. [10] --TotoBaggins 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That information is out of date. Bolivia ratified the Convention in 2005. [11][12][13]. --Mathew5000 09:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

April 19

cyclic time

Does anyone know of mythologies with cyclic time? (If that is the right term). In such a myth-system, history progresses from point A to point B etc till point X which is the destruction of the world, but then world is recreated at point A and the entire cycle repeats itself over again infinitely. Does this concept actually exist? If so in which cultures does/did one find it? Thanks Duomillia 02:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it is an exact fit, but Mayan religion had some of these characteristics. - Eron ^Talk 02:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also see the Stoic concept of ekpyrosis. (Hey, there is no article on the subject. We need one, and I'm not the one to write it.) Talking about the Stoa, could someone explain how a philosophy-cum-religion so at odds with facts and especially human nature could ever become that popular. It's striking. Dr Zak 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but we do have an article with the unfortunately adverbial title Ekpyrotic. I smell a redirect! As to the popularity of Stoicism, while I am far from a scholar of comparative religions, it does seem to have something in common with at least some forms of Buddhism - in its whole life-is-suffering-self-control-and-detachment aspect - as to suggest that the underlying philosophy has at least enough appeal to the human mind and spirit to arise in more than one location. Maybe it is nothing more complex than making a virtue out of necessity, i.e., if life is a bitch and then you die, why not just call that enlightenment? - Eron ^Talk 03:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ekpyrotic is about a theory in theatrical theoretical physics, not about the concept in Stoicism. As far as the mind goes, Antonio Damasio has written some books that make eminent sense. My own theory about why Stoic philosophy is popular is, - well there is George Bush's remark about the "reality-based crowd". If reality sucks, well, then we must invent our own and actively disregard facts. Others have called such behavior "speaking the thing that is not", but who am I to criticize the President? Dr Zak 03:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr Zak If you don't mind, would you be amenable to creating at least a stub for ekpyrosis? I'm sure it will be a useful alternative to nothing at all. dr.ef.tymac 04:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Stoicism offers a quasi-mystical cosmogeny, yes, but its appeal was also that it sought to answer the "what is the good" in a totalizing manner. It was popular partly because it provided a coherent system for everything. That kind of solution for everything is always popular, whether you're Epicetus or Sigmund Freud. Even if the e: tells you something that seems weird or unpleasant, having a single master key to every door is itself attractive. Utgard Loki 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can think of some ancient variations on this theme; for out of the fire comes the Phoenix, and the great worm, Ouroborous, is eternally in pursuit of his tail. On an even grander scale, you can have the Eternal recurrence, with roots in Egyptian mythology, moving by way of the stoics and Pythagoras, arriving by leaps of time and faith in the mind of Heinrich Heine, and maturing in that of Friedrich Nietzsche: What if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest lonlieness and say to you 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and inummerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence--even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!' Would you not through yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' If this thought gained possession of you it would change you as you are, or perhaps crush you... (Die fröliche Wissenschaft, 341) Would that, indeed, not be the greatest weight? Clio the Muse 04:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You should really finish that excerpt, otherwise it sounds very menacing, and poisons the name of Nietzsche. Vranak

In fact I'll do it myself: the question in each and every thing, “Do you desire this once more, and innumerable times more?” would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight! Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

It's no surprise that Nietzsche forsaw people 'making mischief' with his writings. Which would include incomplete quotations. Vranak

I've added dots to indicate that my quote from The Gay Science was incomplete, an omission on my part, I freely admit. The conclusion, in my estimation, detracts somewhat from the drama of the affirmation. I do not accept that it makes the passage in any way sound menacing, though, or that it in any sense 'poisons the name' of Nietzsche, for whom I have great admiration. It is most certainly not my intention to 'make mischief' with his writing-and I fully agree that this has been a problem in the past. I apologise if such an impression was unintentionally given. Clio the Muse 07:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you admire Nietzsche, therein lies the problem. He's dead, and as he wrote, what matters all eternal life? Eternal aliveness is the thing. (obvious paraphrase) Vranak

Coming back to the original question, all schools of Buddhism certainly support the idea of a cyclical universe, and on a vast time scale. See kalpa (time unit) (which sadly is a poor stub – I shall endeavour to improve it some time). Incidentally, Nietzsche is well respected in (western) Buddhism. A colleague of mine has even written a book called Nietzsche and Buddhism. --Shantavira 08:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Would this be Freny Mistry or Robert Morrison, the latter I imagine? Arthur Schopenhauer had some admiration for Buddhism, though it had much less influence on his system of ideas than some people would care to allow. Clio the Muse 08:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert lives just down the road from me. I've never heard of Freny.--Shantavira 11:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He is the author of, well, Nietzsche and Buddhism, published by Walter de Gruyter in 1987. It's avilable on Amazon, I think. Clio the Muse 17:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Puranic Hinduism also has a cyclical conception of time. See Hindu cosmology. Marco polo 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As a diversion, the questioner might enjoy this comic. --TotoBaggins 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shinto Buddhism, in my understanding, isn't so keen on cycles. For Yamamoto Tsunetomo, things occur according to 'the evolution of the Yin and the Yang'. Vranak

... and for a modern "myth" of cyclic time, see Groundhog Day. Gandalf61 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

president

heys?am looking for an answer to this question.president mh leads it.and its on the strip, clues are 1.its somewhere near indonesia 2.it was recently making world headlines 3.its either above or just below the equator.

According to List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence, the only heads of state that have “M” and “H” in their names are Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Roh Moo Hyun of South Korea. But these countries are nowhere near either the Equator or Indonesia, nor am I aware they've been in the news recently Not sure what you mean by "its on the strip". Are you sure this person is a president, and not a head of government such as a prime minister?JackofOz 05:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed Waheed Hassan was leader of the Maldives, which is a lot closer to Indonesia and the Equator, but he left office in 2005. JackofOz 05:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

...and José Manuel Ramos Horta is Prime Minister of East Timor. (It's near the equator and Indonesia and it has been in the news for the past few years. But Horta is Prime Minister, not President and, well, his initials are JMRH, not MH.) ---Sluzzelin talk 07:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good one. He did stand for president in the recent election (9 April), and was widely seen as the front runner, but the result of the first poll was indecisive and a run-off election will be held on 8 May - see East Timorese presidential election, 2007. I seem to remember his having resigned as Prime Minister in order to run for President, but don't quote me on that. Amazingly, our article on Ramos Horta says absolutely nothing about this presidential bid. I've never heard anyone use the "Manuel" in reference to him, so I'd be very surprised if that would get into the question the questioner is trying to get an answer to. JackofOz 08:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Belief About Life Before Birth?

I was having a religious conversation with someone who is Catholic today, and the topic about souls existing prior to birth was brought up. I was nearly certain that Catholics believed the soul and the person were created when they are conceived, but my friend claimed that people's souls always existed but just never had a body. Can someone please help clarify this? Thanks! --pie4all88 10:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That someone has given you a not-standard answer. As per [14] and [15] the soul is created at conception (at least this was is the official stance of the catholic church these days). Most "religious ppl" have not idea about religious dogma of their religion and rather stick to labels as catholics, protestants, orthodox, muslims, jews, etc. Truly ask them about particular issues of their religion and you will find that most of them have no idea or simply don't agree with the official stance of their church. Flamarande 11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You can also look at metempsychosis and transmigration of souls for the various times the theme has been introduced into Christian theology. All forms of Christianity and Judaism have flirted with the idea, but it is not orthodox at present. Utgard Loki 13:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Which Right-Wing dictatorships has Red China supported?

Which Right-Wing dictatorships has Red China supported? I'm intrested in learning whcih right-wing dictatorships China has supported since 1949. I have heard accusations that China has supported Pinochet in Argentina, the South Africans in Angola, the rebels in Afghanistan and even sent arms to the Contras. If anyone knows any other rightwing dictatorships and movements China has supported since 1949 I'd be intrested in hearing about them. --Lee1863 15:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lee. You will find some information on this topic in the page dealing with the Sino-Soviet split. Much of China's foreign policy, from the days of Mao onwards, was shaped and determined by growing rivalry with its former Communist partner. Principle and ideology was no obstacle to the geo-political path taken, support being given to groups as diverse as the Islamists in Afghanistan and the Contras in Nicaragua. China also went to war with Vietnam in 1979, and continued to support Pol Pot well after his downfall. The lietmotiv of Chinese foreign policy was opposition to what was termed 'hegemonism', essentially opposition to the Soviet Union and its allies. The political complexion of any particular regime had little importance against this background, and China is likely to have embraced a right wing dictator or two, though I have no specific information on its relations with Augusto Pinochet, who, incidentally, was the president of Chile, not Argentina. Clio the Muse 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't they support Somalia when the Soviet Union switched to supporting Ethiopia? Actually, I've always been amazed that China was not able to crush their hegemony, since they had way more people....Evilbu 19:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

all of english literature from beowolf to beatnick?

hello, I am new to this so please bare with me. I recently got interested in a female who is a school teacher. I found out she use to be english major and she loves literature and is very smart. when it comes under the sheets, she is definitly pleased with me, but out of bed in normal convo I can tell she feel uncomfortable silences. I ask my cousin and He says its cause I dont know english literature and cant understant her. He said I need to know it all 'from Beaowolf to beatnick' and be able to know at least the titles of all of them so she does not go over my head when she talks.

He told me to go to internet or wikipedia and get the list of all major titles of english literature. He said it is very long but He has seen it online before. where can I get the list? I will do anything to learn more ok? thank you for helping me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AWorldLikeIPit (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You should probably start with English literature. Of course, that is a huge topic that some people spend, quite literally, their whole lives studying. Rather than trying to pretend to understand it in order to impress her, a better approach might be to get her to help you in your attempts to learn more about it. If she is very knowledgeable, you are not likely to catch up to her by simply reviewing a reading list - but you can still hold a conversation with her. Ask her what she thinks. Ask her what her favourite books are - and then read one of them, and then discuss it with her. You might find that she is delighted to help you discover what it is that she loves about literature. Good luck. - Eron ^Talk 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's a particular list to be found, he's probably talking about Harold Bloom's Western Canon, which can be found here: http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/theocraticcanon.html (There are four parts, so follow the links.) Note that Bloom compiling such a list is pretty controversial; aside from the fact that the number of people who have read all of it probably numbers around zero, one can question the worth the of any such list itself. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See also My Reading List or Getting a PhD in Literature Without Going Broke. dr.ef.tymac 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd better rope her into this endeavor; you are not going to have enough time to read more than a few of these before she dumps you, it sounds like! Tell her you are interested in enriching your understanding of English literature after having gotten involved with her, ask her what her favorite books are, then talk to her about them as you read them. Honestly it'll make you look a lot better than trying a sitcom approach where you cram Beowulf and then find that she hates Beowulf or hasn't even read it herself. At the moment this plan sounds the plot of a bad romantic comedy. --24.147.86.187 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Quite frankly, this has the makings of disaster. Women detect insincerity in the same way a shark detects blood. Your relationship will die for the simple reason that you will be spending most of your time scaling the heights of the literary canon! Clio the Muse 08:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to "fake" knowledge of literature. You can be a minah bird with some critic or other, but that's it. It is a field as difficult and vast as physics. Now, it's possible that she will be fooled, but, if she is, she is, herself, a fool. She may take kindly to you for showing an interest, and she may pretend to be fooled, but starting a relationship with anything as dishonest as fakery is a deep, wet, kiss of death. Utgard Loki 14:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also take under consideration the (in my opinion) pretty strong likelihood that your cousin is wrong. Often those embarrassing, uncomfortable gaps have more to do with a difficulty in actually communicating than in any knowledge either partner has - and difficulties in communicating will affect not just the sufferer's personal life but their ability to succeed in the work world as well. Listen to yourself, carefully, the next time the two of you have a discussion. Do you ask her questions about herself and her opinions, or is the conversation more about what you think and feel? Do each of you respect the other's beliefs and values and not try to prove the other wrong? When she asks you a question, are you prone to answering in one-word replies (which can lead the other person to "monopolize the conversation" in a desperate attempt to fill up the gaps)? When you don't know a specific, exact answer to a question, do you just shrug instead of trying to explain what you *think* might be the case? Do you "shut down" a bit (if you know what I mean) when discussing things such as emotions and feelings? As importantly, is she doing any of these things? --Charlene 01:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the US law regulating game shows?

According to this essay about the quiz show scandals and their aftermath, Congressional legislation in 1960 "declared illegal any contest or game with intent to deceive the audience". However, I can't find the name of that Act; preferably I would like a link to the current version. All I could find in Wikipedia is the statement in the article quiz show scandals that "After concluding the Harris Commission investigation, Congress passed a law prohibiting the fixing of quiz shows." I've also looked at the Wikipedia articles game show, reality television, and Standards & Practices. --Mathew5000 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Check the 1960 amendments to the Communications Act. The quiz show regulations are briefly mentioned in the third article of this journal. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dreftymac! I put the cite into the article quiz show scandals. --Mathew5000 09:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Samurai

What people could divent samurai? Samurai was hereditary? All samurai took oath?--Vess 20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Divent? I don't know what this means. Do you mean something similar to bestowing knighthood?-Czmtzc 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "become" – like French devenir.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You should find all the information you are looking for, Vess, in the Samurai page. The Samurai, from ancient times, were Japan's traditional warrior class, and followers of the code of Bushido. However, after the Tokugawa shogunate was established in the seventeenth century, they steadily evolved into a ruling elite of bureaucrats and administrators for the Diamyo, or great feudal chiefs. With the Meiji Restoration in 1868 they lost their monopoly to bear arms, after the new government decided to establish a modern, western-style conscripted army. Samurai reaction to the modernisation of Japan led in 1877 to the outbreak of the Satsuma rebellion, and their defeat at the Battle of Shiroyama. The samurai tradition, of course, never entirely went away, and many of the officers in the new army came from the old elite. These traditions might be said to have re-emerged in the early 1930s, in organisations like Kodaha and later the Imperial Way Faction, and the entry of the army into politics. Thus old attitudes and values, when coupled with militant nationalism and fascist-style ideologies, brought, it might be argued, a new and much more militant direction to Japanese foreign policy from 1931 onwards. Clio the Muse 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so Vess isn't confused, the usual spelling is "samurai", which is why Samuri redirects to Samurai. :) JackofOz 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly me! For the sake of consistency I have now changed my spelling. Clio the Muse 07:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

fire alarms

whose in charge of the number and placement of fire alarms placed in a household 24.107.236.95 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, depending on the local building codes, safety codes, by-laws, etc. - Eron ^Talk 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I would start by asking a local building inspection authority.-Czmtzc 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In a household? Assuming you mean a private home and not an apartment building or duplex... In the U.S. at least... When insuring that home, insurance companies will ask if you have a smoke alarm (possibly as many as one for each bedroom plus one for the kitchen) and if you answer no, they may not insure the house. And if you aren't able to secure insurance, mortgage companies won't lend you the money to buy the house. So, while there's no federal law (There may be state level laws though as suggested by this and this) to say that you must have one, it's incredibly hard to get around not having one unless you lie and say that there is a smoke alarm when in reality there isn't. If you mean some sort of apartment complex, then there are local building codes and laws that would cover such a thing and that information should be available from the previously mentioned inspectors as well as the town offices for the town that the building is in. Dismas|^(talk) 09:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And if the homeowner lies and there's a subsequent fire (which, of course, will never happen, not to them; fires, like car accidents, happen to other, less capable people), the insurance company won't likely cover the damages. Tenants may find that their tenants' insurance won't pay up if investigators find evidence that the detector was shut off or somehow covered. This evidence is fairly easy to find, despite the popular conception that everything in a fire, including all evidence, will be irretrievably destroyed. This is also why some killers try to hide their crimes by setting fires - they don't know that investigators can in almost all cases easily tell whether a victim was alive or dead before the fire. --Charlene 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with quote:

"Work like you don't need the money Dance like no one is watching Love like you've never been hurt."

Who said it first? I've seen it attributed to Mark Twain and Satchel Paige, among others. Ronbarton 20:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't heard of Wikipedia's sister project Wikiquote. After a simple search, it turns out to indeed be Sachel Paige. [16] Reywas92^Talk 22:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not sourced, though. According to this site [17], and several others, it was Mark Twain, in the form, Dance like nobody's watching; love like you've never been hurt. Sing like nobody's listening; live like it's heaven on earth. Unfortunately, once again the precise source of this quotation is not given, and therefore I am not prepared to say that it definitely was Twain. Clio the Muse 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural cues, like "being hurt", expectations of narcissism in dancing, and the formula "dance like" instead of "dance as if" all place this definitely post 1975. Are "hurt' and "eart'" rhymes that would occur to Mark Twain? --Wetman 01:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's so trite and banal, Wetman, so lacking in wit, and so juvenile in sentiment, I would be amazed if it was Twain; I certainly do not believe these words were ever penned or spoken by him; but, as you see, it's out there, and in more than one location. There is even a T shirt for sale with this quote, or something similar, attributed to Twain. Clio the Muse 02:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

William Purkey seems to have played a part. (Twain is often given as the "author" of mystery quotes, as are Shaw, Wilde, Dorothy Parker and Shakespeare.)--HJMG 11:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Names

What type of name is Köksal and Dragani?

Köksal seems to be a Turkish name, and Dragani seems to be Italian. Marco polo 00:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

White Southeast Asians

What is the percentage of Southeast Asians whose skin are white and whose skin is like Indian people because I noticed some people Southeast Asians are fair white and some are brown-kind? - Anonymous

Please define white. Seriously, if I use a digital SLR camera to take a picture of a person skin under bright sunlight using ISO 100 and automatic exposure. What range of RGB values should a white skin have. 202.168.50.40 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What .40 is getting at is that race is a very muddy concept. Almost nobody (not even those with albinism) actually has white skin, and everything darker than that is a matter of culture, not biology. --TotoBaggins 02:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on where you mean by Southeast Asia. Taiwan is considered Southeast Asia, and I've seen some fairly pale people from there. Same with Japan. If you move further down, to say the Phillipines, then you will see much darker skin. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Toto, I am curious as to what you mean by skin colour being a matter of culture, not biology. How exactly is skin colour influenced by culture (apart from fake tan of course)? Skin colour is a product of both genetics (the amount of melanin in your skin) and environment (the amount of exposure to sunlight), but I think both would fall under biology. 137.138.46.155 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The actual, physical, coloration of skin is a matter of biology. What particular colours or shades are classified as "white" is a matter of culture. - Eron ^Talk 13:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand better now.137.138.46.155 15:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

April 20

The Great Game

I have a question regarding the name, but I wasn't sure whether to ask it here or the language desk. Is the name referring to "Game" as in the play thing, or Game as in hunting for game? I often see the political cartoons of the time using hunted animals to represent countries, so that is where my question arises. China = dragon, America = eagle, Britannia = lion, Russia = Bear, etc. --Kirby♥time 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the word does not refer to game in the sense of a hunted animal. Rather, in this term, the word "game" means a strategic contest (not quite a "plaything"), as in a chess game, but with much greater stakes. Marco polo 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Marco is absolutely correct; the Great Game refers to the strategic contest played out in the nineteenth century between Britain and Tsarist Russia for political control of Central Asia, particularly Afghanistan and the north-west frontier of India. The term was supposedly coined by Arthur Conolly, a captain in the Bengal Lancers and an employee of the East India Company. It was later popularised by Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British Imperialism, in his novel Kim. The expression itself is uniquely English (is there a Russian equivalent?), and should really be viewed in terms of the national habit of trivialising quite serious affairs by the use of sporting analogies. Such delights as It's not cricket, old boy, and And England's far and Honour a name, But the voice of the schoolboy rallies the ranks; 'Play up!, play up! and play the game!' come to mind; but the most famous of all is the Duke of Wellington's alleged observation that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. But we'll row forever! Clio the Muse 07:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Russian page is at , which Google translate renders as "The Great Game". Don't know how much weoght to give that, though. jnestorius^(talk) 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

List of animals commonly associated with nations?

Continuing from my previous question, is there a list of the animal metaphors for countries?--Kirby♥time 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The List of national animals may fit the bill. - Eron ^Talk 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen China represented as a Panda in a political cartoon.--Kirby♥time 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. China is usually represented as a dragon. Marco polo 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I recall an old cartoon wherein a panda represented China... it's been probably 20 years though so I don't recall where it was that I saw it. Dismas|^(talk) 09:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The dragon appears in our list of national emblems. Characters such as Uncle Sam and John Bull appear in our list of national personifications. Marco polo 01:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I said may fit the bill... look, I'm perfectly fine with the Canadian beaver, alright? - Eron ^Talk 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, more than you'd think are perfectly fine with Canadian beaver beaver! ~ hydnjo talk  08:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: lions, elephants, or gazelle from Kenya, moose or wolves from Canada, badgers from the UK, eagles from the US, cobras or tigers from India, foxes or raccoon dogs from Japan, pandas from China, mongoose from Bangledesh, crocs from Australia, kiwis from New Zealand, penguins from Antarctica, polar bears from the Arctic, pirhana or anacondas from Brazil, yak from Mongolia... Vranak

In the political cartoons of the nineteenth century-many appearing in Punch, the satirical magazine-Great Britain is variously depicted as a Lion or as the figure of Britannia or John Bull. Russia is usually in the form of a Bear, though occasionally a Cossack. France is sometimes depicted in the form of a cockerel, but more often in the shape of Marianne, the personification of revolution. Clio the Muse 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior to that, in Punch, and, of course, since then everywhere, the King would often be the nation. George Cruikshank and Isaac Cruikshank had some remarkable drawings where the King (Geo III) was drawn in the same outline as the UK on the map. This form of political metonymy is commonplace, of course (Bush looking like Alfred E. Newman standing in for the entire nation is a fixture of political cartoons). Utgard Loki 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Partisan politics in Canada

New at this, not sure how it works.

Question: What is "partisan politics" - specific to Canada

Please email response to [email removed]

Thanks,

I have removed the email, and started a new section for this question.--Kirby♥time 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at... partisan politics in Canada is (depressingly) similar to partisan politics the world over. If you are looking for a quick overview, there are four major parties: the Conservatives (right of centre), the Liberals (centrist, leaning left and right as the electorate dictates), the New Democratic Party (left of centre), and the Bloc Quebecois (French-canadian nationalists, and mostly left of centre). The right-left axis is similar to most Western democracies, although the "centre" is more akin to what you would find in a European country than in the US - that is to say, even the right-wing Conservatives espouse some positions that would make all but the bluest American Democrat quite uneasy. The most unique feature is probably the issue of Quebecois nationalism, which cuts across the political spectrum - although the federal Bloc and provincial Parti Quebecois do skew left. - Eron ^Talk 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing like the level of contempt and recrimination in Canada that there is in the US, so you could argue that 'partisan politics' is less prominent, even non-existant in the northern state. Vranak

"Even non-existent"? I think that would be a tough argument to make. The fact that the partisan environment is not as poisoned as in the U.S. does not mean it isn't there. Books could be written (and have been) on the changes in Canadian conservatism - through the rise of the Reform Party of Canada, its evolution into the Canadian Alliance, and it's marginalization and absorption of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada - over the last fifteen years alone. - Eron ^Talk 10:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A tough argument to make -- back in 1993. I believe we are what... 14 years past that now? As for changing names and associations in Canadian politics, what could be more trite and inconsequential?Vranak

I think there are a few Red Tories who might disagree with you on the "trite and inconsequential" nature of changing names and associations. It can be disorienting to have one's party scoot to the right from under one's feet. I could also raise more current topics, such as recent flirtations between the Stéphane Dion and Elizabeth May of the Green Party of Canada, or discuss the rise of the Action démocratique du Québec and its implications for both the provincial and federal Liberal parties... but apparently it's all irrelevant. - Eron ^Talk 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I know a few Red Tories who are trite and inconsequential themselves. Come to think of it, I can't think of many politicians in 1st world countries that aren't trite and inconsequential.Vranak

On a constitutional level, I believe we are speaking of part of the Westminster System, which Britain spread to a range of countries, including Canada and Australia, for example. The advarsarial style is what these have in common. Regardless of party composition, the idea of govt v opposition doesn't really exist in the EU parliament, or US Congress, for example.martianlostinspace 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What is CopyFree?

Does anyone know what "CopyFree" means? I think it might mean without copyright, or perhaps it is a copyleft license. The reason I ask is to upload this image, or probably this cropped version to our Harvest Moon article. The image says "CopyFree", (Fins Eirexas is the photographer according to the Science@NASA site). Ideally, I would love to upload the image found here, but it is copyrighted. Who wants to ask the photographer himself to release that one under the GFDL? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

India, a Republic since 1947

I am a regular user of your website and find the material very informative and concise. I was reading the article on Royal House . Found that my country of origin India, is listed as part of the British Commonwealth and shows the Union Jack. I wish to raise an objection to this. India has been an Independent republic since 1947, and has its own National flag. i am not computer savvy enough to be able to make the changes, please comply. thanks

The India page looks good to me. I don't see much about India on the Royal House page. Could you be more specific about where you found this? Pfly 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The page in question is most likely: List of Royal Houses, with House of Windsor listed as pretender.—eric 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the aforesaid list. Quite frankly, I do not understand this either, and therefore sympathise with the questioner's confusion and annoyance. As it stands it looks as if the House of Windsor has a claim to the throne of India-and other Commonwealth republics-which is manifestly untrue. The last Emperor of India was George VI, and the House of Windsor neither rules nor pretends to rule India. For consistency one would also have to include the United States in the 'non-regnant' list! I realise that this page is probably for historical purposes only; but it is still misleading. Clio the Muse 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely confusing. I think the United States predates the House of Windsor, so that may be off the hook.. but some obvious cases are missing, like Australia and New Zealand. If nothing else, the page could be a little more clear on just what it means to be a "pretender". I'm guessing it means something like "this royal house used to be the monarch of this place, but isn't now, but were the issue ever to come up again, we'd have a claim!" But that's just a guess... and an uneducated one at that. Thanks to the poster for pointing out this issue! Pfly 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Pfly, but Windsor was only a change of name, not change of dynasty, and our own dear Queen is a direct decendant of George III, with all of his titles, privileges and claims. If she is the 'pretender' to India she has every right to make a similar claim to the Colonies! Who knows-perhaps the real pretender is your own George IV? Clio the Muse 07:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I think that the correct styling is George II. His father (George I was the founder of that dynasty and would surely not submit to being part of the British succession. I think that you are right that George II is a pretender to the British throne, rather than the other way around. He has Tony Blair serving as his loyal prime minister. Marco polo 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Ha! Yes, you are quite right, Marco, and I am happy to give way to your superior wisdom! Since George III was the last official 'King of America', I was thinking of Dubya as the fourth in the line; but if we include Le Père Bush, then I suppose our collective monarch is more properly entitled George V. Clio the Muse 13:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, India is independant, but isn't it still part of the Commonwealth? How else can they be in the commonwealth games (or am I imagining they participated?)

"A Pretender is a claimant to an abolished throne or to a throne already occupied by somebody else." Britain at some point in the past ruled India so they are claimant to the throne. The list doesn't appear to contradict the fact they're a republic now per this definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• The top of the list states it lists royal houses that are ruling and have ruled in the past. The "non-regnant" note in the table means the Windsor's no longer rule India. I think you misunderstood what it said. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to be a member of the Commonwealth and to be a republic at the same time (that is, not to accept the current monarch of England as head of state). India is such a republic. According to the accepted definition, "a pretender is a claimant". As Clio has pointed out, the monarchs of England are not claimants to the throne of India (which in any case no longer exists), so they are not pretenders. It is wrong to label them as such. Marco polo 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on the article's discussion (talk) page calling for it to be reorganized. (Really, that would have been a better place to raise the issue in the first place.) --Anonymous, April 20, 2007, 22:13 (UTC).

Yes, indeed. The Commonwealth of Nations contains 53 member states. The Queen is regarded as Head of the Commonwwealth by all 53 states, but she is the Head of State (= monarch) to only 16 of them. JackofOz 00:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of online news agencies

Where can I find a list of online news agencies that offer reader feedback or reader comment page following every published story and of these which are interactive like the discussion or "talk" pages on the Wikipedia? Nebraska Bob 03:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

explorations

i have a question?i began my famous expedition on the eighteenth.who am i?my journey was from where to where.

Listen, my children, and you shall hear

Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,

On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five;

Hardly a man is now alive

Who remembers that famous day and year

On the midnight ride of Paul Revere

Or, choose your own. hydnjo talk  08:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Boston to Lexington and Concord Mass.-Czmtzc 19:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

John Mill

Hello, but stuck on something im trying to research, How does John Mill argue that Liberty maximises utility? Does he mean that by allowing indiiduals freedom to amke their own choices they will on the whole pick 'good choices'?? What about people who choose sadism for example?? Or is he arguing that people simply wont pick this? Oh and is this a refution of the idea that utilitarianism leads to bad consequences??

Sorry, a lot of questions really!

Have a look at my talk page, the section headed Utilitarianism-item number 50-,which deals, in part, with the very problem you have touched on here. You should also consult the Wikipedia pages on Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Clio the Muse 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how do i access the talkpage??

Follow this link ... which gives me an excuse to quote the one and only Philosophers Song : John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill ... Gandalf61 13:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And David Hume could out-consume William Friedrich Hegel! Clio the Muse 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm still dont really understand. Why is it that liberty will increase overall utility??

I'm not surprised by your bafflement, but you will find the answers you are looking for on the pages and links indicated. Alternatively, you should consider looking into On Liberty and Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill. However, here is the argument at the most basic level. According to Mill, each person acts to maximise his or her own happiness. The sum of these individual acts then constitutes to the 'general happiness', the one goal that is desired by each of the participants. In response to this, James Martineau, another nineteenth century English philosopher, wrote that "As well might you argue that because of a hundred men each one's hunger is satisfied by his dinner, the hunger of all must be satisfied by the dinner of each." Happiness and satisfaction, in other words, cannot be deduced from the general to the particular. Even in a condition of perfect liberty, it is impossible to achieve a uniform standard of happiness. Mill tries to distinguish between the 'quality' and the 'quantity' of pleasures. The problem then is the assumption that virtue is desired for its own sake, as an end in itself. But there is simply no basis in the Utilitarian system for making such arbitrary value judgements. The world is not made up of university dons in a common room, or priests in a seminary, but of all sorts of people, with all sorts of ends. There is no basis in logic for putting to one side all of the evil, perverse, malicious and egotistical ends that may be variously desired by individuals, and a utilitarian system of values could quite conceivably justify slavery as serving the good of the many at the expense of the few. As I have said, human rights and personal responsibilities cannot be reduced to a utilitarian calculus, which stands, at the most basic level, in opposition to all of our fundamental notions of justice. Clio the Muse 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No article exists on the Ottoman-Safavid Wars

I would like to request an article on the Ottoman-Safavid Wars. I hope I'm in the right place.Whistleblower1881 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You can place a request at the Requested Articles page. --LarryMac 14:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help LarryMac. Whistleblower1881 15:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There's Treaty of Zuhab and a very small stub Persian-Ottoman relations. AnonMoos 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whistleblower, do you have some knowledge or expertise in this area? If so, you might care to write an article yourself on this important subject. I would be more than happy to give you my opinion of such a piece in draft, if you wish. Clio the Muse 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Further existing articulettes and sections: Battle of Chaldiran, Ottoman wars in Near East and, as a possible point for forking off the newly created article, Safavid#War_with_the_Ottoman_Empire. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of portals. Maybe Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire can be helped and helpful as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to help draft this article as I'm keenly interested in the subject. I doubt such a specific topic qualifies for a project, so I'm not sure how I should go about finding people to help me in creating it--I haven't the time nor the experience to finish such article on my own. Any suggections?

Though the topic may seem very specific it is by no means isolated or irrelevant. Infact, the current events in Iraq and Lebanon, specifically those related to the Sunni-Shia tension are what sparked my interest in these wars. Whistleblower1881 05:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does qualify! I will help. Never mind about expertise. Just put down what you have, and we will take it from there. Clio the Muse 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter how specific the topic is, it is by no means isolated or irrelevant. One only has to consider the single example of the Battle of Chaldiran. But for the Turkish victory the Kurds might very well have remained within a single defined national territory. In the aftermath of their defeat, moreover, the Safavids embraced Shia Islam as the religion of the Empire Clio the Muse 05:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Attorney Client Privilege

Under what conditions, if any, may the IDENTITY of the client be held privelaged? I.e. if a client would like an attorney to represent him/her on a transaction, but remain annonymous through that transaction, to what extent can that annonymity be legally upheld?

Check out Attorney-client privilege#Exceptions to Attorney-Client Privilege or Solicitor-client privilege#Exceptions. Clarityfiend 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the context, the nature of the transaction, and the jurisdiction(s) involved. For example, some jurisdictions in the USA: "A lawyer shall not reveal (client) information ... unless the client gives informed consent ..." Rule 1.6 MRPC. There is also case law supporting Rule 1.6 as protecting client anonymity. As always, there are exceptions, and there may be other rules or laws governing confidentiality in any given case (see e.g., Whistleblower). Also, a client is always well advised to ask such matters be specifically enumerated in the written agreement of representation.

(In addition to the refs from Clarityfiend, see also: Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer, Category:Legal_ethics, Bar association, ABA, MCPR and MRPC). dr.ef.tymac 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that's right. We're not lawyers and are not qualified to give legal advice. (Those who are wouldn't be dumb enough to do so.) Clarityfiend 20:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Brave New World

What are the different types of humans in Brave New World? Nick 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)nicholassayshi

Nick, this is your second bite at a Brave New World question in a very short space of time. Did you not read the page that was linked for you, because all of the relevant information is there? Anyway, there are five classes, identified, from top to bottom, by letters of the Greek alphabet: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon. Epsilon, the lowest of them all, is subdivided into plus, minus and moron. Do read the page; better still, read the novel. Clio the Muse 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick! This book is a touchstone of English literature. If you don't read it, you're going to spend the next 70 years of your life faking it at parties whenever people reference it. Your classmates who have interesting lives of non-drudgery ahead are all reading it. Just ask your mom to get you some Ritalin and buckle down and *do it*. Trust me, it will be worth it. --TotoBaggins 00:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I daresay that one could live quite happily without reading Brave New World. Nineteen Eighty-Four, on the other hand... Vranak

Vranak, I couldn't agree more.Whistleblower1881 09:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four are not really comparable as novels, beyond the bare fact that they are both dystopian. Orwell and Huxley had quite different points of departure. For Orwell, the imagined future was built on a totalitarian present, with the examples of Fascism and, above all, Stalinism before his mind. It was a brutal vision, based on the manipulation of memory, constant warfare and the deliberate creation of shortages. Huxley, in contrast, was less interested in the deleterious effects of contemporary ideologies, and much more in the soulless nature of mass consumerism, based on the creation and control of artificial desires. It is a vision of a future based on contrived happiness, without depth or real moral purpose, a one-dimensional future of the kind later explored in the theoretical work of Herbert Marcuse. Of the two visions, Huxley's is far closer to our truth, the 'future' at this particular point in history. To judge them purely as works of literature I would say, in expressing a personal opinion, they are both of considerable value; but as a craftsman Huxley had a far better command of literary technique, a greater understanding of character and language than Orwell. Nineteen Eighty-Four at some points breaks down as a novel, especially in the long and undigested extracts from Emmanuel Goldstein's 'Book.' There is another dystopian novel which is often overlooked, though in some ways it is better than either Huxley or Orwell-We by the Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin, which combines elements of Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Clio the Muse 10:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

They are the two most well-known and acclaimed dystopian novels: I would hardly dismiss that as a 'bare fact'. Vranak

Fun all around. Since you're an History graduate who has, apparently, a strong command of the English language, would you consider helping out with the Ottoman-Safavid thing? Whistleblower1881 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I would. Did you not see what I wrote above? Put something together and I will gladly have a look at it. Clio the Muse 10:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. I will let you know as soon as I complete the skeleton.Whistleblower1881 11:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are my words "boxed"?Whistleblower1881 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you are moving away from the margin! To do this without 'boxing' use a colon thus : depending how deep you want to go. Good luck! Clio the Muse 11:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Whistleblower1881 11:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so: but much depends on your definition of fun! Clio the Muse 10:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As in learning-something-new fun. Whistleblower1881 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other similar names for "Yeshua of Nazareth"

I understand these are possible spellings for name of Jesus of Nazareth.

• German: Jesus
• Middle English: Jhesus or Jhesu
• Modern English: Jesus Christ
• Latin: Iesus or Eesho or Iesu
• Hebrew: Yeshua or Yehoshua
• Arabic: Yeshua or Yasu
• Greek: Iesou or Iēsous or Iēsoun

Is there other spellings for Jesus that have the letters "esous" or "ous" or "ou" in them? --Doug ^talk 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but "Eesho" is not Latin, and in Arabic his name is `Isa. A possible transliteration of the Wyandot language spells his name as "Jesous" (as in the Huron Carol). Adam Bishop 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In Arabic his name is both. In Islam, his name is `Isa. For Arab Christians, his name is Yasu.--Kirby♥time 01:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew above looks questionable, and I suggest you check your sources for those putative forms. (In particular: "Yehoshua" is a transliteration of the Hebrew name יהושע that's come into English as "Joshua".) In two leading Hebrew-to-English dictionaries (R. Alcalay's Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary and Kernerman/Kahn's Oxford English-Hebrew, Hebrew-English Dictionary), the name is given as ישו (transliterated Yeshu) and parenthetically, הנוצרי (ha-notzri; lit. "the Nazarene"). -- Deborahjay 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually ישו is a derogatory variant, while ישוע is the same name which appears in the Hebrew Bible at Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15 -- and also in Aramaic at Ezra 5:2. AnonMoos 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In stating that ישוע (Yeshua) "is the same name" – would that be, and are all those biblical citations, in reference to "Jesus of Nazareth"? Or just a name? -- Deborahjay 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע as found in those Old Testament passages is the same name as Greek Iêsous (Ιησους) found in the New Testament. This name ישוע [yēšū`] is a post-500-B.C. shortened version of earlier Hebrew יהושע [yehōšū`] -- so in Nehemiah 8:17 in the Old Testament, Joshua son of Nun is referred to as ישוע [yēšū`] , and in the ancient Greek of Josephus and the New Testament Joshua son of Nun appears as Ιησους (Iêsous); see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. AnonMoos

What's meant by [the name] ישו (Yeshu) being "a derogatory variant"? Perhaps the intention is "corrupted," i.e. from some earlier source. Or is it that there's some confusion with an abbreviation formed by those letters, of the phrase ימח שמו וזכרו (yemach sh'mo ve-zichro), "[may] his name and [the] memory of him be obliterated" (per A. Even-Shoshan's New Dictionary). All the dictionaries I've cited, above and here, are of Modern Hebrew. -- Deborahjay 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ישו is an intentionally and deliberately altered form of ישוע . It was the most common form used by Jews writing in an Aramaic or Hebrew context from Talmudic times to the 19th century when referring to Jesus of Nazareth, but Christians knowledgeable in Hebrew can consider it to be offensive, and you won't find it in religious literature translated into Hebrew by Christians. AnonMoos 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I could very well be wrong on my spellings of Jesus and what language they associate with. Thanks for any corrections! Mostly just looking for other spellings that have "esous" or "ous" or "ou" in them. Thanks again to all of you for this help and corrections. --Doug ^talk 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"ou" was the ancient Hellenistic Greek spelling of an ordinary long [ū] vowel, and so was used in ancient Hellenistic Greek to transcribe the long [ū] vowel of the Hebrew/Aramaic name ישוע [yēšū`] (ending in a voiced pharyngeal conosnant - this name wasn't pronounced [yēšūă`] in Aramaic/Hebrew until a later period). AnonMoos 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

US House of Representatives - 2006 results - Incumbents vs 'New' Candidates?

Hello

I'm going nuts trying to locate specific results for the 2006 US House election -I am looking for the incumbent win/loss ratio. I know that records may have been set by the last election - I can find WHO won, what party, etc., however, I can't find out how many 'new' candidates won opposed to the incumbents. Hope I'm clear on what I'm looking for - I already looked on the Wikipedia US House 2006 election page and while there is a great deal of information I don't see what I'm searching for there .. unless I missed it.

thank you, Aim4Stars 21:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list of incumbents who lost or didn't run for re-election: [18]. You can subtract the total number of House members on the page by 435 to find the number of incumbents who ran again and won. -- Mwalcoff 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

April 21

Original of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus

Who now physically has the original Latin version of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus written by Jerome himself? --Doug ^talk 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No autograph exists. --Wetman 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Who then would have the oldest know Latin copy? When was this copy made and by whom (if known)? --Doug ^talk 11:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian Dosas and French crepes

I'm having an argument with a friend of mine. Which came first, the Indian Dosa or the French Crepe? I want to say Dosa because it's a staple South Indian food and because European cultures have been known for filching ideas from Asia, but maybe that's just my prejiduce speaking (I'm Indian).. Royrules22 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's far, far, far more likely that both are original to their home areas. Some forms of food are universal, and flatbreads are one of them. You'll find flatbreads in almost every part of the ancient world, from Rome to Ethiopia to pre-Columbian Mexico to Lebanon to Siberia to Alaska. To assume that all these breads had to come from one origin ignores not just human ingenuity but the fact that given some flour or crushed grain as an ingredient, one of the easiest and most (dare I say it) obvious things to make would be some kind of flat bread. Also, it's thought that the current French version of crepes comes from rural Brittany, and is dated to centuries before Marco Polo. --Charlene 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Flatbread Trail might interest you. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What does "Rememver the Alamo" mean?68.188.29.176 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It means Remember the Alamo! Part of the Texas Revolution, the sacrifice of William Travis, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and the other defenders of the Alamo Mission against the Mexican forces of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna in March 1836, was to be used the following month as a warcry in spurring on the Texan forces of General Sam Houston to victory at the Battle of San Jacinto. It has been used as a warcry ever since. Clio the Muse 04:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see someone's been watching "Jaywalking". --Anon, April 21, 05:28 (UTC).

Excuse me? I genuinely do not understand this reference! Clio the Muse 05:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably Jay Leno recently asked this question on the streets of Burbank (or wherever he happened to be visiting) and received outrageous answers. Maybe Anon and 68.188.29.176 were watching the same program a few hours ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As a culturally deprived Englishwoman I have to plead total ignorance of Jay Leno and all his works! Clio the Muse 05:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ha!Whistleblower1881 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ha??? Clios ignorance about Jay Leno is understandable. The ignorance of US citizens about the Alamo is a shame (which Jaywalking showed again). Flamarande 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That fact that this surprises you is a shame too.Whistleblower1881 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The ignorance showed in Jaywalking is indeed surprising. I really pray that they show only the truly ignorant, and don't show the 'plenty of ppl' (?) who do know the correct answers. I am always surprised by the extent of American ignorance. Flamarande 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course they only show stupid people on that segment (Street Smarts is another show that does the same). To see intelligent Americans, watch a few episodes of Jeopardy!. StuRat 15:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the selection criteria for appearing on Jeopardy! are unquestionably more rigorous than those applied in the other examples [namely, little more than: 1) a pulse; and 2) the abitlity to speak semi-coherent English into a camera on the public streets.] Make of that what you will. dr.ef.tymac 15:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtue theory

I am looking for some good articles which explain how the Virtue theory of moral reasoning explains why we shouldnt kill innocent people, like civilains in war. Does anyone know of any good articles, or could explain this approach for me?

Thank you

You should start with Ethics, proceeding to Virtue ethics, then moving on to a List of ethics topics, with enough page links to keep you going for quite a while! It would be surprising if you did not find a few clues and leads to your specific area of interest. Come back here if you don't. Clio the Muse 09:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For a readable scientific approach, I recommend the book The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

War is inherently immoral, I believe. However, if I was to take a skeptical stance, I'd explore the words "innocent civilians" from an epistemological aspect. You might also want to read The Old Testament for Collective Responsibilty. Perhaps even Section I, Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention might be of use; if that does not dissuade you from what you're about to commit, then god help us.Whistleblower1881 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"War is inherently imoral" is another bit of political correctness. Several wars are morally defendable (war against enemy invasion, etc). The moral validity of the Old Testament which defends the lapidation of sinners, besides other morally questionable actions (an eye for an eye...), is puzzeling these days. In fact a certain Jew re-appealed most of the these teachings. The original questioner did not announce that he was going to kill innocents, only that he was looking for good articles. If the search for knowledge is something which your god should protects us against, then you should better organize some good old-fashioned bookburning. Flamarande 12:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I like kittens. ^_^ Whistleblower1881 12:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some reasons for opposing the killing of civilians in war apply even to people with no morality:

1) If you kill enemy civilians when you capture enemy territory, this results in them arming themselves and "fighting to the death" rather than surrender and be killed.

2) If you kill enemy civilians, they will likely target yours, which can bring down your government, if your civilian population is sufficiently angered at you for starting this cycle.

3) Other nations may withdraw support for your side or support your enemies, if you target civilians.

4) After the war, you may be tried for war crimes. StuRat 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

5) Killing of civilians and unarmed non-combatants can tend to "humanize" the enemy and generate sympathy among those who might otherwise support an ongoing military operation. Such support may be important for governments that are not openly despotic and depend on a certain degree of communitarian assent to legitemize its actions. dr.ef.tymac 15:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What is 'virtue theory' exactly?

Also: "Virtue itself is offensive" - Nietzsche. Vranak

Nice quote their Vranak! Here are some more reasons:

6) You risk alienating members of your own military who may have relatives among the civilian population.

7) If you kill civilians when you are the invader, it will make rebuilding the country after the war that much more difficult.

8) It may raise the number of veterans who suffer from Post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental disorders after their discharge.

9) If the leaders of the war are religious (which I’m not), it may cause them to fear that they’ll go to hell or other similarly nasty fates depending on their faith.

10) If the invading country is run in a democratic way, killing civilians may cause the congress or parliament to cut off funding for the war out of disgust. S.dedalus 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

One more: people are a function of geography. If you wipe out a people and live on their land, you will become that people over time. Vranak

Is that why Americans eat so much corn/maize? (ever more off topic, sorry) Pfly 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct usage of titles JD and Esquire

After graduating from law school but before taking the bar is "JD" the only correct title or is "Esquire" acceptable? Can "Esquire" be used before passing the bar? Thank you for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurel26 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

"Esquire" is somewhat meaningless. It is used by convention for lawyers, but I do not believe very many books of protocol include it as a hard and fast necessity. The term actually means, essentially, "horsed knight." Well, few lawyers ride their horses, and fewer still are any use in a cavalry unit. Formerly, the term would be used by land-holding men in general, but it has never had a very precise reference. Geogre 20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Name that American war? (1891)

Presented
to
Mrs. Thomas Daly
by
H. Troop 1st US Calvary
Feb. 6. 1891

Hi all, trying to research this solider in my family tree, but can't figure out what war he would have fought in. We know that Thomas Daly was born in Canada, moved to the Arizona Territory.

Whatever war he was in, his regiment of the H Troop 1st US Calvary apparently had many ex-Canadians in it. As far as we know he died as a result of the war, and his wife was presented with a four-layer plate.

Her name was Margaret McCray/McRay in some of the later documents we have, but the spelling could have even been MacCrae, for all we know.

So my question, what war would this be? The list of wars that Wikipedia has claims there were no US-involved battles during that year. -- Zanimum 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

utility

I'm a bit confused with something i have been reading about utilitarianism. I have read an arguement in a journal which suggests that Bentham does not distinguish between the intensity of pleasures felt individuals, he treats them all as the same. It gives the examples that he attributes the same pleasure which a pig derives enjoying slop, with the pleasure a philosopher get from contemplation of truth.

I was just wondering have I interpreted this arguement right, because I know Bentham developed the felicific calculus, which proposed to take into account intensity, duration etc

Can, and if so how can i reconcile these two??

Was the felicific calculus proposed after the original utilitarianism was propsed by Bentham??