Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Please help us write the Reference Desk guidelines

We are currently drafting a proposal at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.
Please discuss those issues on its associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.

April 22

Douglas Bader

I am trying to find the burial place of Sir Douglas Bader. He may not, in fact, be buried but may have been cremated.

If so any details would be appreciated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petermoore60 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

According to this page "Douglas Bader British RAF fighter ace Ashes given to family " Gradvmedusa 05:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

stopping snap violence and road rage

What is the likelihood that treating personal economy discrimination at the Federal level in kind with racial, sexual, or religious discrimination would help reduce the problem of snap violence possibly including road rage? (For an example of personal economy discrimination simply replace race, gender or religion with personal economy in a situation involving discrimination, i.e., "...we are not even going to drive through that Black neighborhood." versus "...we are not even going to drive through that poor neighborhood. Degrading comments spoken by rich people so they can be overheard by poor people, etc.) Clem 03:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: 1) the correlation between "snap violence" and comments that reflect invidious discrimination; and 2) the ability of the Federal government to recognize and regulate discrimination based on economic status.

The first point seems dubious at best, since you would first have to substantiate such a correlation exists, (not to mention define what constitutes "rich" vs "poor" and a host of other issues).

The second point seems even less than dubious, since being "poor" fails the test of suspect classification, and (numerically) "rich" people are actually in the "minority." Moreover, even if "poor" were a protected minority, "degrading comments" by random people on the street (although unkind and ill-considered) are generally protected free speech. There are exceptions, but generally not within the scope of your proposal.

The best way to avoid snap violence is to try to see things from the other guy's point of view, give people the benefit of the doubt, and pretend everyone else on the road is your own grandmother. dr.ef.tymac 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to Suspect classification, and in particular immutability (although many are not Christian and for that reason do not define poverty in the same light), Jesus said: "The poor (those who are at risk of going hungry, not having shelter or cloths. no or very limited income, etc. versus someone with sufficient income for food, housing and clothing etc.) will always be with you" Matthew 26:11. Thus a level of poverty so defined would satisfy all of the remaining qualifications whereas relative poverty would not. (Those with sufficient income for food, housing and clothing etc. compared to those with income of say one million dollars in turn treated as poor by those with income of twenty million and likewise on up the scale). As for the rich being a minority that is simply, not true for the poor who are referenced by Jesus Christ; although very true for those who can afford to joy ride in space. Clem 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to correlation of snap violence with personal economic situation we have two very recent examples of killers whose personal economy was either threatened or used as a basis for discrimination as the reason for their acts which can only be classed as snap violence, although the execution in both cases was somewhat planned. Clem 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal economy discrimination -- are you refering to classism? Vranak

With limited exceptions. Clem 18:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

adultery

i would like to know if in ancient times when a man cheated on his wife it was shamefull/reprimendable and if so was it as bad as when a women cheated on a men —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.113.99.21 (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Nope. It was not. this might have what you're looking for.

More specifically:

Old Testament:

• If a man has sex with an engaged slave woman, scourge the woman, but don't punish the man.
• If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both.
• If a man has sex with his daughter in law, kill them both.
• If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep.
• If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death."

New Testament:

• Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn't seem to care about that.

and so on. In almost all ancient societies, women were less than men.--Kirby♥time 06:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, that is the "Skeptic's" bible, where they make little effort to find any context to the scriptures they lament/condemn/poke fun at. I've seen little attempt to go to the original Hebrew or Greek either. The Skeptics bible is awfully bad at interpreting the Bible without context. Although there are some very odd verses in the Bible which certainly deserve some criticism or reflection, they aren't nearly as numerous as the Skeptics bible would make it out to be.

BTW, Paul (New Testament) said if one a man has lusted after a woman, that man had committed adultery with her with her.

Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Another interesting verse out of Deuteronomy 22: 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

So it's not quite like Kirby may have implied.

I'm not going to defend the whole Bible here; I know it's easy to see in some contexts where the laws applied seem outlandish or outright vile and disgusting. It is hard to know if you are interpreting the bible correctly or properly. But the case against the Bible is not as strong as that site would make it out to be, either. If there's any one significant problem with the Bible, its that it is written in a natural language, so any interpretation of it without any guidance would be flawed.

Root⁴(one) 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not that they seem outlandish and whatnot, it is that they are outlandish. Stoning someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is an outlandish law, period. There is no context that could possibly justify such a thing. Saying that the pain of childbirth is the result of Eve's sin is sexism, there is no "context" that rationalizes it. Marginalizing the Christian oppression of women is not only wrong and shameful, but also inappropriate for this reference desk.--Kirby♥time 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

this is pretty much what i tought ,what i find very surprising tough is that since it used to be something to control women and we dont (or at least try not to) do that anymore , instead of giving equality to woman by saying these thing just arent that important we decided to just apply them to men as well and lower the penality to shame instead of death just to save the bible

In response to Kirby, the Anglo-saxons were one old society (maybe not quite ancient) who had quite an enlightened view (comparatively) when it came to women. And to the poster above, I don't think the concept of adultery was invented purely to oppress women137.138.46.155 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons, along with the Achaemenians and other ancient societies, were the exception to the rule. I said most. But the bottom line is, compare how many times the crime of adultery is used against women, with how many times it is used against men. How come only the women in the Bible are sexual deviants? Well, except for Sodom. But still, that says something. It is always women who are called "harlots", "whores", etc. in the Bible. Those terms hardly have male equivalents, even in today's language. Abaham sleeps with his maidservant Hagar, and God approves. King David has hundreds of concubines, and nobody criticizes him. But the moment a woman even thinks about sex, they are immediately whores. From the first book of the Bible (blaming Eve) to the last book (whore of Babylon), the "good book" is degrading towards women, period. And it doesn't matter how much whitewashing you do; the Bible is always there for people to read.--Kirby♥time 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Going by the gender ratio in Internet ponography it makes since that women would be more harshly treated. Clem 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you consider voluntarily appearing in Pornographic pictures in return for money to be harsh treatment of course. I think it might likely be a case of supply and demand.137.138.46.155 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Titus' birth date - which calendar?

Titus was born on 30 December in the year 39. I'm trying to determine for certain if this is the date under the Julian calendar in use at the time, not a date corrected for the Gregorian calendar we currently use. I'm thinking that it may be a pointless question since the Julian calendar was adopted in 36 BC-- only 75 years earlier- that there would have been only about 13 hours of difference between the two calendars at that time- meaning that Titus was born on December 30th regardless of what calendar is being used. Is my reasoning sound? DeepSkyFrontier 07:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that ancient dates are given in Old style, or using the Julian calendar in use at the time. I'm hoping that someone can confirm this. However, the date under the Julian calendar would be the same as under the Gregorian calendar in the year 39, because the calendars differ by only three days every 400 years (a leap day omitted in years that are a multiple of 100 but not of 400). The regular 4-year interval of leap years did not begin until A.D. 4 (per Julian calendar), so there would have been no divergence in A.D. 39. Marco polo 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's not correct that the proleptic (retrospective) Gregorian calendar would agree with the Julian calendar in the 1st century AD. The offset applied in 1582 when the Gregorian calendar began was 10 days, not 12, so the century when the two calendars agree is actually the 3rd century AD (or more precisely, from March 1, 200 AD, through February 28, 300). (Why? Because the idea was to reset the seasons to what they were at supposed to have been at the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. But that's in the 4th century, so what happened? Well, in doing the calculations, Aloysius Lilius had a length for the tropical year (the solar year) that was 30 minutes off. He knew when the seasons were in his own time, so he assumed that the calendar in 325 AD was actually one day off, rather than that he had the wrong length of the year. So he called for a 10-day shift instead of 9.) Anyway, this means that if December 30 in the 1st century was a proleptic Gregorian date, then the Julian calendar date would have been January 1 (Kal. Ian.). But as explained in the other responses, in this sort of context the Julian calendar is used, so it's December 30 Julian (or III Kal. Ian.) --Anonyous, April 22, Gregorian, 2007, 20:41 (UTC).

I am truly sorry to inform that: "(Titus) was born on 30 December A.D. 41, the memorable year of Gaius's (Galigula) assassination, in a small, dingy, slum bedroom close to the Septizonium." My source is the The twelve Caesars of Suetonius, translated by Robert Graves, revised by Michael Grant, published by Penguin ISBN 0-141-39034-4. I suggest you go back and find out where it was told that he was born in A.D. 39 and then find out the reason for this discrepancy (two years). Who knows? Perhaps the penguin book is wrong and your source is right. The '30 December' seems to be correct. Normaly such info as the "day/month" is not 'improved' by modern scholars. Charlemagne was crowned on the 25 of December, but if we use the Julian-Gregorian calendar that date would be incorrect. It would be height of folly to improve these dates. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is the year. Suetonius (as all the early roman historians) did not use the AD system. Is it very likely that he used the 'year of a consul', or perhaps even the Ab urbe condita. To backtrack today the "correct A.D. year" is very difficult as both of the Roman systems were not 100% accurate (the article Ab urbe condita tells that there were even two 'Ab urbe condita systems' and shows that there some discrepancies). 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 far from perfect. "Our" new calculations might be wrong (or not). Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that ancient dates, indeed any dates earlier than 15 October 1582, are given in Old style. That is because the Gregorian Calendar was only instituted on 15 October 1582, and was not retrospective. It contained a 10-day discontinuity, which has now increased to 13 days for those rare cases where the Julian calendar is still being used. Using the proleptic Gregorian calendar, dates prior to 15 October 1582 are sometimes converted to what their Gregorian equivalents would have been had the Gregorian been in place then - but this normally happens only in scientific or astronomical contexts. The proleptic Gregorian calendar is never used for the dating of ordinary historical events such as births and deaths in ancient times. JackofOz 13:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The institution of the Julian Gregorian calendar was not universal, and some contries adopted it quicker than others. The day/month are normally not 'improved', agreed. However you seem to be forgeting that Suetonius wasn't using the AD system at all, therefore your entire reasoning (about the Old style) is sadly mistaken. Sorry Flamarande 14:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To Flamarande, who wrote "The institution of the Julian Gregorian calendar was not universal":

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Julian Gregorian calendar". The Julian is one calendar, the Gregorian is another. JackofOz 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actualy the Gregorian is a improvement of the older Julian calendar and you will find that it is many, many times called the Julian-Gregorian (or Julian Gregorian) calendar. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Flamarande. I must say I'd never come across this before. I knew the Julian was the father of the Gregorian, but referring to the latter by both names seems to invite confusion and ambiguity. JackofOz 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To the anon who wrote "Charlemagne was crowned on the 25 of December, but if we use the Julian/Gregorian calendar that date would be incorrect.":

The Julian calendar was in use in "France" during Charlemagne's time. So 25 December is the date under that calendar, and it's the date we continue to use in reference to his coronation. Had the Gregorian been in use back then, the date would indeed have been different. But it wasn't, so it's not. JackofOz 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my point, I presented that particular case to show that we should be careful in 'backtracking' the "correct dates". Sorry if my english wasn't clear enough. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Flamarande. I didn't know it was your post. See my above post re ambiguity. :) JackofOz 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note, everybody, that Titus' mother appears to have had a particularly demanding labour, which began, according to the Wikipedia page, in 39 AD and continued for two years! As as been pointed out above, the generally accepted date of his birth, based on Seutonius, is December 41 AD. Is there any dispute about this, and if so, where did the earlier date come from? Clio the Muse 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK guys, further to the above, I've dug out some more information. According to this site [1], and others, the correct date is indeed 39 AD. Seutonius initially gives the date as 41 AD, the year of the assassination of of Caligula, but later contradicts himself in the course of his narrative (Section XI). Dio Cassius and Philocalus both give the date as 39 AD. Now, before anyone jumps in here, I know that Roman historians did not use the AD dating. I do for the sake of convenience! Clio the Muse 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As do we all. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To each and every one of you, please accept my sincerest gratitude for your diligence. I also especially wish to thank Anonymous for explanation of the proleptic Gregorain calendar. This is exactly what I needed to know. Whoever you are, I honor you. If I am to understand correctly: the date given (30 December) is most certainly a Julian calendar date. Thus, the one-day correction in the first century AD would place the proleptic Gregorian date on 29 December. Thank you, Flamarande, for bringing up the controversy about the year. To Clio the Muse- who I've encountered before- you truly deserve the name you chose for you are an inspiration. Thank you for providing clarity on the question Flamarande brought up. DeepSkyFrontier 04:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

RMS Aquitania 1917

Can anybody help me to find the crew list of the RMS Aquitania on her 1917 voyage(s) from UK to Halifax, Nova Scotia? Any help would be much appreciated! Skumbag - 酢薫バッグ 13:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

American shade

Sorry, I've forgotten what I was going to ask. If anyone has any ideas, please tell me. If not, how can I try to remember? Sorry. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.224.42 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Shade as in a ghostly apparition, or the usual shadow meaning? Vranak

or as in a shade of a particular colour :) HS7 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you were looking for the definition of "umbrageous", which means "shaded". You're welcome. Herostratus 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Might be a question about Neil Gaiman's American Gods, which has a character named Shade? If so, the answer is "no," it's probably not. Utgard Loki 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A "shade" is Aramaic for demon. But I doubt there are any American demons that speak Aramaic. --Dweller 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that this might not actually be a real question :] HS7 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Musicology: Moderna Laika

Does anyone know where can I find the musicological characteristic of Greek moderna laika genre? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.216.139.62 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

If someone is forced/blackmailed into commiting a crime

What is the legal term for that, and will they receive a lighter or no sentence because they were forced/blackmailed into doing it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.5 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Take a look at Duress. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 16:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See Patty Hearst. Clarityfiend 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The term is "duress", and whether it will be a valid defence to a criminal charge depends on the law of the particular country (or in the U.S., of the particular state). However, even if a claim of duress does not lead to an acquittal, it might be considered a mitigating factor when determining sentence. In Canada, the defence is set out in section 17 of the Criminal Code but some parts of that section were struck down as unconstitutional in R. v. Ruzic. --Mathew5000 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nubia

What sports did ancient nubian people play?

All science a philosophy?

Ok, so we base out mathematics on axioms, things we accept without proof. If we accept something without proof, it is a philosophy. So wouldn't that make all of math a philosophy? That would be alright, it is just that we use math as the language of science. So wouldn't that make all our science equations written in math just a philosophy? Just our interpretation of the universe? I suppose this would supported by the fact that quantum mechanics has many different interpretations, and you can even take classes on the philosophy of quantum mechanics [2]. Isn't this kind of a big deal that all of our science may not be leading us to the reality, but only one interpretation of it? Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 19:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The element that you not taken into account is that scientists validate their mathematical models against reality by performing experiments - see falsifiability. Gandalf61 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientists validate or reject hypotheses through observation of available empirical evidence, such evidence does not necessarily coincide with "reality". The very act of assuming there is a "reality" to test is a hypothesis in itself. Falsifiability doesn't really solve that problem, it's just a part of what makes mathematics self-consistent. Yes, math coincides with philosophy, if you don't believe that, just ask yourself why one plus one equals two.

Yes, Imaninjapirate, you raise good questions, and you are not alone. Math is a tool, and so far people seem to be convinced it's a good one. It may not be the ultimate answer to everything. Anyway you might get better answers on the Science Desk. (See e.g., effectiveness of math and Operationalization and theory of everything and CTMU for examples of people who have asked similar questions). dr.ef.tymac 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...those articles and the discussion of 1 + 1 are very interesting. I think it comes down to the question of what reality is. Maybe what we experience from our senses and interpret from our consciousness as "numbers" and "math" is accurate to what the cosmos really is. It could also just be that math is formed from our consciousness's constant search for patterns in what we experience from our senses. But like it says in the The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences page, our brain being able to string together all of the complexities of math would be quite a miracle. If some alien intelligence that has some radically different form of consciousness would also developed mathematics, that would definitely tell us that math and numbers are inherent to the cosmos. But until then we can only speculate. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with the characterization of philosophy. "If we accept something without proof, it is a philosophy." Well no, such a thing would be a belief but not a philosophy. Philosophy is all about proving one's statements, perhaps not empirically, but atleast logically. C mon 22:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of different discussions about what the relationship of science to philosophy is. One that gets something of a bad name today but isn't such a poor formulation is logical positivism, i.e. science ought to be the combination of Machian positivism (a demand for blunt empiricism) coupled with and extended by rigorous formal logic. --24.147.86.187 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Science" really isn't either a philosophy nor not one, because it doesn't have much of a strict meaning. Scientific method is a method and is not to be confused with "the belief in the priority of science" or "the beliefs that shape scientific practice" or "the beliefs employed in scientific discourse." After all, some of the skepticism of David Hume is still unanswered. There is implicit metaphysics and implicit epistemology in "science" as a belief structure (one example: inductive reasoning is not iron clad; one other: many concepts such as "energy" have no empirical basis and yet are accepted as necessary for the functioning of the language systems surrounding scientific reasoning; another: the language employed by the observer determines the observations to a significant (total?) degree). In other words, what people call "science" is a collection of philosophies coupled with an agreed-upon method for discerning the truth of propositions. The method seems to work pretty well. The philosophies may not. Utgard Loki 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that big-S Science is more of a religion than a philosophy. Vranak

(Copied from the science desk) I think the questioner misses the key point about mathematics. It doesn't claim that the axioms are true - it merely states that if you accept the axioms then these other things follow from that acceptance. To take an absolutely classic example of this - all of Euclid's geometry (stuff like "the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees") is based on a set of axioms - one of which is that parallel lines never meet. Everything he said is true in an place where parallel lines never meet. However, if you draw two "parallel" lines on the surface of a sphere and do all of your geometry on that surface - then parallel lines eventually cross - and Euclid's axioms are untrue - and as a consequence, all of the things that follow from those axioms are open to doubt. Indeed - if you draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere, it's angles don't add up to 180 degrees. This doesn't mean that Euclid was wrong - it means that he's only correct in situations where his axioms are true. Where they aren't true - all bets are off. Mathematics doesn't claim to produce truths about the world - it merely produces conclusions that are dependent on some set of axioms. Indeed, one may pick a set of axioms that are absolutely NOT true in the real universe and mathematics can go to work and produce conclusions about how things would hypothetically be if they where. This is totally different from philosophy. Now, science is a different matter. In science (not mathematics) - you can test the universe using experiments - and use those to specify axioms that are "true" (or at least true to within the limits of your experimental error). Again, this is totally different from philosophy. SteveBaker 15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Boeotia's Ethnicity

Is this map telling me that most of Boeotia, Eastern Attica and southern Euboea is inhabited by Albanians? Am I reading it right? Was this true then (1911)? Is it true now? Many thanks! 207.35.41.4 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Entire Balkans and Asia Minor were a complete ethnic mix at that time. Large parts of Greece were subject to Albanian and Vlach colonization since 14th century. The reason was the civil war and subsequent collapse of the Byzantine state which was unable to stop the migration as well as depopulation of large parts of Greece. I do not have sources for the current state, but I suspect that those of Albanians that were Muslims were forcibly resettled to Turkey after the population "exchange" in early 1920s. The rest was subject to assimilation pressure and there is few Albanian speakers there. The historical Albanian settlers were called Arvanites. Their numbers (or numbers of their descendants) could be only guessed.

Greece is interesting also because large parts of its population today are Hellenized Slavonic peoples. Almost entire Greece was occupied by the Slavs between 7th and 9th century with Byzantines holding but few port cities like Thesallonica. Even Peloponesus was Slavic. The original Greek inhabittants were either killed or fled to the cities. It was after the Byzantine Empire reconquered these areas, a slow but steady Hellenization of Slavs as well as Greek repupulation started. However even in 15th century there were Slavic tribes/communities in the Peloponesus (like Jeziertsy) that maintained their authonomy. Yarovit 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Yarovit, for your response! 207.35.41.4 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sung-Cho-Hui

Lets say Sung-Cho-Hui didn`t commit suicide.Lets say he surrendered himself to police or was captured what would have happened to him then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.67.76 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

This is reference desk, not what-if forum.Yarovit 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:NOT#CBALL. dr.ef.tymac 20:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a similar situation happens, then he might have served 32 life sentences. I seem to recall a mass killer serving one life sentence for each person he killed, and he ended up with more than a dozen consecutive life sentences. I might be wrong though. However, that does not mean that he would have had the same ruling. He might have also gotten a death sentence. Saying any more than that would probably be crystalballing. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

An insanity defense would be the best way to go, though I doubt if he'd get off. StuRat 04:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

pursuit of happiness

I heard an interview on NPR regarding the pursuit of happiness and was hoping someone else remembers - it was in the last two years. The interviewed person traced the phrase from its origins as meaning (roughly) the ability to work in one's chosen field (property + happiness). He want on to say that in Europe at the time, a favorite way to destroy someone was to prevent them from doing so, and that this meaning was very much recognized and intended when written into the Declaration of Independance.

Does anyone here have a link to the interview or know who the author is? (also asked question at Talk:Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) PatriotSurvivor 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, PatriotSurvivor. It's not quite clear to me exactly what you are looking for. You must know from reading the page you have linked that the phrase in question was coined by Thomas Jefferson, who based it upon a similar sentiment expressed in the work of the English political philosopher John Locke. Locke was a close associate of the Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the founder of what became known as the Whig Party, which later contributed to the overthrow of James II, the last Catholic king of England, in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government in defence of this Revolution, and as a counter to the absolutist theories of Thomas Hobbes. Englishmen of the day were just as keen on natural justice and the defence of property as the later framers of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, and just as opposed to political absolutism of any kind. The upheavals of 1688 was followed soon after by the passing by Parliament of the Bill of Rights, incorporating some of these beliefs. France, in contrast did indeed operate a system of political absolutism up to the Revolution of 1789, where people had few rights in law; but I do not believe this example was foremost in the minds of Jefferson and others. I'm afraid I have no knowledge, though, of the particular interview you are referring to. Clio the Muse 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How about "Pursuit of Happiness Talk of the Nation, July 3, 2003?—eric 07:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is great, eric! I'm listening to the discussion as I clean out my rooms here at Cambridge, which is most definitely not the pursuit of happiness-where am I going wrong? It must be the oppressive, absolutist system I live under. Thanks for the diversion! Clio the Muse 08:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The author your looking for is probably Darrin HcMahon, i've access to a couple of his journal articles on the subject, but not Hapiness: a History.—eric 07:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. That may be the author. I've reserved his book. But it isn't the interview I was thinking about, nor is this. I distinctly remember a discussion about abuse of power in old europe in the form of preventing people from working in their chosen fields in order to ruin them, and that pursuit of happiness had this (at least partially) in mind when written into the DOI. PatriotSurvivor 20:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

April 23

History of Abortion

Does anyone know when and where the first abortions were performed?

-Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.134.73.15 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The first recorded evidence of induced abortion dates back the the sixth century BC in China, though the practice is surely far older than that. Have a look over the History of abortion. Clio the Muse 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank YOu

-anonymous

M. Bade (or perhaps Bave), artist

I am trying to identify an artist who did pen-and-ink sketches of Middle-East or north-African subjects (camels, deserts, robes and the like), at least one of which is a lithograph. The artist is likely Dutch, from the period 1850 to 1950, but most probably from a period right around the turn of the century (1900 or so). The surname might also be "Baue". I have checked all these variations on Google, Artprice and Sotheby's. He/she is not famous under any of these names. Any ideas out there amongst the cognoscenti? Bielle 00:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ask Wikipedia in the Netherlands, perhaps with an example of an image. I'm sure some of them speak English. I have only the ideas like "Bauer" (farmer) or "Bader" in Germany they are very wellknown as surname.

Another way is to search with google pictures for the same image in google and to read there the informations ... Or to write to a gallery or an art dealer ...

-- jlorenz1 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Jlorenz. The name definitely is only 4 letters, the last of which is an "e". I have a gallery doing a search. I haven't tried either the image search, or Wiki Netherlands, but will do so. Thanks again. Bielle 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama was not assimilated

While reading the Jeri Ryan (Seven of Nine) article, I learned that her husband was forced to turn down the Republican nomination for the Senate seat won by Obama because of salacious details about their divorce. Was Jack Ryan a serious threat to Obama? Clarityfiend 04:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I found a poll from May 31, 2004 in the Chicago Tribune in which Obama led Ryan by a 52%-30% margin. This was at a time when the press was seeking to have the Ryan divorce files unsealed but the exact allegations had not yet been revealed. So Ryan would have been facing an uphill battle even before the details came out. --Metropolitan90 08:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Additionally, the salacious details from the Ryan divorce were bad, but they weren't that bad. Despite what some people (where and in what profession, I won't say), marital irregularities don't decide elections these days, except in the most rural districts, if even there. Furthermore, the details were not reducible to an easy to digest charge, and therefore they didn't really end up as slogan-level dirt. I'm sure that they hurt Ryan with some of the fundamentalist voters, but I would suspect many/most of them voted Republican anyway and would have voted for him over Obama. I.e. the people likely to be driven away by the scandal are the same ones likely to avoid voting for Obama under any circumstance. Utgard Loki 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Obama won 70% of the vote in 2004, whereas Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry only captured 54% of the vote in the state of Illinois. I don't know what conclusions you might draw from this, but I'm sure there are some. Also, the 27% of the vote captured by Obama's opponent, Alan Keyes, probably represents the segment of the population (in Illinois) that will vote regardless of any other issues. Carom 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

what are the largest cities in britain?

arrange them in descending order, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.121.36.12 (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, here are the two hundred most populous cities, towns and districts, arranged in descending order, for you to get your teeth into [3]. Clio the Muse 07:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry that list is surely rubbish (it doesn't seem very official). There seems to be quite a bizarre way of dictating when some cities start and finish. First of all, Fife isn't a city, its a region (and not a very populated one at that). Only assuming a very minimal definition of manchester does it have 400,000 people (Manchester city council is under the impression that greater manchester has 3 million people living there). On the other hand, you have to be draw borders fairly generously to conclude that edinburgh has 448,00. If you don't believe me then go there youself, if manchester is smaller that edinburgh my whole world will be turned upside down!87.194.21.177 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is actually a list of cities and districts. I make no comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the figures supplied. However, here are some additional details, taken from the 2001 census, which would seem to confirm these numbers [4]. Clio the Muse 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Political map of England (End of 17th century/1683) and map with the route between Newmarket and London (Rye House Plot)

like this

Hallo, I've some difficulties to find a political map of England (17th century) and a map with the route between Newmarket and London (Rye House Plot). Does something exists in Wikipedia or in the Internet (as template)? Thanks -- jlorenz1 09:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Johannes. I suppose it depends how serious you want to be about this. I myself know of no free templates you could use. There are good historic maps available, as you will see if you look here [5], though at a cost! Do you have access to a decent research library? If so, it is likley to have a section specialising in cartography, which may allow the use of historic maps for a reasonable fee. But in terms of 'political' geography, the area of England in question is actually fairly compact. Rumbold's Rye House was at Hoddesdon in Hertfordshire, on the main road to Cambridge, a fairly short distance to the north of London. You could conceivably draw your own sketch map to illustrate the point you are making. Incidentally, do be careful of the Wikipedia article on the Rye House Plot, which, to say the very least, is quite dreadful! Amongst other things it implicates Shaftesbury, although he had died some three months before the planned assassination attempt! Clio the Muse 11:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Clio the Muse, I'm looking more for a political map with colours and frontiers between England, Scotland, Ireland and perhaps the last part of England on the european continent, because most germans have no idea of England in this time. I know, Shaftesbury have made a first try and canceled it. They other have continued to plan their plot later. A greater pronblem for me is Gregorian calendar and the time difference between England and Europe. At the time I ignore it so much as I can. -- jlorenz1 13:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all. It was a help. There is only one question about Ireland, the british country in Ireland was larger as today.;-) I've found a map of 1650 (Cromwell) and a map fo 1801. Both shows differetn frontiers. So there were the frontiers in Ireland in 1683? -- jlorenz1 12:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was all under English control, Johannes. Clio the Muse 13:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless I misremember badly, England had by this point long since lost all holdings on the continent, and the border with Ireland was the Irish sea. That leaves you with the Scottish border, the islands and the stupid anomalies: Man, Berwick and the Channel Islands were all, I think, separate from England though under the English crown, and there may have been others. Hope that helps Algebraist 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To sum up Algebraist's comment, a political map of England's external borders in 1683 would be the same as a map of England and Wales today, except that Berwick was not formally part of England (whereas Wales had formally been merged with England). The only land border would have been the present Scottish border, with a slight diversion to the south of Berwick. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were technically not part of England. (However, the Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey), Man, Scotland, and Ireland were part of a personal union with England. England's monarch was also the monarch of these territories.) Marco polo 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There were some alterations to the England/Wales border in the 1970s, and a few trivially small changes to the Scotland/England border circa the Union - some areas around Carlisle, IIRC. Other than that, nationally speaking the same as today. Internal boundaries would be quite different, though. Shimgray | talk | 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As others have said, Johannes, the political map of England in the seventeenth century was, by and large, as it is at the present time. The town of Calais, the last possession from the Hundred Year's War, had been lost in 1558, during the reign of Mary I. In 1658 Oliver Cromwell, in alliance with the French, had gained the port of Dunkirk from the Spanish; but this was sold to Louis XIV in 1662 early in the reign of Charles II, well before the events of 1683. So, basically any outline map will satisfy your needs, with perhaps a county map of Hertfordshire to indicate the precise location of the Rye House, the haunt of ferocious old 'Hannibal' Rumbold. On the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, by the seventeenth century England was running ten days behind most of Continental Europe. Clio the Muse 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this map, espcially Ireland(green) correct? (it is only sketch!)

England in 1683

-- jlorenz1 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have taken the information of a history atlas

Johannes, this green area does not signify any form of political separation between the west of Ireland and the rest of the island. It represents the lands left to the Catholics, chiefly in Connacht, after the Cromwellian conquest and the subsequent Act for the Settlement of Ireland, passed by the English Parliament in 1652. By the terms of this act all Catholic landowners were ordered to leave for the west before 1 May 1654, or face the death penalty, from whence comes the expression To Hell or to Connaught. One other small point: your map seems to suggest that the Isle of Man-coloured yellow-was politically part of Scotland; it was not, nor had it been since the fourteenth century. Clio the Muse 23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I will open a new thread. I want to show you my source. The Isle of Man is now "english". I looked up in Encarta. The Kingdom was under the influence of England at that time. -- jlorenz1 11:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

what are the largest navies in the world

in terms of tonnage per head of population? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazon Priest (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello, Amazon Priest. I didn't find a list with tonnages per capita, but Nationmaster lists Navy personnel (per capita) by country. Number one is Taiwan with 2.97 naval staff members per 1,000 people. Wikipedia has Table_of_current_naval_strengths, including displacement, but for some reason it hasn't gone beyond the letter "C" (or Cameroon) yet. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I fixed the link. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vigilant Canadian naval intelligence agents must have "taken care" of the editor. (bwahahahaha) Clarityfiend 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominations in French presidential election

Candidates must obtain signatures from 500 elected officials in order to stand in the French presidential election:

1. How many eligible elected officials are there in France?
2. How many candidates can each official sign for?

thanks58.28.143.17 11:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

According to President of the French Republic, approximately 45,000 officals (mostly mayors) are eligible. Can't find anything on the other question. Algebraist 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There are approximately 36000 communes, thus 36000 mayors. The median number of inhabitants is about 375, so most communes really are small villages. Thus, one may safely say this method overrepresents the concerns of officials of rural areas.

One single official may present only one candidate (see decree 2001-213 article 6). David.Monniaux 17:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

weapon hoards

I seem to remember various weapon hordes being mentioned in norse sagas - but which ones? Quotes from the stories would help as well. Google doesn't even seem to acknowledge their existence.83.100.251.85 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "weapon hordes?" Do you mean armories? There is a famous example of one of those in Volssunsaga and in The Battle of Brunansburgh. If you don't, please specify. Utgard Loki 15:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It might include armories - but I was thinking of hordes of weapons guarded by a monster (dragon, troll, giant etc) - that would have no use for them - rather than an armoury as found in a castle.83.100.251.85 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I knew most of the sagas, but I cannot recall the specific kind of reference you have in mind. All I can think of is the horde of the dragon, Fafnir, in chapter nineteen of the Völsunga Saga, which contains some weaponry, alongside the gold. After killing the the great worm, Sigurd enters his lair: Then Sigurd ate some of Fafnir's heart, and the remnant he kept. Then he lept on his horse and rode along the trail of the worm Fafnir, and so right into his abiding place; and he found it open, and beheld all the doors and the gear of them that were wrought of iron; and it was dug down deep into the earth: there found Sigurd gold exceeding plenteous, and the sword Rotti, and hence took the Helm of Awe, and the gold Byrny, and many things fair and good. So much gold he found there, that he thought verily that scarce might two horses, or three belike, bear it hence. So he took all the gold and laid it in two great chests, and set them on the horse Grani, and took the reins of him, but nowise will he stir, neither will he abide smiting. Then Sigurd knows the mind of the horse, and leaps on the back of him, and smites and spurs into him, and off the horse goes even as if he were unladen.

In the Hervarar Saga, the dwarfs Davalin and Durin forge the magic sword, Tyrfing. In the Prose Edda the dwarf Eitri forges Mjolnir, the great hammer of Thor, as the sons of Ivaldi create Gungnir, the spear of Odin. And that is as much as I can drag up from memory! Clio the Muse 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Early, early, early, when we are getting the family history of the Volsungs, we have a patriarch who is being betrayed by his kinsman. He and his son go to the armory, and the enemies try to burn them out. That's what I was referring to. Similarly, in Battle of Brunaunsburgh, there are the "out buildings" where the visitors are put, and the armories were nearer to the main complex, so the fighting surrounding those buildings was strategic. Now, it's possible that I'm confusing the Volsungssaga, as I read three sagas in a row for fun, and they can run together somewhat (except for Njal's which is unmistakable), but I'm fairly sure. Utgard Loki 12:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember no gold in the story I was thinking of - the story was set in denmark/sweden - (with travel between) - there may have been a 'witch' (sorceress?) in it. (Or perhaps I remembered wrong)83.100.251.85 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant "weapon hoards" by the way - not sure if that has confused somebody. Spelling mistake.83.100.251.85 20:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a really good look, 83.100, confining myself largely to the Eddas, which deal more mythological themes than the more 'historically based' Sagas, but I still can not find no trace of the trolls' 'weapons of mass destruction' (This seems to remind me of something, I forget what.). You have several sorceresses you might choose from, the most notable of whom are Groa, Borghild, and Grimhild. Do any of these sound familiar? Clio the Muse 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the trolls' weapon of mass destruction is called "Wikipedia". :) JackofOz 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mjolnir is flying in your direction, Jack. Please duck! Clio the Muse 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Beowulf, he uses a sword he finds in her lair to kill Grendel's mother, so there must have been some kind of hoard. Is her being female making you think of a witch? And there is travel as Beowulf travels to Denmark to fight Grendel?137.138.46.155 12:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

assess students performance by formal n communicative test how?

[email address deleted] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.125.143.65 (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

See our article on assessment. A formal assessment is usually a written examination or paper. Conceivably it could be an oral examination, in which the student is required to answer questions posed by an examiner. Any of these would be "communicative". As to how to assess students' performance by such a means, a paper should respond to a question whose answer would require the student to demonstrate a command of the course material. In the case of an oral or written examination, there could be multiple questions on the course material. The examiner or instructor would assess a student's performance by determining the degree to which his or her answers demonstrate command of the course material. An examiner or instructor might use a rubric to evaluate a student's performance. Marco polo 00:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Research Question

Where would I find primary sources for a project about the Trail of Tears? Does anyone have some general guidance? Thanks. 69.116.169.171 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You might contact the people at Trail of Tears National Historic Trail, or the people of the Cherokee Nation or of the Cherokee Nation Eastern Band. Corvus cornix 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the words of Dragging Canoe were put up on the web somewhere. I think he was Creek. Geogre 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

N.B. Our article is on the first of two historically known persons by that name. Geogre 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragging Canoe was Cherokee, and died before the Trail of Tears. There's a lot of info about him at Chickamauga Wars. Not sure what words of his are relevant to the Trail of Tears though. Pfly 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Per my note: there are two historical Dragging Canoes. One is the one you're referring to. The later one left primary documentation of his experience of the Trail of Tears. He survived it and discussed its horror. His words are engraved at the Trail of Tears museum in Tennessee, but those are from his longer account. Geogre 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I misunderstood your words. Pfly 03:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A primary source, apparently passed down by word of mouth, can be found here. You can find other such accounts in Theda Perdue's The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents, which you can view here, or Vicki Rozema's Voices from the Trail of Tears, which you can view here. Marco polo 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Theda Perdue's Cherokee Removal is the best place to start. Wareh 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like some good choices above, but keep in mind that one of the links (this one) is not a "primary source". Rather, it's an artistic rendering of a family story; while it may accurately convey the emotional truth of the Trail, it's second- or third-hand at best, and some details (the presence of snow and an armed escort, both uncommon on the Trail) suggest that artistic license may be involved. Be wary of accounts written long after the fact, because they can contain those kind of embellishments. One such account by a U.S. soldier is here. Although often quoted as accurate, John Ehle writes in his book Trail of Tears that the account is full of "exaggerations and factual errors."

And also keep in mind that, at any given moment, the Wikipedia article on the Trail of Tears is likely inaccurate. I've given up trying to correct the common misconception that the Cherokee Trail of Tears happened during Andrew Jackson's presidency. This and other errors are frequently introduced into the article. —Kevin Myers 14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

England in 1683/Frontiers in Ireland

I'll show the source of my German History Atlas only for two days (Copyright) and my newest sketch of England at that time. If you follow my source, you'll see, that after the last campaign of Oliver Cromwell 1653, for the Irish remained only the green part ... (I've already uploaded a new version of my sketch, but it will take some time to syncronize between wikipedia servers (You'll see the new version, if you click on it)-- jlorenz1 11:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

source deleted

England in 1683(own sketch of map)

One minor correction, Johannes: Cromwell campaigned in Ireland from August 1649 to May 1650, when he left to lead an offensive against the Scottish royalists. Although the war in Ireland continued into 1652, initially under the leadership of Henry Ireton, Cromwell never returned. As I have said above, the green part on your map only refers to the part of the island left to Catholic Irish landowners-not the Irish people in total-after the Act for the Settlement of Ireland. The island as a whole remained under the political control of England. Clio the Muse 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So I should give whole Ireland the colour of England? [http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/historical/ward_1912/ireland_1653.jpg Here) I've found a historical map of the Settlement of Ireland of 1653 -- jlorenz1 17:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, just to indicate that there was no political border, as such. One small caveat, though: do not refer to Ireland as part of England! It still existed in its own right, conquered and colonised as it was. Clio the Muse 18:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you are trying to show. If you want to show lands possessed by England (and Wales, which was united with England), you would use the same color for England (including Wales) and for England's dependencies: Ireland, Man, Berwick, and the Channel Islands. You might also use that color for Scotland, which was part of a personal union with England, though not strictly a dependency of England. However, if your goal is to show the area of England itself, you would use that color only for England (including Wales but not Berwick). Whatever you do, all of Ireland should be a single color. Marco polo 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your entry. I plan for whole ireland a section lining lilac/green and the commentary: under english administration.a section lining lilac/a colour for Man and Berwick-upon-Tweed gets a circle in another colour. I'll represent the new version soon. Thanks -- jlorenz1 23:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ireland was officially ruled by the English monarch from the 13th century, How ever they only got any type of control with Cromwell, and even after that it was only in 1801 that they official became the same country. so I would argue that the entire Island of Ireland should still be a different color

It is more accurate to say that the English regained full control of Ireland, lost in the rebellion of 1641, after Cromwell's campaign. Full control, as such, had been established during the reign of Elizabeth I and James I, especially after the Battle of Kinsale brought victory in the Nine Years War, and the Flight of the Earls opened up large parts of the north to a Protestant Plantation. Clio the Muse 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Palace in London of Charles II.?

Hallo, it wasn't the Buckingham Palace nor the Tower of London, but what and where was it? Thanks -- jlorenz1 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the Palace of Whitehall. Clio the Muse 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

April 24

Athenian Empire

What was the effect of moving the treasury of the Delian League from the Delos to Athens and How the Delian League came to be basis of the Athenian Empire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.141.25 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Our article Delian League offers answers to both of your questions. Marco polo 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Peloponnesian War

How did the city of Corinth figure in the war and Why Athens went ahead with its plan to conquer Syracuse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.141.25 (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

These questions are answered in our article Peloponnesian War. Marco polo 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It might also help you if you dipped into Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War, particularly Book Six, which deals at length with the expedition of 415 and the miscalculations of the Athenian generals. Clio the Muse 07:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Double first cousins half removed?

In the ancient sanskrit story of the "Twenty-Two Goblins", [6], the final unanswered riddle is, basically, if a father and son marry an (unrelated) daughter and mother (respectively, father with dauther, and son with mother), what is the relationship of the two couples' children to one another? I thought I had stumbled on an answer (in English anyway), at the wikipedia page Double first cousin... until I realized that double first cousins require the parents to be siblings of one another rather than parent and child. So now I'm wondering, is there a term in English for this? Pfly 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're any kind of cousins, because they have no grandparents in common. Let's call the father and son F and S, the mother and daughter M and D, and assume the 2 children are a boy (B) and a girl (G) respectively. B and S are half-siblings, as are D and G. Since M is the mother of G via her 2nd husband, and the grand-mother of B via her 1st husband, that makes B the (half-)nephew of G. Alternatively, since F is the father of B via his 2nd wife and the grand-father of G via his 1st wife, this makes G the (half-)neice of B. They're each other's (half-)nephew/(half-)neice, and each other's (half-)uncle/(half-)aunt. I think the facts that M's 2nd husband is the son of her daughter's husband, and F's 2nd wife is the daughter of his son's wife, make no difference. I know of no term in English that covers this. Great question, though. JackofOz 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this question problematic, in that presumably the answer should be given in Sanskrit? I would guess that Sanskrit, like most languages, has idiosyncracies and differences from English in the way it describes relatives. (In Hebrew, for example, there's no word for "cousin" - it's described as being (e.g.) "son of uncle". Just because there's no term in English, perhaps there's one in Sanskrit? --Dweller 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In English, at least, there is no such relative term as "half removed". You can be "once removed", "twice removed", etc. Corvus cornix 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't they aunt and nephew or uncle and niece, as JackofOz mentions? Let's look at some pictures!

Duomillia 03:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Duomillia, you didn't read the original question carefully. That's what would be the case if the father married the mother and the son married the daughter. But if the father marries the daughter and the mother marries the son, you have a different situation. Duomillia 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I think I have it figured out. On the one side, they are uncle and niece. On the other, they are (simultaneously) aunt and nephew. Wow! That's complicated.

Duomillia 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Who was the first person...

to use the penis and the vagina as an example of an irreducibly complex system? I've heard this argument quite a bit, how each one was "made" for the other, so it is impossible for them to have evolved. Was it Behe?--Kirby♥time 10:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the purported 'irreduciable complexity' of the P and V will undoubtably be used to bolster arguments for the existence of God... well let's just give you an answer you'll like. God first used them as an example. He just spoke through one of his vessels. The name isn't important, since it would detract from the glory of God. Praise be to Allah.

Seriously though, I don't know. But the 'irreduciable complexity' argument was used for the human eyeball back in the day, and that approach was overturned as flimsy. Not sure if the P and V are any more complex. Vranak

I can't help with your query, since I don't subscribe to Balderdash Weekly, but I would suggest reading the interesting article Evolution of the eye before again enduring such arguments on what is "impossible". Presumably if evolutionary forces could come up with such marvels as the eye of the mantis shrimp, a rudimentary "put stick in hole" setup wouldn't be much of a problem. --TotoBaggins 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a really poor case to make for irreducible complexity. Fish don't have either, and just squirt in the water for external fertilization. The hole out of which the female squirts the eggs could be called a "vagina", I suppose. From this point, having the male and female squirt as close to each other as possible would naturally increase the proportion of fertilized eggs. Other animals then used existing body parts, like an arm in the case of an octopus and a tail in the case of a turtle, to do internal fertilization. From this point on it's just a series of subtle changes to get to the process that keeps sleazy motels in business to this day. :-) StuRat 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In the guppy, the male's anal fin is folded to form a gonopodium through which sperm is egected directly into the female, who bears live young. A penis-in-the-making? Wait and see. --Wetman 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nursery Rhyme

I have what I presume to be the opening line of a nursery rhyme. I cannot find any info online or dictionaries of rhymes. It is alluded to by James Joyce in "Finnegans Wake" (257). Does anybody know the rest of the rhyme and any background details?

Old Daddy Dacon Bought a bit of bacon Put it on a chimney pot For fear it would be taken.

Debbie conway 11:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Debbie, I can find no reference to this rhyme other than in the pages of Finnegans Wake! The usage seems to be as obscure as so much else in that novel, if anything even more encyclopedic than Ulysses. All I can do is to refer you to Adaline Glasheen's Third Census on Finnegans Wake (1977), where you will find the following note on page 69: Deacon, Daddy-'Ohd Daddy Dacon/ Bought a bit of bacon/ Put it on a chimney pot/ For fear it would be taken.' See Cadenus? Lewis Carrol was a deacon. 257.14,21; 261.31; 339.3; 348.23.. Make of that what you will! The ambigious reference to Cadenus refers to Cadenus and Vanessa, Jonathan Swift's longish poem of 1713. Cadenus is an anagram of Decanus (Dean), which would seem to tie Swift to Lewis Carroll (Charles W. Dodgson), at least it does according to Glasheen. As far as the specific page references are concerned, you have already identified the first. If you check out the others you will find And what the decans is there about him... (261.31); Like old Doddy Icon when he cooked up his iggs in bicon. (339.3); ...old Djadja Uncken who was a great mark for jinking and junking...(348.23). This is what you get when you attempt to cut through the Gordian Knot of Joyce's complex and multi-layered world! We are no further forward on the origins of the rhyme itself-which may just be piece of casual doggerel-but at least you now have some of the literary context. Clio the Muse 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's given as a "just for fun" children's rhyme (4 lines only), heard in Newcastle, in the Opies' Lore and Language of Schoolchildren, Chapter 2. They group it with other short verses where the "key rhyme-word is a proper name". --HJMG 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1988 Shore Protection Act?

I have been researching this topic and am not coming up with any answers. I need to know the history of the 1988 Shore Protection Act in the United States. Who thought of it and how has it helped. Help! i have searched all over the web and cannot locate this information. Please someone help! Thanks 208.102.1.64 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Try to stay calm, someone will indeed help you. Your question is a little vague though. When you say "history" do you mean: 1) "how did it become a law from just an idea in someone's head"; or 2) after it became a law, how well did it work and who enforced it; or 3) all of the above; or 4) something else. If it is 1-3, then information is readily available from the EPA and the Federal Register. Just go to Google and type in:

   "Shore Protection Act" EPA "federal register"

Make sure you include the little quotemarks. You should find more than enough to get you started. dr.ef.tymac 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Any definite style guide information for single-line postal addresses?

I'm going crazy trying to find a source -- any offical source, like CP Style or Chicago Style or the Gregg Reference Manual, etc. -- for how to write a postal address on a single line of text.

i.e.

Joe Smith, 1234 Elm Street, Burlington, VT 18765 USA

Should there be commas after "Street?" After "City?" Should there be a single or double space between state and Zip codes? There's no shortage of style guides for multi-line addresses, but a dearth of information on how to write addresses on a single line. I know it sounds nitpicky, but it's easier to resolve disputes in graphic design if you can point at something and say "that is how to do it." --66.129.135.114 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All the examples of proper addressing I can find in the US Postal Servivce manual, Here, do not use commas at all, and seem to use single spaces to separate elements. Additionally, multiple line addressing is generally the standard as this is how the OCR machines read mail for sorting (according to the USPS information). gorffy 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just took the Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition off a co-worker's desk and looked in the back where it has a short style guide for uses of punctuation. One of the uses of a comma is given as:

5. To set off the main elements in an address; a title following a person's name; and the year if the month, day, and year are given.

He lived at 21 Baker Street, Elyria, Ohio, for twenty years.

Dr. Peter Haws, Director of Admissions, replied.

The letter was dated July 14, 1867, and was mailed from Paris.

However, the examples don't include one with a ZIP code and modern state abbreviation. "Elyria, OH 44035" or "Elyria, OH 44035, USA" looks right to my eye, but that's not what you asked for. --Anonymous, April 25, 2007, 00:07 (UTC).

How many local authorities are there in England and Wales?

Thanks for anyone who can give me some useful information on this. Capitalistroadster 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like 410 - of various kinds. Try this pdf on Local Government Structure. --HJMG 21:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Limbo vs. Purgatory

I was wondering if the concepts of Limbo and Purgartory are the same thing? Can they be used interchangeably? Can you use either one to refer to the second book of Dante's Comedy? Thanks. --kralahome 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In Roman Catholic theology, which I presume Dante would have had in mind, they are not the same things at all. Limbo is a place, neither Heaven nor Hell, where the souls of those who were not baptized, but who were otherwise righteous, await the Final Judgment. Purgatory is where those souls who are fit for Heaven, but who still bear some sin, are purified before entering the divine presence. - Eron ^Talk 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that the Church just this week announced that they are abandoning the concept of Limbo. Corvus cornix 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Limbo's status has always been a bit questionable; doctrinally speaking, it was a "theological speculation that has never been defined as official Church dogma." Personally, I always viewed it as an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole: how do we reconcile God's infinite mercy with the teaching that those who haven't accepted Jesus and live in Original Sin must be damned to Hell - even if they are blameless unbaptized infants? Like all such compromises, it worked best if left unscrutinized. - Eron ^Talk 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Dante, Il Limbo only occupies verses 1-63 of the Inferno's Canto IV, while Il Purgatorio is its own cantica, an entire set of 33 canti. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kralahome, you will find some useful additional information in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has articles on Limbo [7] and Purgatory [8] They are, indeed, quite different concepts, though Limbo is a little more complex than Eron suggests, one existing before the ascent of Christ into Heaven, and one after. The first is Limbus Patrum-the Limbo of the Fathers-a place of temporary refuge for the righteous who died before the advent of Christ, and were finally admitted to Heaven after He completed his mission on earth. The second, the Limbus Infantum-the Limbo of Children-was conceived of as a permanent refuge for unbaptized children, who had died free of personal sin, but could not be admitted to Heaven because of the collective burden of original sin. Neverthless, though denied the full presence of God, these souls were believed to exist in a condition of natural happiness. St. Augustine had originally argued that all of the unbaptized, even children, were bound for Hell, though this view was rejected by the early Middle Ages. In recent years the whole question has been studied by an International Theological Commission, set up by the Vatican, which has just published a document, saying that the whole notion presents an 'unduly restricted view of salvation', and that there are grounds for 'prayerful hope' that even the unbaptized are admitted into the presence of God. It should also be emphasised that limbo, though part of the Catholic tradition, was never Church dogma. It is not even mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which merely says that unbaptized infants are entrusted to the mercy of God.

Purgatary-meaning 'to purge' or 'make clean'-is a place of temporary punishment for those who died in the grace of God, but not entirely free from fault or transgression. The doctrine was given final shape by the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. Souls in Purgatory are not separated from the Church, and Catholic prayers for the dead forms part of an ancient tradition. Clio the Muse 23:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Clio for expanding on my admittedly cursory explanation of Limbo. I'd add that Purgatory played a major role in the Protestant Reformation, which was inspired at least in part by abuses in the sales of indulgences. - Eron ^Talk 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Clio the Muse 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Weapons in the USA

Is it possible that in some states of the US, nunchaku are illegal whereas assault rifles are legal? --Taraborn 21:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, no probably not. According to the article on nunchaku, "Legality in the United States varies at state level, e.g., personal possession of nunchaku is illegal in New York, Arizona, California and Massachusetts, but in other states possession is not criminalized." A look at Gun laws in the United States (by state) shows that three of those states - New York, California and Massachusetts - also ban assault weapons. Information on Arizona is not available, so perhaps in that state it is possible. - Eron ^Talk 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And in fact, apparently it is. This link suggests that Arizona does not ban assault weapons. So if you want to make like Rambo while remaining safe from ninja, that's the place to be. - Eron ^Talk 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

April 25

Brave New World

What does "Suffer the Little Children" have to do with Brave New World? 71.97.15.175 00:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)nicholassayshi

It's a small reference to be found towards the end of Chapter 3, Nick, where the Controller, Mustapha Mond, taking on a Christ-like role, says 'Suffer the little children', meaning to allow the children to come into his presence when attempts are made to chase them away. Clio the Muse 00:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Which ethnic groups of Afghanistan are Shi'a Muslims and which language do they speak? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.64 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Afghanistan 2

I noticed in the Afghanistan article, four provinces(#7, 19, 31 and 32) spoke the same language(Dari), but three ethnic groups speak this language: Pashtuns, Turkmen and Uzbeks. How come these groups speak Dari instead of their languages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.64 (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

John F. Kennedy meets Nikita Khrushchev

In an interview with Anthony DePalma on Australia's A.B.C.radio (promoting his book 'The man who invented Fidel') he said that Kennedy asked Khruschev if Castro was a communist. The reply was 'Only if you make him one". I cannot find any referance to their meeting untill Kennedy had become president and Castro was allready known to be a communist. Did they meet prior to Kennedy becoming president?

220.237.96.87 01:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The hysteria in the US regarding communism is difficult to quantify, and not uniform. At the time, there was a distinction drawn, which still exists, between socialism and communism. JFK was a Democrat party member and needed to demonstrate to his constituent voters that he wasn't aligned with communists, but also not aligned with Republican Party conservatives.

Nikita Kruschev was caught in a vice. On the one hand, he was moderate to Leonid Breshnev. However, he was also the man who took Stalin's handgun from bedside and executed Beria. The result of the Cuban Missile Crisis had Russia take missiles from Cuba, and the US take missiles from Turkey. The fact the US could trumpet their success, but Soviet's were bound to silence over theirs, led Krushchev to be rolled by Breshnev. The reported warning was a Cassandra warning regarding the stakes, that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation wilfully mischaracterises. DDB 03:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's truer to say that any wilful mischaracterisation was by Anthony DePalma, not the ABC. The broadcaster can't be held accountable for every opinion offered by people interviewed on-air. JackofOz 05:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet Anthony DePalma link doesn't mention any leanings or politics. The ABC's are well known, if not agreed upon. DDB 05:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hazara

When Arshad Warsi and John Abraham's movie came out, Hazaras protested the movie. Why the movie have affected them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.64 (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

• See the article on the movie, Kabul Express. --Metropolitan90 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking for the name and author of a poem!

Hi, I'm looking for the name and author of a poem I read while taking the SAT II literature portion. I took the SAT IIs back in November, so I may have remembered some parts of it incorrectly..

Anyway, it was about a group of adults and children sitting around the living room on a Sunday afternoon. The adults kind of stare off into space, and eventually it gets darker and darker in the room. Finally, one of the adults snaps out of it and gets up and turns on the light. I think the point was that the coming darkness represented the darkness of knowledge and adulthood, and that the light represented innocence and childhood.

That's all I can remember. Any help is greatly appreciated! Paerra 05:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Saki mentions Allies marching into Paris before 1904

In Saki's short story Reginald the first story of a 1904 collection by the same name, there is the quote, "With a little encouragement, they will inquire if I saw the Allies march into Paris." Since the work was published in 1904 and Saki died in 1916 it can't refer to the Paris liberation of either World War. Searching "Allies" didn't turn up anything beyond the WW Allies. Although within the same paragraph he mentions Victoria's Diamond Jubilee (1897) and the play San Toy (1899), he may be referring facetiously to something that occurred much earlier. So any knowledge as to who these pre-World War "Allies" who marched into Paris are?