Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 1

Somali-canadians in toronto

In the former City of York, Toronto, I know notice there are some Somalis living there when I used to lie there from 1997 through 2004. I heard that Kipling CI and Regent Park area has the large amount of Somali-Canadians in Toronto. Is this mean that Somalis are everywhere in Toronto or just concentrated in one specific area? So, which area has the most? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.154 (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you been paying attention to the answers everyone has been giving you every time you ask these questions? Also, obviously not every single Somali, or anyone else, lives in the same place. There is no Somali ghetto in Toronto. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I ask about the name of the neighborhood in Toronto. please answer my question.

Regions of Somalia

in your article regions of Somalia, you said there are 18 but you added one and that is Saaxil. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.154 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The aricle on Somalia lists the 18 regions as they existed prior to the Somali Civil War. The article on Regions of Somalia features more than 18 regions, listed separately according to the new quasi-independent states on the territory of Somalia. Apparently, Saaxil used to be part of Woqooyi Galbeed, the rest of which is now called Maroodi Jeex, all part of Somaliland. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We could do with getting the stories straight at Somalia#Administrative divisions (lists 18, notes there are now 27, Districts of Somalia (lists 19) and Regions of Somalia (lists 27). More than I can face doing tonight. Messages left on the appropriate talk pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you spotted it! I missed Districts of Somalia, which is what 74.14.119.154 must have been referring to, and which is where the main confusion lay. I now removed Saaxil from that article's list. The list should either show the 18 regions as they existed de iure in Somalia before the civil war, or the 27 regions as they exist de facto in the quasi-independent states. I'm sure one could argue both ways, but certainly not for a mix of the two. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Tigers

I have read through the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam article. A question the page does not seem to address is why exactly the Tamil Tigers are so different from most other revolutionary groups. They seem to be extremely well organized, with warships (Sea Tigers), fighter aircraft (Air Tigers), intelligence units, political/diplomatic personnel, and of course the Black Tigers. They also occupy quite a bit of territory, have a sophisticated administrative system. I guess my questions are:

Where do they get their money and weapons? Why are they so well organized? And why do they engage in terrorism when their goal seems to be to establish a Tamil homeland? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the first and second questions are answered in the article, e.g. at #Criminal activities (ranging from legitimate fund raising to extortion & piracy) and #Organization and activities (they want to be a government and are by now a de facto government with many of the normal functions of a de jure government.) Presumably they terrorise (or liberate) to convince the Sri Lankan government to accede to their demands. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. . . Sorry, I missed the part about their funding. Thanks, it sounds sort of like the methods Muslim terrorist groups use. As for the second, I understand HOW the tigers are currently organized, but I don’t understand how they got that way or why they are so much more sophisticated in that respect than any other revolutionary group in the world. The fact that the Tigers want to be a legitimate government only adds to my confusion about why they would use terrorism. I would think that being considered a terrorist group by most of the western nations would limit the Tigers’ bargaining power. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, they don't have "warships and fighter aircraft". The Sea Tigers have fiberglass fishing boats and small cargo ships. The Air Tigers have a couple of four-place light aircraft. FiggyBee (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fishing boats? Those must be big fish they're going after! --S.dedalus (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The big boat in that video belongs to the Sri Lankan Navy, not the Tigers... FiggyBee (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note, who sells the Tigers their “light aircraft” and how have they been able to resist the Military of Sri Lanka when their location is clearly know. (Most revolutions use guerilla warfare, not territorial expansions don’t they?) --S.dedalus (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why "light aircraft" in inverted commas? The only aircraft they're known to have is the Zlin Z-143 - does this look like a fighter jet to you? I'm not disputing that the Tigers are a formidable force, I'm just saying that characterising their equipment as "warships and fighter aircraft" is more than a little inaccurate. FiggyBee (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just didn’t have enough knowledge of the subject yet to judge my self, so I was quoting you. Perhaps the BBC has biased my perspective on the conflict slightly. Sorry if I seemed to implied that I doubted your statement. Wow, I’m surprised those little planes can carry any bombs at all. Then again I know nothing at all about aviation. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For weapons procurement, probably a bit dated for the subject, (from Rotberg, R.I. (1999) Creating Peace in Sri Lanka. Cambridge:Brookings Institution.) LTTE procurement began with smugglers from the small fishing port of Velvettiturai (commonly known as VVT) across the Palk Strait and with the assistance of the Indian intelligence service and the Tamil Nadu state. The operation expanded dramatically after 1983 and during the next few years included purchase of small ocean going freighters (a fleet of five or six in 1999) and domestic production of landmines, grenades, and mortars.

Singapore became a major center for dual-use equipment: radios, computers, electronics, night-vision binoculars, outboard motors and diving equipment. Front companies were established in Dhaka, Chittagong, Rangoon, and Kuala Lumpur for purchasing equipment without an obvious dual-use.

The Khmer Rouge sold many weapons to the LTTE across the Cambodian border and via Trang in Thailand. Contacts were established with the Burmese military, and by 1992 a semi-permanent transshipment point had been established near the town of Twantay south of Rangoon. Cambodia also became a major supplier, in 1995 two Avro 748s were brought down, probably by SA-7 missiles from Cambodia.

The Sri Lankan armed forces do not necessarily have easy access to weapons, at times governments have been reluctant to provide arms which would be used for the counter-insurgency, while the LTTE has had access to illegal arms markets in Hong Kong, Singapore, Lebanon, Cyprus, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Kazakhstan; from war zones such as the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Mozambique; and possibly from organized crime groups in Russia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria.—eric 08:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Collier in "Ethnic Civil Wars: Securing the Post-Conflict Peace", 2007, Harvard International Review [1], claims that in a typical year the LTTE spends an amount equal to 28 percent of the GDP of that portion of Sri Lanka it seeks to control.—eric 08:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That’s extremely helpful and interesting. So if I understand you correctly you’re saying that the Indian intelligence service helped arm the Tamil Tigers? Why would they do that? From the Tamil nationalism article it says that the nationalists aim to “establish traditional Tamil homelands in parts of India and Sri Lanka.” Presumably then the Tigers plan to attack India if they are ever successful in Sri Lanka. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jazz tune

What's the title of this tune (fast, swung): d g g a d g, d g g a d g, d g g a d g g a d g g a d g, d g g a d g C, d g g a d g C#... ? —Keenan Pepper 03:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Now's the Time" by Charlie Parker. It's a twelve-bar blues. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Originally it's in F, by the way (c f f g c f, ...), just like Bird's other famous blues standard "Billie's Bounce". (added later: I just realized your notation is probably for a transposing instrument tuned in B-flat. (tenor saxophone, trumpet etc.) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Read this too. Oda Mari (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

But note that "The Hucklebuck" riff and "Now's the time" are only identical for the first four bars. The fifth bar in Keenan Pepper's version, and especially the sixth bar with its characteristic diminished seventh chord (#IVo7, C# being that chord's root here in Keenan's notation) are unique to "Now's the Time". ---Sluzzelin talk 08:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it in G simply because I don't have absolute pitch and had no idea what key it was in. =) Thanks, everyone! —Keenan Pepper 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian interests at the Treaty of Versailles

Hello. I am a high school student, and I have to represent the interests of Austria-Hungary in a class simulation of the Versailles Conference in 1919. I've exhausted several of our library's books, and a basic internet search only provided the same information. Unfortunately, not a lot of Versailles resources give an in-depth view into Austria's position during the conference.

During my research, I came to the following conclusion, and here are my questions:

• Austria-Hungary was going to separate into Austria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. At the time of the conference, did the Austrian delegate support such a separation, or was that the Allies' idea?
  • Who was the Austro-Hungarian delegate?
  • Was there any other overseas or European territory belonging to Austria-Hungary that was at risk of being stripped from the empire? Were the Austro-Hungarians willing to give up this land, or did they object to such proposals during the conference?
• In the early 1900's, the Austrian economy depended on railways. Were there any notable Austro-Hungarian imports or exports in 1919? How was the Austrian economy doing post-WWI? Did it fall or rise? Did Austria or its allies have any economic interests during the conference? Did any of the other participants in the conference have trading interests with Austria-Hungary?
  • I'm asking this question because during the conference, I might have to say something along the lines of... "Hi there, Italy! I would be willing to let you take 20% of our iron if you don't take Tyrol."
  • Did Austria-Hungary heavily participate in trading military equipment? How so?
• Austria-Hungary was interested in a union with Germany? Did the Germans have the same feelings about this?
• Finally, Austria-Hungary lost about 1,200,000 soldiers. Did that consist of a large amount of their military? If Austria-Hungary were to go back to war, would she have enought manpower to survive?

A lot of help would be appreciated.--Dem393 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you really can't help me right now, is there a good website that I could use?--Dem393 (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

By the time of the Versailles Conference, Austria-Hungary no longer existed. That's because all the non-German parts had seceded, the emperor had abdicated, and the "Republic of German-Austria" had been declared in Vienna. But the Allies still considered Austria and Hungary to be bad guys, so they were not invited to the conference. The best way for you to simulate Austria during 1919 is to not take part in the simulation but to write angry letters to the person playing America reminding him or her about the promises of self-determination in the Fourteen Points. (Which were being denied to the German-speaking populations outside of Austria.) Your local public library should have a copy of the very readable book Paris 1919, which includes a chapter about Austria and Versailles. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing those stuff up. I'll look for Paris 1919, but I need to clarify the fact that I must actually speak during the conference. My history teacher knows that Austria and Hungary didn't participate in the conference, but he's letting the defeated countries speak anyway. In addition, if Austria-Hungary didn't exist in 1919, then I guess we're going to have to pretend otherwise, because that's how were doing the simulation. --Dem393 (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of a tough assignment -- speaking on behalf of something that no longer existed! It would make far more sense for your teacher to ask you to speak on behalf of Austria and Hungary rather than as Austria-Hungary. As noted above, Austria's arguments in 1919 were based on the fact that Austria-Hungary had disbanded. If Austria-Hungary hadn't fallen apart in before the Versailles Conference, the conference would have taken on a completely different character. But it's hard to imagine a situation in which the Allies could have won WWI as decisively as they did without Austria-Hungary collapsing. The defeat of the Austro-Hungarian armies set off the independence movements in the Slavic parts of the empire that had been bubbling for decades beforehand. Perhaps if the Austrians had been able to hold on a bit longer in Italy, the dismemberment of the empire could have been put off until after the armistice. But I don't think your teacher is planning an exercise in alternate history. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I should say you have been given a crazy task. The Paris Peace Conference began on 18 January 1919, and a critical point about it is that the Central Powers were not invited to attend. The Kingdom of Serbia (one of the victorious Allies), was represented by the new State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, which included both Serbia and large parts of the collapsed Austria-Hungary. By January 1919, if the Austrians and the Hungarians had been invited to attend (which just wasn't going to happen, as this wasn't an all-inclusive conference of the kind your teacher may want to enact), then they would have been invited separately - that is, both German Austria and the Hungarian Democratic Republic (which was itself in the process of collapse). You could perhaps offer to represent one or the other of those, but it would have been quite impossible for a single individual to represent the different interests of both. It would be completely mad for your teacher to ask this Conference to imagine that in January 1919 Austria and Hungary were still united (under the dual monarchy? under a republic?) Once you start throwing the facts of the international situation into the bin, you are left with a meaningless exercise. Xn4 00:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then maybe I should revise my question. What political, military, and economic interests did Austria have during the Versailles conference?--Dem393 (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, Dem393, what a task you have been set! I wonder just how well acquainted your teacher is with the history of Europe at the end of the First World War, particularly the history, and the structure, of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire? I'll come on to your specific questions in a moment, but first let me sketch some of the background details.

What makes your task particularly difficult is that Austria-Hungary, unlike Germany, was not really a nation state at all, but an historical anachronism; an accumulation of territory, held together solely by the allegiance owed to the Habsburg crown. For years before the war the Empire had been struggling against the centrifugal forces of nationalism, particularly Slav nationalism. Defeat in the war shattered the illusion, and the whole structure simply imploded. It had already been made clear in the Fourteen Points that the Allies and Associated Powers were committed to autonomy in the Habsburg lands. But when, in October 1918, the Austro-Hungarian foreign minister asked for an armistice on the basis of the Fourteen Points, he was told by Robert Lansing, the American Secretary of State, that autonomy was no longer enough, that the western powers were now committed to the independence of the Slav nations. In confirmation of this the Czechoslovak Provisional Government was admitted to the Allied camp on 14 October.

That was it; that was the end of Austria-Hungary, killed off even before the Paris Peace Conference. Czechoslovakia declared its independence at the end of October, about the same time as a new State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs came into being. Hungary and Austria separated, as another new state, that of German Austria came into being, a recognition of political reality. All that remained for the peace makers was to give retrospective justification to a fait-accompli. The Empire was dead beyond recall. Now for your questions.

• As has already been pointed out, none of the Central Powers, including the new states of Austria and Hungary, participated in the Paris Peace talks (Please note that this process should not be confused with the Treaty of Versailles, which concerned Germany alone.) All of the subsequent treaties, Saint Germain with Austria and Trianon with Hungary, were essentially 'diktats', as the Germans argued ad nauseum in the years to follow. In other words, there was no process of negotiation; it was a case of take it or take it.

• There were separate Austrian and Hungarian delegations in Paris. The Austrians were headed by Karl Renner, the Chancellor of the Republic, and by Franz Klein, an expert in jurisprudence. The Hungarian delegation was headed by Count Albert Appony, who later was to write "These days were very difficult for us. Every opportunity to express our arguments was refused. Even during private conversations it was the same, when we would have liked to declare our truth and we were fenced by a kind of cordon not to say anything." A diktat, as I have said.

• The Empire had no overseas territories. The only outstanding issue was over the precise borders of the new states. Disputes between Austria and Czechoslovakia over parts of Carinthia were later settled by plebiscite. A dispute between Austria and Hungary over Burgenland was settled in the former’s favour in the Saint Germain Treaty. Hungary tried to preserve some of its territorial integrity by declaring a Soviet Republic and appealing to Russia for aid, but was overrun by the Romanian army. Large parts of the country, including many Hungarian-speaking areas were subsequently annexed by Romania and its allies in the Little Entente.

• Both the Austrian and Hungarian economies had been devastated by the war. Neither country had any leverage in this area. Defeat was followed by further disruption, starvation and astronomical inflation. Even if the Austrians had any bargaining power it was unlikely that Italy would have been willing to trade territory for economic concessions. As it was, Italy was left deeply aggrieved that it did not get all of the gains it had expected. Disappointment at the outcome of the war was one of the factors that led to the rise of Fascism.

• Although Austria-Hungary had its own arms industry, it became increasingly dependent on Germany for all sorts of supplies, and other forms of military aid.

• Austria was interested in Anschluss-union with Germany- hence the deliberate choice of German Austria as the name for the new state. This was specifically forbidden by the Treaty of Saint Germain (and the Treaty of Versailles), and the name of the state was changed to the Austrian Republic. This flew in the face of the principle of self-determination granted to others by the Fourteen Points, but the peace process was always an unhappy marriage between impossible ideals and hard facts. France was never going to allow the emergence of a new Germany, even stronger than it had been in 1914. Hungary, of course, was not interested in any form of union with Germany.

• Neither Austria nor Hungary was in a position to go back to full-scale war. As I have said, Hungary was overrun in 1919 by Romanian troops.

Well, that's it! Sorry, I know it does not make your task any easier. You are effectively swimming against the tides of history. You could, I suppose, argue counter-factually, but you would have to suspend all disbelief, to assume that there were circumstances in which the polyglot Empire could have held together.

Was it a loss? Yes, I think it was. The Empire in many ways acted as a force for stability in central Europe, and what was to come was to be in many ways far worse. The collapse of the Empire did not even solve the nationality problem. All of the successor states had control over large minorities, to whom even the most basic rights were often denied. Anyway, the very best of luck! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Clio, as usual, is thorough, insightful, and interesting. However, she made a small slip on the matter of a territorial dispute over parts of Carinthia. She wrote that the dispute was between Austria and Czechoslovakia. This was of course a dispute between Austria and Yugoslavia (then known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes), as I'm sure Clio knows. I suspect that she remembers the Slovaks and the Slovenes in the same part of her brain, as do I. Marco polo (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks, Marco. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Clio the Muse!!!!! Although several of the things that I have been assigned no longer have any relevance to the Paris Peace Conference, I feel that I have enough information to BS my way through a theoretical speech on behalf of the non-existent Empire of Austria-Hungary. I do have one unanswered question though: I know that Austria was in favor of this, but did Germany itself have any interest in a union with Austria (the Anschluss)? In fact, was there any economic reason why either country would want a union with each other?--Dem393 (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Dem. The Anschluss issue was certainly to become an important patriotic test in Germany, though in the immediate aftermath of the war it did not appear to command a high priority, as most people had more pressing concerns. While I cannot prove this one way or the other, I suspect the issue may have been of greater interest to those living in southern Germany, particularly Bavaria, than in the rest of the country. The Austrian preoccupation with the matter is more understandable, for two reasons. First, there were many who still felt aggrieved by Austria's exclusion from the Reich in 1866, when Bismarck opted for a Kleindeutschland solution to the question of German unity. Second, not only had Austria been crippled economically by the war but it seemed likely that the rump state that emerged in 1918-19 would be unable to survive as a viable and independent force. The only way that it would be able to count politically and economically, the only way to overcome its immediate difficulties, was by union with Germany. Austrians, it might be said, still had to learn how to be Austrians, a lesson only fully absorbed after the advent of a former countryman. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- one aside. One thing you should definitely add in your speech is the Austrians' belief that under the Fourteen Points' call for ethnic self-determination, the German-speaking speaking parts of the Czech lands (see the map at German Austria) should have been able to join the country. Instead, the Czechs successfully argued that the historical boundaries of Bohemia and Moravia should remain intact, even as the historical boundaries of Hungary were being ignored to form the Slovak part of Czechoslovakia. The Germans of Czechoslovakia were treated quite well, but nonetheless the vast majority of them in the 1930s supported the Nazis and helped dismember that country. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing for the Sudeten Germans was that for Czechoslovakia to be a truly viable state, their territories had to be included. If the Sudeten territories hadn't been included in Czechoslovakia, then Czechoslovakia would have had completely indefensible borders (with the German and/or Austrian armies in the mountains looking down at the Czechs in the valleys) and its economic base would have been greatly impaired. AnonMoos (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

JC-1 H1 History: Bizonia?

It's me again! In today's History lecture, we learnt about the causes of the Cold War. One of them was that the USA and USSR disagreed on what happen to Germany after World War II. The USA wanted economic stability in Germany while the USSR wanted reperations.

There is this sentence in my lecture notes: "In January 1947 Britain and the USA combined their zones into the single economic unit Bizonia". This is confusing and contradicts what I learnt about the Cold War in secondary school. My secondary school History textbook says that France also had one quarter of Germany and later Britain, France and the USA combined their three zones into West Germany.

Did France have a part of Bizonia? If not, what happened to the quarter of Germany belonging to France? Or is my secondary school textbook wrong?

By the way, last week, I asked some questions about the flow concept and "ceteris paribus" in Economics. Why I can't find my questions and the answer, but I could find the answer to my questions about my Literature texts and make more comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.90 (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See Bizonia. It was indeed formed from two zones to start with, and then the French joined in to make Trizonia, which became West Germany.

By the way, the zones were not really "quarters". The UK, US, and USSR originally agreed to divide Germany into three zones of similar size, and when the French persuaded the UK and US to let them have a zone too, the USSR did not agree. So the Soviets kept their original assigned zone and it was the biggest of the four, about 1/3 of the country. Same thing with the zones of Berlin, and I presume also the zones of Austria and of Vienna. See Allied Occupation Zones in Germany.

--Anonymous, 07:58 UTC, February 1, 2008.

As far as the lost questions are concerned ... I can't find them (quickly), but advise that if you get yourself an account, you'll find it much more easy to track your contributions, than will be the case if you continue to post without logging in. The contributions associated with your current IP address do not seem to feature the Ceteris paribus question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Anonymous! Now I understand. Tagishsimon, I think my IP keeps changing. Maybe I will get an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.90 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what happened to the French zone after Bizonia was formed but before it joined Bizonia to form Trizonia? Or was the French zone only formed after Bizonia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.90 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the French zone preceded Bizonia and continued for a time after it was formed, before merging into Trizona, subsequently the Federal Republic of Germany. The French had been just as anxious to exploit their zone economically as the Russians. They also had political fears over German unity. You should read Giles MacDonogh's After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift, which covers this whole area admirably. It may be published under a different title in North America. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan

What are the historical roots to the present state of instability in Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.82.127 (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pick them up at History of Pakistan; then you'll be able to ask a more focused, answerable question.--Wetman (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For the "present" instability, it would be probably best to look at the article on the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état in which Pervez Musharraf took over control of Pakistan. -- Saukkomies 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You might also have a look at the links between the Inter-Services Intelligence and the Taliban. Marco polo (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a combination, really, of history, geography, ethnicity and politics. In essence, Pakistan, or what was to become Pakistan, was always a frontier, set astride the Khyber Pass, through which generations of invaders entered into the plains of India. Because of its strategic location the local people developed a strong martial tradition. During the days of the British Raj the bulk of the Imperial forces were recruited in the Punjab and adjacent territories. Unfortunately, this militant tradition went hand-in-hand with an accompanying weakness in the forms of civil society, more highly developed elsewhere in India.

The Partition of India in 1947, with the emergence of the new state of Pakistan, had the effect of exaggerating still further the relative imbalance between the civil and the military. Also, there was the political legacy of the British creation of a separate Muslim electorate during the Raj, which served to create a 'bloc' mentality, preventing the emergence of the kinds of political pluralism that form such an essential part of stable democracies elsewhere. Moreover, though mostly Sunni, Pakistan has a large Shia minority, with persecution-on the increase in recent years-adding to the overall instability of the country.

Partition also led to ongoing rivalry with India, though Pakistan has only a fraction of the resources and the population of its neighbour. Military expenditure has been at the expense of other areas of the economy, and has added to the position and, more important, the political influence of the army. It might be argued that the army has become a state in itself, with its own unique priorities, a factor that contributed to the coups in 1958, 1969, 1977 and 1999.

High military expenditure also impacted on other areas of civil society, particularly in education, where low levels of government investment allowed religious schools to fill the gap in provision, some with a highly militant approach to Islam, further undermining the forces of secularism.

There are also ethnic problems bequeathed by Pakistan's position under the Raj, when the British, in fear of Russian expansion, bolstered the north-west frontier by expanding into Pashtun territory. Pashtun separatism has become a major cause of concern for the government, as have Afghan and Taliban Islamists in the north. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whiplash!

I was pouring cereal out of my bag of museli that I bought at Albert Heijn when I noticed a piece of light blue polythene, in amongst the mixture! Once my grandmother found a piece of a rubber glove in her tin of dog-food, sent it in was received a "prize"! I'm not asking for legal advice, 'cause I'm not considering litigation or anything, but could I get a money-off coupon to make up for my mental anguish? ----Seans Potato Business 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! My uncle once got a crate of jam after eating half a wasp that was in one jar. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You've got nothing to lose (apart from postage) I once found an empty tea bag in a box of fifty, I sent it back to the company with a humerous poem and they sent me a new box of a hundred, whether it was for the poem or the empty bag I never knew (nor cared!) Richard Avery (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what country you're writing from, but if the manufacturer in question has a toll-free telephone number for your country, just give them a ring and describe what happened; they'll almost certainly send you coupons worth one or two times what the product originally cost you, merely as a good-will gesture. Just be polite and start the call with something akin to "I like your product and buy it often, but..."

Atlant (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What generous companies you discovered! We once found a sharp metal hook baked into a loaf of bread. Rang the (very notable) company, who declared on the phone that it was impossible (obviously we dreamt the large peice of metal skewering several slices of bread, or perhaps put it there ourselves and then forgot?). Eventually, a representative came to our house to collect the loaf. "oh, you're right" he said. And walked off with the loaf under his arm. Not even a replacement (if I remember correctly). sigh. Gwinva (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Albert Heijn's return policy is awesome. You'll probably get a new bag if you want to, or get your money back. You might also write to the "Consumentenbond". User:Krator (t c) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Complained to my bank about their tardiness in replying to an earlier letter, and got a massive "Christmas' type hamper, three bottles wine, tins of food etc. as an apology. Now looking for something else to complain about!--Johnluckie (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When I complained to McVitie's concerning some rather battered Jaffa Cakes I'd bought, they sent me £3 worth of vouchers. Didn't even cost me postage, as I emailed them. But it does seem to be a goodwill thing, so being pleasant about it can help. Skittle (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Although complaining loudly and strongly can get you a lot of places, a justified and polite complaint, properly structured will usually get a good reply. If they don't, then loudly and strongly is well justified. Steewi (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The gift-loan

Someone - I think an American president or other famous figure - once provided an acquaintance with money, and asked that instead of repaying the money he should in turn pass it on to another when able, with the same instructions. Who? Deiz talk 13:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Our article on the concept of "pay it forward" notes that Benjamin Franklin described it in 1784. — Lomn 15:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the one. Nice. Deiz talk 15:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you recognize this tune?

Tune: [[Image:Tune123.MID|]]

I have this tune in my head. My most probable candidate is Franz Liszt, from which I heard this excerpt in either one of his transcriptions or paraphrases. Maybe it isn't Franz Liszt's at all... Does anyone recognize it and know where it comes from? It sounds to be in nature of a symphonic poem. --Funper (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to try Name My Tune. Bovlb (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a microphone :( --Funper (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Try Musipedia then. (Doesn't require a microphone – you just play it on the piano-type keyboard.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I went though my playlist and I was listening to it right now, but I was unaware of the tune and I didn't recognize it! I forgot what I was looking for. But now I know what it is. Thanks for nothing. --Funper (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. --LarryMac | Talk 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am asking, because I want somebody to listen and maybe recognize my tune. "Try Musipedia" doesn't help me and it doesn't help others to listen to my sample. Thanks though, but a slight change to that sentence can make it constructive and helpful one. It will also leave room for others to listen to it: "I personally don't now. But try Musipedia." --Funper (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You stated above, 'But now I know what it is'. Would you consider sharing that information with the many people who have listened to it? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 11:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The tune, playing on the gypsy scale and being pathetique in charachter, is an excerpt from Franz Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 14 (S.244/14). --Funper (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that, with due respect to whoever played it, the tune you provided above is only a poor cousin to the actual tune in Liszt's Rhapsody. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an unnecessary statement. --Funper (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think not. I know Liszt's music well, and I listened to the clip to see if I recognised it - I was interested in helping you out, after all. I didn't recognise it. Now that you've identified it, I can see a resemblance, and I don't doubt that whoever played it made a conscientious and genuine attempt to capture the tune of the 14th Rhapsody. But it's still sufficiently different to be unrecognisable. Apart from the rhythmic differences, your first 4 rising notes are OK but your 5th and 6th notes are descending in pitch whereas in the actual tune these 2 notes continue to ascend. Then, after you’ve descended, you jump up by a 4th, fall back a 4th, before descending again. There’s no such jump-fall pattern in the Liszt melody. It’s a simple succession of 6 rising notes followed by 5 falling notes (F, G, A, B flat, C, D, C, B flat, A twice, G twice, F twice). This wasn’t intended as a personal criticism, and I’m sorry if it came across that way, but as simple feedback. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

astrology question for astrologers  :)

hi guys...for those of you who believe in astrology and who have some knowledge of it. (i respect both skeptics and believers). about that belief that when the moon is in a given sign,it's not wise to proceed with an action that is ruled by such sign that day for it will fail or go wrong.

for example operating the nose a day when the moon is on scorpio, the ruler of the human nose... hipocrqates had this belief.

so... what if I am planning on doing something of the importance of getting married or of some long term agreement/buisness or something like that on february the 29th...on what sign is the moon going to be? is it convenient for me to do so acording to the aspects of life that that sign rules?

and if you have enough knowledge to answer this...what day would be best to sign such an agreement in february? (again, according to the moon's position).

OR MAYBE! the moon's position only has an effect on the body and operations etc, but on aspects of life, the sun has the influence, or any other planet.

I'd so much apretiate your imput. thank u. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.188.146 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You've raised some interesting points. It seems you're asking about Electional astrology for choosing auspicious dates. About two bucks (?) will get you a printed 2008 Ephemeris for the year from a new age store for finding where the moon is in signs on any day in any month as you probably know. There's a link to moon phases at article Moon. Problem is that the answer involves who is asking it as well, so any calculation would take into account your chart details – likely based on transits to your chart so that when you look for the moon on any date, check for nice aspects to your natal chart planets to do with the nature of the event. (Example, 7th house is about weddings, Capricorn and Saturn and second house about business.) There is also "Category:Wikipedians interested in Astrology" for expertise. If you don't have the software try here[2] – go to "my astro" at the top, set up an account, set up your chart with transits and bobsyeruncle. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Moon, though, is that it moves through all 12 signs every 28 days, and it often occupies 2 signs on any given day. You'd need the exact time of the event to be sure of the Moon sign. Other planets also move from sign to sign, but it's much less likely that the transition will be occurring on the very day you're interested in (although it's certainly possible). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

...And because of different time zones, the definition of 29 February also depends on where you live. FWIW, the Moon is in the 8th degree of Sagittarius at 0hrs GMT and the 20th degree at 24hrs GMT.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

thanx a lot guys :) it was really helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.177.88 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

word history

Any idea where the word 'Gypo' first comes from? --Fredrick day (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=gypsy+&searchmode=none) shows the origins of gypsy. i suspect that gypo started as a localised colloquialism from gypsy but my (admittedly short) search found little of use. ny156uk (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Context? There's also gypo or gippo, soldiers slang, from Egyptian. Gwinva (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An Arabian mantle (jubbah) came into the west as a jibbah—though on its trail it gave the Fr. jupe and jupon, skirt; and Eng. jumper, earlier jump. A short jacket, such as the servants wore at Cambridge, England, was called a gippo, still further shortened to gyp. Possibly influenced by gipsy, gypsy (earlier gypcian, from Egyptian, Egypt being their supposed home), it was applied to the servants themselves. It is easy, alas, to see how the word then came to mean a cheat! There is also the suggestion that the college boys may also have been thinking of gyph, a vulture—which was Greek to them. There is another sense of gyp in some localities: to handle roughly, to thrash, which may be related to gee-up, an order to a horse. Gee-up is really geehup!, commands to move ahead. Shipley, J.T.(1945) "Gyp" Dictionary of Word Origins. p. 173.

Also, since the late 1910's, a small independent contractor in the Pacific Northwest lumber industry, a "gyppo logger".—eric 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The gipon or jupon was a medieval tunic-coat. "Gyp" also means pain, as in "This leg is giving me gyp". "Gip" used to be a version of gypsum, and "gyppy tummy" is another type of Delhi belly (possibly, again from "Egypt"). I believe "Gyp" is American slang for "swindle", also. All have different etymologies. Gwinva (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What do MEDCs owe to LEDCs?

From LEDC; "in the case of countries ravaged by European colonialism, the word "re-developing" may be more accurate since there were successful economic systems prior to colonialism". Am I not right in thinking that if more economically developed countries are developed in large part because of exploitation of the resources of other countries that are now still developing, that the the more economically developed countries owe a lot to those lesser developed and should do more to help them reach the same standards of living? ----Seans Potato Business 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That is one way to look at it. Another is that colonialism hurt the Imperial countries. A very brief example you could use is peanut farming. Nigeria was used extensively for extremely cheap peanuts at the expense of destroying the existing economy in the country. The cheap peanuts ravaged the international peanut market, such as the peanut farms in Georgia in the U.S. So, if colonialism didn't take place, Georgia wouldn't have suffered so much economic hardship and would be better off today. So, should Nigeria use part of the oil profits it now has to help with economic hardship in Georgia? As always, it is how you rationalize to justify your personal belief. It has nothing to do with what is truly right or wrong. -- kainaw™ 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote assumes that:

1. The prior/initial successful economic systems would have gone on and developed, over time, to what we currently consider developed, had colonialism not happened.
2. Colonialism broke down those systems.
3. Those systems are something worth going back to.

These assumptions are not at all incontestable, particularly the first one. User:Krator (t c) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2

One error or two?

Does the sentence "You are so much fun, you hated to leave." have one error or two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.39.245 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an error. I can't say I know what it means, though. Is this an ESL thing? --Milkbreath (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The grammatical error in this sentence is that the two verbs do not have a consistent tense. "Are" is in the present tense, but "hated" is in the past tense. In addition, there is no coordinating conjunction between the two clauses. ("and", "but", or "or") However, the sentence itself doesn't make any sense. If a person is fun, what is relevance of hating to leave? Maybe the sentence should say "You had so much fun, and you hated to leave."--Dem393 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Sounds a bit odd to me. Seems to be describing a past event, where a person hated to leave because they were either having so much fun, or being the life of the party. A more natural-sounding expression might be either "You were having (or were being) so much fun, you hated to leave", or "You were having/being so much fun, that you hated to leave". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a run-on sentence, corrected by making a subordinate clause, which renders "You are such fun that you hated to leave," with the sense, as I construe it, "You ordinarily shine so in company, that on that occasion you hated to leave." The preceding is not a run-on sentence, though it tire the lip muscles. --Wetman (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No no no. You misunderstood the question. The point is that if you fix either mistake, the other one becomes correct. So do you count the mistakes together and say there are 2 mistakes, or say that there is only one mistake, because if you fix one, the other is not a mistake anymore. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I made a typo earlier, it should be "You are having so much fun, you hated to leave." not "You are so much fun, you hated to leave." 99.226.39.245 (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, in that case, I'd count only one mistake. It's just a question of which correct version was intended; decide that, correct the sole error, and you're home. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a name for this type of case, wherein either one error or another can be fixed, but not both? Just curious. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is only an argument of "two errors" when the sentence is divorced from context. Thus, we have to construct our own, imagined context, to try to make the sentence make sense. Once we have constructed this context, we realise that there can be two alternative contexts, each of which would require changing a different word in the sentence. Notice that the error is not one of logical inconsistency - it is conceivable that the speaker intended to say that "you" are ordinarily a lot of fun, and that on this particular occasion "you", perhaps as a result of this conviviality, were reluctant to leave. We only see an "error" because the sentence does not match what we would say in these (imagined) contexts.

In real, practical language, there can only be one intended meaning, and so there would only ever be one possible error.

On the other hand, in abstraction the number of "errors" is only limited by our imagination. If I imagined the context to indicate that the intended meaning was "The man you were talking to was such a bore that you would have loved to leave", you could argue that there are multiple "errors" with the sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! 99.226.39.245 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unusual rock assemblies

In 2004 our family took a trip around Lake Superior, which was over 1000 miles. In this trip all along the roadside were rock assemblies like this, that obviously someone constructed. There were dozens of these assemblies for the full length around Lake Superior. It obviously took a lot of time to make for someone or a group of people. Is there a name for an assembly of rocks like this and does anyone know the story of these rock assemblies at Lake Superior in Canada? Many were much larger than this and much more complex.--Doug ^talk 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like an inukshuk. I don't think there are a lot of Inuit as far south as Lake Superior, so I don't know what sort of people would have erected it there. --Anonymous, 02:05 UTC, 2008-02-02.

Actually, if you read through the article Inukshuk, you will see that it has become a kind of Canadian national symbol and that non-Inuit Canadians have built many, particularly in parks and other natural areas. Marco polo (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I call 'em cairns. 77.56.99.133 (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Reading the article it appears that non-Inuit visitors are duplicating this practice and has got out of hand in Ontario. Where I noticed it the most was on the north part (especially the east part) of the main highway going around Lake Superior - which happens to be Ontario territory. We saw dozens of these (perhaps a hundred). I took pictures of several. The pictures at Commons are also typical of what we saw. I may have to add mine. The old B & W pictures of 1924 and 1929 were typical. We found so many that we knew it had to have been done by several people. Being an old ancient custom carried over into today now makes since. --Doug ^talk 13:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They are also a symbol of the 2010 Winter Olympics, although there are no Inuit in Vancouver. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I live on the southern shores of Lake Superior in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and frankly I have never seen any of these rock formations before. That is not to say they don't exist here in the "U.P.", but perhaps I'll have to keep my eyes open. However, this would underscore the idea that it is primarily a Canadian thing, instead of a practice being done in the States... Who knows, maybe I'll build a couple this summer to start a trend down here! -- Saukkomies 10:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See also, Rock stacking. Dismas|^(talk) 11:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The example looks like a variant of a trilithon. --Wetman (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also live in Michigan (Lower Peninsula) and travel to the "U.P." - however also have not seen them anywhere in Michigan. Where I saw them was definitely in Canada of the Ontario territory, mostly in the northeast part above Lake Superior in Canada. Looking over my pictures, there are many that do in fact look like a variant of a trilithon - that is, they have vertical stone posts that support a horizontal stone like Stonehenge. They are minature versions of a trilithon. Trilithon are megalithic structures of large stones, where these are minature structures of basically the same thing. Trilithons are larger than man, where these inukshuks I saw are about the size of a little person. --Doug ^talk 23:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Spencer

Can you please help me? I need to know how Herbert Spencer fits into ninteenth century British thought and if he has any relevance for today? Norman Clegg (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Herbert Spencer? Algebraist 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia artile on Spencer is very long and contains a lot of useful information. Read it then come back if you have further questions. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spencer, I suppose, is another one of those Victorian antiquities, like Karl Mark, whose reputation and influence has declined steadily over the years. Both lived at a time when it was fashionable to produce a great synthetic vision, one that captured life and history in all its bewildering diversity in a convenient explanatory net; historical materialism for Marx, functionalism for Spencer. But whereas Marx looked for 'collective' solutions to the problems of the time Spencer was the apotheosis of an old Anglo-Saxon liberal tradition, one which sought to remove all artificial constraints to 'natural progress.' The measure of his importance can be gauged from his entry in the 1912 edition of the Dictionary of National Biography;

Spencer's place in the history of thought must be ranked high. His influence in the latter half of the nineteenth century was immense: indeed it has woven itself into our modern methods of thinking that its driving revolutionary energy is nearly spent; there is little likelihood of its being hereafter renewed. It was the best synthesis of knowledge of his times.

Ah, but who now reads Herbert Spencer? Not many, I think. Does he have an abiding relevance? Perhaps, particularly in concepts of laissez-faire, in his belief that state intervention in social and economic life more often makes matters worse, not better. But what of the grander vision of 'Order and Progress', who now has faith in those? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There was an interesting review of a new biography of Spencer not long ago in the New Yorker. It's a good read: "However, the big idea that gave Spencer’s philosophy its coherence was just too big to yield coherence or pertinence at more mundane levels. Watching Spencer derive concrete social policies from his theory of evolution is like trying to deduce whether to send the kids to private school from a theory of justice. The sledgehammer cracks the nut, but it makes a mess." --24.147.69.31 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

World Tour

hello,

basically if i were to do a 'world tour' (eg go everywere!, see everything etc) for many years where should i go...any suggestions, are there any websites for this sort of thing, anyone done a similar thing,

thanks, --The world tour (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Asked at the Misc. desk, with some responses. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

energy consumption

hello,

one more question....has the electricity output (from non-renewable sources exc. Nuclear) from western countries, eg France, Uk, US, germany etc been going up or down....just wondering because if it is going up then all the 'save energy' stuff that people are ding would be a waste of time....right?

thanks, --The world tour (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• See [3] which says that for 1993-2004 in the US, generation from coal, liquid petroleum, natural gas, hydroelectric and other renewables, as well as nuclear decreased, while generation from coke increased. It claims that US total generation decreased, which I find surprising, since another reliable source [4] says US consumption is steadily increasing. See also [5]. Edison (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Parodies of Coleridge's "Kubla Khan"

I would like to know how continues the parody beginning with the words "In Bakerloo did Aly Khan A stately Hippodrome decree: where Alf the bread-delivery man ..." Is the author known? I understand that he or she was making a point about the importance of the meaning of poetry, rather than the sound of the words. Lawrentius (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

bit more here http://plagiarist.com/poetry/1078/comments/2/ or a different version here http://my.telegraph.co.uk/tjsudbury/october_2007/poets_corner_a_classic.htm87.102.44.109 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's an ad-hoc parody:

Mr. Bean Interviews

In Xerox Park by Mr. Bean

A stately copier was Seen

And knowing that the ink was Free

-- And paper, too -- decided he

To make some copies of his CV.

Twice ten copies he did think

Would not be too hard upon the ink,

But having not a card to swipe,

He glimpsed instead a prototype:

An early view of what was to be!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If anyone likes this style I'll add more.... (hilarious Mr. Bean antics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.25 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The cartoonist Don Martin once did a very funny parody of the poem, targeting the Houston Astrodome. Rhinoracer (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

reflections on a vase/mirror/etc.

I would have thought very old painters (Antiquities) already "painted what they saw", to include, for example, the reflection of a window on a shiny vase or in a mirror/other shiny surface, even when the window is not visible in the painting. However, my wife says this is not so old a technique!

So, what's the earliest painting (or epoch, etc) in which we can see a reflection of something "off-canvas"?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.25 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember a Dutch painter who did detailed images including things seen in reflections. Holbein, perhaps? There were also paintings of a scene viewed in a reflection from a curved reflective object, which can only be viewed "correctly" when the object is placed in the middle of the painting. Edison (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The latter would be anamorphosis. Bovlb (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You may find more at History of painting; pick the earliest artwork that meets your criteria. An argument could be made that Photorealism was the start of "painting what you see". Bovlb (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

One famous example of something painted seen in a mirror is the Arnolfini wedding... Also, Venus/Aphrodite was frequently shown gazing into a mirror (see Image:Titian_Venus_Mirror_(furs).jpg etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck dates from 1434, but I think that the reflection shows only what is also shown in the painting. The most famous example of a reflection in a painting that shows something outside the picture frame (that I can think of) is Las Meninas by Diego Velasquez from 1656. The mirror shows the king (Philip IV of Spain) and queen looking into the scene from outside. That said, I have no idea what the earliest example of this type of image is.--Eriastrum (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The mirror in the Arnolfini Portrait shows additional figures that are definitely not in the frame.  --Lambiam 23:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do high-shine highlights count as reflection, as in the eyes of this Egyptian boy? The use of such highlights was common in 1st and 2nd centuries A.D Fayum mummy portraits, of which the linked image is an example.  --Lambiam 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A fascinating question. Things unseen, in-ness and out-ness, flat space intersecting with other dimensions. The ones who did Lascaux were surely capable of any abstract thought that you or I are. The bodies of the swimming deer are there but not there. The artist himself steps back and leaves the canvas. We are off-canvas now. The earliest example I could find of an actual reflection is from a Roman mural from Herculaneum. I refuse to believe that that bunch of engineers were the first to render a reflection. The concept is not difficult at all. The Egyptians had mirrors, and Cro-Magnons had at least ponds and puddles. And eyes. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Lambiam, that the Jan van Eyck mirror does indeed show two figures between the couple. One source says that one of the figures might be Jan himself. I didn't realize this until I looked at a good reproduction, since the images in the mirror are so small. I found another interesting example of mirror images in paintings. The Music Lesson by Vermeer shows a woman with her back to the viewer playing a virginal. There is a rectangular mirror on the wall in front of her, and in it you can see her face. What is interesting is that in the reflection what is shown behind her does not seem to be what is behind her in the painting! Is this an error, a joke, a piece of obscure symbolism?--Eriastrum (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Constituent Assemblies dismissing Congresses

The Ecuadorian Constituent Assembly convened in late November of last year, and the first thing they did was to vote to dismiss Congress. Now, for the time being, a portion of the assembly has assumed the legislative role that Congress once had. I'm curious to know if there are other examples of a constituent assembly dismissing a nation's Congress. Sjmcfarland (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The United States Constitutional Convention pretty well did away with the Congress of the Confederation. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't. The Congress of the Confederation finished it session and even had another session after the convention. The adoption of the Constitution led to the replacement of the Congress later, though this is not at all like the Ecuadorian example. Rmhermen (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

100 years of best sellers

Is there a list somewhere on the net of all the best sellers (books) of the 20th Century? Keria (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is one for the USA in Publishers Weekly lists of bestselling novels in the United States. It´s by single years, though and does not give individual sales figures, so you can´t accumulate it over the century. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You can check out the list of best-selling books and filter the list for all books published in the 20th Century. However, the sales figures will include sales that have occurred over the last eight years, as well. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Intricate mysteries

Which are some of the most intricate and complicated detective or mystery novels? Keria (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wilkie Collins wrote one of the first detective novels in The Moonstone. It's pretty complex and can help you see the history of the genre. Wrad (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One detective novel that stands out to me as intricate is The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler. --Anonymous, 00:02 UTC, February 3, 2008.

Intricate enough that even Chandler couldn't work it out—personally that's a big turn-off. Personally I'm a big fan of the (later) work of James Ellroy (White Jazz onward), which is very densely wrought with facts, characters, and context. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agatha Christie was an early lover of fiendishly complicated plots (see, for instance, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd). A US example which comes to mind is Richard North Patterson's Dark Lady (1991). Xn4 07:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reginald Hill's Dialogues of the Dead is an intellectual romp through literature, myth, and language tied up with a complicated murder which is like a word puzzle in itself. Here's one review I googled, as a taster, but I'm sure there are better ones out there. Gwinva (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How to write literature

Could you recommend a book about writing literature? It would be giving advices such as what to look for when writing sentences, the traps to avoid, how to vary sentence construction and the like. I'm looking for a work on literature and writing, not on plot construction or on 'how to write a best seller'. Thank you. Keria (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not of much help, but: I don´t think it works that way. There may be books on "Writing Literature by Numbers", indeed, there certainly are many. I simply doubt their usefulness.

If you feel that you must write, than I suggest:

• Read every spare minute, less as a reader, but more as an analyst, as a critic, as a student of the skills (and weaknesses) of a fellow writer.
• Consider joining a local writers´workshop, where budding novelists read from their work in progress. If nothing more, it will make you aware what a sentence sounds like "from the outside" and how your mind constructs the images parallel to the words on paper.
• If you are serious about writing, you will have to learn the difficult skill to alienate yourself from "Keria the writer". You need to be able to read (and reread) your work as if you had never seen these words before. You, in your role of "Keria the critic" must be able to recognise, without pity, any weakness in the construction. A slight personality disorder seems almost mandatory. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you are looking for is a book on Composition. Perhaps the reason you have been finding it difficult to locate a book on this subject is that you were not using the right keyword to find it. Try going to Google, Amazon.com, or your local library, and using the keywords "composition writing", and you'll find plenty of material to choose from. -- Saukkomies 09:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The best concise little book on writing style is, of course, Strunk and White. It is also quite entertaining. It cannot teach you how to be a good writer, but it does help keep you from being an abysmal one, if you follow its advice. Buy a copy and keep it at your bedside. Read it a few times through until you've internalized its suggestions. They're good ones. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A "summation of the case for cleanliness, accuracy, and brevity in the use of English" sounds very good, and it's available online! Now I'm all worried about making gramatical mistakes. Thank you. I'll look into composition too. Cheerio! Keria (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The only one available online for free is Strunk's original 1918 text. Get the full Strunk & White for more tips on grammar and style. White's bits are really quite wonderful as well and very funny; he has long descriptions on good and bad things to avoid when writing that goes far beyond Strunk's original rules. It's worth the $5 or whatever it is that it costs (it is a very short book, by the way). You can certainly find it used almost anywhere as well. I have an illustrated version which is just wonderfully fun as well (but meant to be fairly silly). Whenever I mentor thesis students I make them buy a copy and learn to worship it. As they point out, you don't have to follow "the rules", but in most cases, it's a good idea, and if you're going to break them, you should at least know you are, and be prepared for the consequences! --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that Strunk & White is a useful book. Here are some well-informed attacks Haukur (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can find a fool who believes anything! Anyway, as I said, Strunk and White are very clear that they are not so much rules as guidelines, and that violating them is of course within the perogative of the writer. As with a musical instrument, or any other fine art, one generally needs to spend time learning the "formal" and "correct" way of doing something before deciding to become avante garde, and frankly if most beginners could stick with Strunk and White, the world would be a much more well-written place! In any case, whether you like it or not, whether you heed it or not, Strunk and White is a classic book on composition. One can hardly burn a copy, as one of those pages suggests, before one has owned and read it to care enough to burn it. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read the version available online and it has already helped me tremendously. Bye bye passive constructions (when unecessary). I've even managed to localise one book here in South America! Thank you for the suggestion. I think you are right, 24, it looks like the book can defend itself against any attack. It has pre-defused the traps by stating that one should stray from the rule when feeling it is justified. I'll read the critics too though. I'm sure they are very interesting. I'll look further into 'composition' for more complete books. Keria (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend Fowler or Gowers (the latter shamefully under-represented on Wikipedia) over Strunk & White. There's nothing wrong with the passive voice. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's one guy who really hates Strunk & White and recommends Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage instead. While I'm on the subject, I can't resist linking this poem. -- BenRG (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked directly the professor who wrote the critique of Strunk and White (I think it is the same BemRG is linking to) to suggest alternatives and he replied with a very kind email. He suggested, among others, Joseph WILLIAMS Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. The title, at the very least, sounds good to me. Keria (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the passive voice, but it can be overused, or abused. When a journalist says:

• "It's not known whether a decision has been made by the government or not", what they mean is:
• "The government obviously knows whether or not they've made a decision, but I, personally, don't know, because I, personally, didn't/wasn't able to do enough research to find out before my deadline". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

February 3

Intelligence and wisdom

Can any one point me to sources that outline the differences?--TreeSmiler (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I use the bathroom mirror to evaluate the differences.

Unfortunately, some frothy mouthed lunatic with a toothbrush obscures my view. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's mildly humorous Cockatoo. schyler (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a Zen Buddhist saying that talks about this: "When an ordinary man gains knowledge, he becomes a Sage. When a Sage gains understanding, he becomes an ordinary man." -- Saukkomies 09:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There are so many recognised kinds of intelligence that wisdom sounds like the ablity to actually use it. I guess it's a bit like "intelligence" processes data and makes connections, finds relationships, remembers... "wisdom" is knowing what to do with it. Wisdom seems connected to having perspective or values. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Treasure Island

From Ripoff Britain: Many believe that true competition from the internet and from abroad will eventually normalize retail prices and put an end to the suffering of an angry population tired of being referred to as "Treasure Island". - I've never heard of the UK being referred to as 'Treasure Island' and even if it was, I don't get it? Treasure? Huh? ----Seans Potato Business 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the idea is "an island country that is a source of 'treasure' to people selling stuff there". --Anon, 09:30 UTC, Feb. 3.

Sales Taxes on Ebay

If i as a seller on ebay am selling an item and i am not a business do i have to charge sales taxes.--logger (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at sales tax, and these eBay help pages[6][7]. The last page says, "Please contact a tax professional to determine whether you need to charge sales tax on your eBay sales. eBay cannot and does not provide tax advice". For more assistance, you might want to tell us what country (and state) you're in, but I'm afraid we can't offer legal advice either. Bovlb (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Likely not if you're selling your own used (secondhand) stuff (from Australia). Julia Rossi (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Song

Well I thought that I was knowledgeable of music to certain extent but I feel kind of embarrassed that I don't know what song is in this video. Sad really. Thanks, schyler (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PS Musipedia didn't help.

It's the 1812 Overture, specifically the crescendo section that occurs at around 4mins and 15mins into this version. Foxhill (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of Course! One in the same as in V for Vendetta! Thanks, schyler (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Horse Racing and the Horse's Age

Why is it that in horse racing they require that the horses' ages be different dependent upon which hemisphere they come from. For instance, in the Dubai World Cup... they say that if the horse is from the Northern Hemisphere then it should be four years old and up... but if it is from the Southern Hemisphere it should be three years old and up. Why is this? Tbwebber (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Tbwebber

All racing horses have an official birthday of January 1 in the northern hemisphere or August 1 in the Southern hemisphere. Dubai's racing season is from January to March, so Northern horses will have just had their birthday and will be a year "older" than Southern horses of the same age. FiggyBee (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link or reference for this? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbwebber (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1 Jan/1 Aug thing is mentioned in our Horse article. As for that being the Dubai organisers' reasoning, that's just my conjecture. FiggyBee (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Names of schools - Scots/Scotch?

Why is it that many private schools in Australia bear the name Scots/Scotch College, or some variation thereof? Is it related to Presbyterianism's roots in Scotland? 211.30.58.79 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Xn4 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting issue. I wonder why there aren't Anglican-run schools known as "English College" and Catholic-run schools known as "Irish College". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

images of buddha

how many symbols are used in buddist images ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.134.2 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Could start at Buddhist symbols... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All Buddhist imagery is symbolic, and there are many hundreds of Buddhist figures, each with their own iconography, so the answer is: many thousands.--Shantavira|^{feed me} —Preceding comment was added at 08:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bestsellers in the UK

I would like to read English literature, which are among the best sellers in the UK in literature topic. Could you advise me a best seller list? --Ksanyi (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are specifically interested in literary fiction, then the list of bestsellers is probably not the best starting place. About half of them are cookbooks, self-help books, and genre fiction. I'd begin by looking at books which have recently won British awards. Lantzy ^talk 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

George Washington

Hello im kinda new to wikipedia and i looked around but id like to know more about the plantaions george owned can someone please point me in a direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.208.206 (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Mount Vernon? People sometimes think Mount Vernon is the name of Washington's house, but actually it's the name of the plantation. Mount Vernon represented just a portion of Washington's real estate, but it was his primary plantation. Any more specific questions? —Kevin Myers 22:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

George Washington article here lists almost all his own simple fee absolute land holdings, plus the vast amount he controlled and received income from its management. His landholdings, plantations and the slavery issue are always discussed in biographies. 75Janice (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Who was the first to climb Mount Vernon? Did he/she require oxygen for the climb? Edison (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sleeping problems

Sorry, this is a medical question, and those aren't allowed on the reference desk. For your sake, please consult a doctor. --Anonymous, 01:53 UTC, February 4, 2008.

Children's Book a Metaphor for WWII

I read a children's book a while ago, but I cannot remember the title or author. I believe the illustrations were hand drawn in black and white. The story takes place in a forest, with each of the animal species (racoons, deer, rabbits, foxes, et.) killed off one by one, but no one does anything about it because they don't think it concerns them. The whole story is a metaphor for WWII. Do you know the title and/or author? Dlempa (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like 'La Bête est Morte', a children's book by the French illustrator Calvo. I believe an English version was published by Fantagraphics. Rhinoracer (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The English version is "The Beast is Dead (WWII Among the Animals)" by Victor Calvo and Dancette. You can find it easily on Amazon. Dlempa (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gothic cathedrals

The fictional Kingsbridge Cathedral in The Pillars of the Earth is claimed to be the first Gothic cathedral in England. Which one really was? Corvus cornix_talk 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Canterbury Cathedral, I believe. Carom (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Durham Cathedral, though largly Romanesque, was, I think, the first to adopt aspects of the new Gothic style. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Corvus cornix_talk 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

February 4

Political terminology

Does anyone know if there is a term for the following: the act of posing or dressing as a civilian by a combatant (for the purpose of camouflage or human shielding). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.24.183 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfidy includes this, but involves many other acts as well. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a perfidious ruse of war, or a perfidious False flag operation. -- Azi Like a Fox (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One word is espionage - a combatant enemy alien found on a nation's territory can be tried and punished as a spy, if not in uniform. In the not so distant past, this often resulted in execution. Xn4 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A Medal of a Friend

A friend of mine has a box of medal's he was awarded during his time in the U.S. Military. I do not know the war he fought in, or what the medal was awarded for, but I can tell you what it looked like if that helps.

It was a bronse star, with a chevron above it that had 13 stars within, below the chevron (the chevron was above the main part of the star and was used to attach the medal to the cloth that would be pinned to the vest that would hold it, it was White and Blue alnternating like this "White:Blue:White:Blue") was an eagle with its wings spread out.

I hope this is a good enough discription, please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.144.234 (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A Bronze star with 13 little stars, an eagle and blue-and-white sounds awfully like the Medal of Honor... FiggyBee (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All Medal of Honor recipients have a Wikipedia article. Does your friend have one? User:Krator (t c) 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is the US Medal of Honor, then see List of Medal of Honor recipients. Pace Krator, I see a lot of red links there. Bovlb (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not all Medal of Honor recipients have their own article. There are many red links within the Philippine-American War, Boxer Rebellion, and United States occupation of Veracruz, 1914 recipient classes. Still your friend would have to be at least 111 to have fought in that last! --S.dedalus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Britain and Rome

How did the Romans view Britain, both before and after the conquest? Ryan348 (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Before the conquest it was a source of plenty of natural resources, but also of assistance for the Gauls and Germans who were fighting the Romans on the Continent, and the Romans often launched raids against Britain as a penalty. After the conquest, it was the pride of the emperors, even as late as the 4th century it was somewhat of a private island for the imperial family (Constantine was born there, if I am not confusing things). It was also still a good source for lots of natural resources. But eventually, once the Germanic tribes started pouring in, they could no longer afford to keep their legions there, and it was basically abandoned in the 5th century, which allowed the Angles and the Saxons and the Jutes and all the rest to invade. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I share your view on Britain as the 'pride of the emperors', Adam; Roman attitudes towards the island were always complex, a mixture of the positive and of the negative. Before the invasion of 43AD Virgil wrote of Britain as a remote and barbarous place. In 416AD, after almost four hundred years of occupation, Rutilius Namatianus, the Prefect of the city of Rome, was still able to write of it as one of the most remote and wild parts of the Roman world!

I rather suspect, Ryan, that Roman attitudes towards Britain were rather like British attitudes towards the north-west frontier of their own nineteenth century Indian Empire: important to hold but difficult to love. Dio Cassius, when writing of the third century campaign of Septimius Severus in the north of the island, was to lament the difficulties caused by the 'bogs and forests', the very same things that had hindered the conquest under Claudius almost two hundred years before. Ammianus Marcellinus, a fourth century Roman historian, was to praise the Emperor Constans for a surprise visit he made to the island in 343AD, in terms that would suggest he had crossed to the ends of the earth!

But Britain remained attractive, in economic and strategic terms, for the rest of the Roman world; at once a place of profit and settlement in the south, and mystery and barbarism in the north, the direction of Ultima Thule and the Fortunate Islands. Even Antoninus Pius, the most unwarlike of Emperors, was determined to make his mark there, advancing his army into what was later to become the south of Scotland, the only expansion of his reign. And it was from Britain that Constantine the Great began what was perhaps the last great military campaign of the Roman world, one that was to transform the Empire. "Fortunate Britain, now most blessed of lands since you have been the first to see Constantine as Caesar." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Right; I don't know why I said that, I guess I was extrapolating from some old memory that Constans and Constantine had a connection to York. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To underscore what Clio said, most Roman soldiers considered being sent to Brittania as doing hard time. It was not the most attractive climate for pursuing the typical Roman way of life. The women slaves from Brittania, though, were highly sought-after - especially the ones who had golden coloured hair. -- Saukkomies 13:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't add anything remotely as useful as the above comments by others, but if you haven't read Tacitus' Agricola I'd suggest it. Although the book is designed to praise a general (the "Agricola" of the title, Tacitus' father-in-law), as Agricola was stationed in Britain for some time, the book also gives an extensive account of the lives of Britons (from the perspective of someone whose accounts of the place must have been secondhand at best). You may well be surprised at how readable Tacitus is (in a decent translation), and although there are doubtless other commentaries on the British by Roman authors, Tacitus would give you an excellent sense of popular attitudes, I think. Plus the Agricola is wonderfully quotable--most famously Tacitus' comment on Roman attempts to 'civilise' Britain, when he says the Romans "make a desolation, and call it peace" (a quote I have personally applied to more recent foreign excursions of a world superpower). I hope you have time to give it a look. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When did people start smiling in photographs?

In early photographs, subjects almost never smile. Today, it is almost obligatory. Does anyone know when the convention changed, and why? Lantzy ^talk 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

it probably had something to do with the invention of instant photography - at first, it took awhile for the photo to be taken, and people can't smile naturally for dozens of minutes. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, having one's photograph taken used to be a rare event, not unlike having one's potrait painted for posterity. One's bearing, smart clothes, and a dignified expression commanded much respect in Victorian society.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The examples middle-class people began to imitate were the ingratiating smiles of actors and actresses rather than to externalize a desire to look noble, and God-fearing, or at least serious-minded. The change becomes evident after WWI, and intrudes last among aristocrats. "Not to look like a 'grinning idiot'" was a concern voiced openly, if privately, even in my youth. I notice a kind of perpetual faint smile on people who've beenm trained to "look pleasant" and I seem to detect it even in tv news anchors reporting disasters. Today the middle-class in America are taking it a step further, to a "surprise face"— of eyebrows up, ears attentively perked— the "Have a nice day!" smiley-face; definitely cartoon-derived. --Wetman (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For one 1855 view, look at Image:1855-daguerrotype-familyphoto-joke-Punch.gif -- Churchh (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting enough to be an article, as well as different cultural expectations in photographs, there's heaps here already. It's really weird when news anchors smile in the face of (or background of) disasters which aren't their own. It's probably just as strange when a reporter scowls or mugs seriousness at the camera to look "truthy". Julia Rossi (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What news program do you watch where the anchors smile when reporting a disaster? I've never seen that happen. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember watching a bbc series about the history of photography and i'm pretty sure they noted it to be around the time that photos changed from being 'formal portraits' (i.e. mimicking classic paintings) to being an every-day thing - so about the time that Kodak came about. Also this book link (http://books.google.com/books?id=ICoqRgdt1XMC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=%22smiling+in+photographs%22+history&source=web&ots=KnG-Oax25Y&sig=UEP-jZDb611qY_6IjMr_2DFbc5c) has a bit of detail about it. I think film-speed will have had something to do with it - back in the day it used to take several seconds sitting still to expose a shot. Now it can be done in less than 1000th of a second! ny156uk (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The convention of smiling in photographs is a 20th century invention [8]. In the 19th century people looked serious in photos. It has little to do with the technology: people continued to look serious in phots long after relatively instant photos were possible. It also has little to do with amateur photos versus studio photos. Now, sadly, cameras are on the market with a "smile filter" which inhibits the taking of the photo until the camera brain decides the subject is smiling. Edison (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There also seems to be a difference between more developed countries versus less developed ones. In America, it's obviously a smiley place when the cameras come out. In Japan, things can be even worse, with most girls not only smiling for the camera but flashing peace signs as well. In Central Africa, cameras are still quite rare, and getting one's picture taken a special event. Accordingly, people rarely smile, preferring instead to gaze off into the distance to get a 3/4-view portrait. Clothing is also very important there, whereas in America and Japan, people are often willing to be photographed no matter what they're wearing. It's often difficult to get candids in Africa. — Dulcem (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

File:1903 world series crowd.jpg

Take a look at this picture from the 1903 World Series in Boston. You'll notice that all of the men and boys (there are no women) in the picture are looking surly, except perhaps for that one boy in the bottom right. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I believe face recognition software works better when the subject is smiling. Perhaps that's why we smile when meeting. Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer 206.252.74.48 I felt maybe I'd generalised unfairly from a couple of impressions, but nope, there it was on the news: flood rescue in the background and the reporter trying to look pleasant. Naming no networks, Australia, my friend. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a counter-trend among young people to scowl in photos? I have read that this comes from African American teenagers imitating rap stars. There might be a name for this. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Test of October

I understand that in the political struggles in Russia in the 1920s, after the death of Lenin, the attitude the various Bolshevik leaders took towards the desirability of the uprising in October 1917 became an important factor in establishing political credibility within the Communist party. Does anyone have any examples of how this worked in practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.107.154 (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The obvious and great example of this came with the so-called Literary Discussion, 81.152, the name given to a particular phase of the struggle within the Russian Communist Party in 1924. It began after Leon Trotsky published The Lessons of October. In this he analysed the events leading to the October Revolution in 1917, drawing particular attention to the opposition of Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev to Lenin's plans for a Bolshevik takeover. Trotsky's intervention here had a crucial effect on the inner-party struggles that had become increasingly more intense after the death of Lenin in January of the same year. To keep Trotsky from power, Zinoviev and Kamenev had allied with Stalin in a triumvirate. Having served its purpose this alliance was already weakening when Trotsky published his booklet. But Stalin at once came to the aid of his associates, and all three began a renewed assault on Trotsky and the arguments put forward in the Lessons of October. Amongst other things, all of his alleged errors were publicised, including his former opposition to the Bolsheviks and his current opposition to the New Economic Policy. Trotsky was completely outmaneuvered, especially by Stalin, who played a skilful political game as always. In January 1925 Trotsky was forced to resign as head of the Red Army. Paradoxically, while indeed weakening the long-term credibility of Zinoviev and Kamenev within the Party, his actions only served to strengthen the position of Stalin still further. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What really is absolute pitch?

We've got an article for this, but I'm still wondering what it means to have absolute pitch. I never received musical training and I can't play any instrument. How do I know if I have absolute pitch? How would absolute pitch help in learning music and to speak a foreign language? Does that mean, if you have absolute pitch, you would have an advantage of identifying the right musical (to play your instrument better, for example) note / the intonation of a foreign language? --Fitzwilliam (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can find out if you have absolute pitch by repeatedly consulting some sort of tuning device. Absolute pitch would initially help with tuning an instrument, which can make your output seem much better than someone who is out-of-tune. As to a foreign language, I don't see why it would help. Even with tonal languages, the important part is the changes in tone. So it really doesn't matter what pitch you start at. One of the benefits of absolute pitch is that when you're playing, you can easily notice when you or your playing mates are out-of-tune and maybe compensate for that (depending on the instrument you're playing).--droptone (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolute pitch is the ability to identify a tone (i.e. a sound frequency), without the aid of a reference tone. Relative pitch is the ability to identify a tone, given a reference tone. If you have relative pitch (as does any decent musician), you will be as capable of tuning an instrument as someone with absolute pitch, if only you have a reference tone, say a tuning fork. Someone with relative pitch will easily notice when they or their playing mates are out-of-tune. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The chances are that you don't have perfect pitch since it isn't all that common, though neither is it terribly rare. You could try humming the tune of a song you've listened to many times (always from the same recording), and then play that recording and see if you were in the right key. Like NorwegianBlue said, I don't think it makes a big different one way or the other as regards musical ability. It has disadvantages too, as the article mentions. -- BenRG (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one who does have perfect pitch, I can attest to both its usefulness and its occasional inconveniences. For one thing absolute pitch makes it easier to take music dictation in a music theory class. It’s also a great party trick. Essentially I hear a note as having a unique sound associated only with that pitch. I don’t have to think about it. Of course if you don’t know the notes of a musical scale it may be hard to know if you could identify them. Some basic music training would help. There are a few limitations to absolute pitch though. For instance my ability to identify pitches breaks down in the extreme high and low registers. I also have trouble identifying notes that last for less than about an sixth of a second. As I mentioned above there are some times when perfect pitch is downright inconvenient. Baroque music is often played slightly flat from modern tuning on recordings in order to authenticate the original performance practice of the time. This drives me crazy! It sounds utterly out of tune. Contrary to common belief I also don’t find that perfect pitch helps me play more in tune. It just tells me how badly out of tune I am! (Playing in tune has a lot more to do with dexterity and memory than it does with your ear because by the time you hear a note it’s too late.) So anyway, even if you don’t have absolute pitch don’t be too disappointed. It’s unlikely to affect your ability to learn music significantly. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslims Hindus India Pakistan

What was the relationship between the Muslims and Hindus in India before Gandhi and India’s independence from England and what is the current status between India and Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.197.47 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Long before Gandhi gave the Congress Party an ideology that drew heavily from India's Hindu tradition, the Muslim community was undergoing its own revival. By the mid nineteenth century tensions between the two communities were increasingly acute, particularly in the north of India, where there were disputes over the slaughter of cows and the replacement of Persian script in government by the Hindu Nagri script. Hindu revivalism also inhibited those within the nationalist movement when they looked for some form of rapprochement with the Muslim League. In many ways the British themselves contributed towards the growing divisions, classifying people by religious background in their decennial census of the Indian Empire, and by the creation of a separate Muslim electorate.

The Partition of India, it might be said, had roots in this policy of divide and rule. But it was fear of being a permanent minority in a Hindu-dominated India that led to Muslim intellectuals towards the notion of Pakistan. As early as December 1930, Muhammad Iqbal, poet and philosopher, sketched out his view of an independent Muslim state in the north-west of India, a position eventually adopted by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The elections of 1946 gave the Muslim League an overwhelming majority within their electoral bloc, making the creation of Pakistan all but inevitable. By this time violence between the two communities was endemic, urged on by Hindu insensitivity, which amongst other things required Muslim schoolchildren to sing Vande Mataram.

As for the current state of relations you could do no better, 66.30, than read through the History of Pakistan. Relations are sometimes good, but more often bad, with the Kashmir question acting as a continual source of friction. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons for there being tensions between the Muslims and Hindus in India was due in part to the period of time when India and the surrounding areas were ruled by the Mughal Empire, which was Muslim. Although the Mughals were generally very tolerant of other non-Muslim religions, they served as the ruling elite, and this is when Islam really took hold of this region. Many of the people who converted to Islam during this time were considered under Hinduism as being members of the Untouchable Caste. There was no way that a person born into this caste could escape their unhappy fate within Hinduism, but by becoming Muslims these people were able to liberate themselves from this unjust system. If an Untouchable became a Muslim, he would no longer be considered to be a person that was automatically inferior, and this attracted a great many people to join Islam at this time. The problem was that this created tensions between the Hindus and Muslims, as the Hindus saw this as a system that was attacking their time-honored tradition of the Caste system. Muslims and Hindus lived side by side, though, in relative peace pretty much up until the 20th Century. -- Saukkomies 13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Choosing a college

I'm a high school senior and I've been admitted at the undergraduate level to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, MIT, Stanford and Caltech. Pretty cool, aye? Anyhoo, where should I go? Assume I don't care about factors like location, climate, size of student body and cost. I can't make up my mind and I'd like to know the opinion of the people around here.

Thanks in advance.

Hasanclk (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As an Ohio native, I must say avoid UM, it's an evil school :-) In all seriousness, you'd do better to tell us what you want to study, since that affects where would be best for you. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, evil! I'm looking forward to getting a Bachelor's degree in engineering, not sure about the exact field though. Hasanclk (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I know very little about Caltech, but I can say that UM is a HUGE school with a rather forbidding bureaucracy. You might feel like a number there. As for Stanford, I don't know anything about its engineering programs, but having studied in the Bay Area (at rival UC Berkeley) and known students there, I can say that it has something of a country-club atmosphere. (That might be a plus or a minus, depending on your perspective.) I now live in Boston and have lived here for many years. I have known many students and staff at MIT. I often use the MIT libraries myself. I have known very few people who did not enjoy their time at MIT. The school has a wonderfully informal and sometimes irreverent culture, which encourages collaboration, creativity, and innovation. Of course, MIT is also world renowned, and an MIT degree is certainly the equal of a degree from any of the other schools. Marco polo (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

MIT certainly has the cachet, but Cal Tech is no slouch, either. And the weather's better.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but you'd have to own a car to get around Pasadena, whereas you don't if you live in Cambridge/Boston. Just another factor! But honestly... treat yourself and don't go to Boston. The weather is lousy here. Just plain awful. Either Stanford or Caltech are going to be miles better. I went to Caltech not too long ago to do some research and was just shocked by the fact that people were wearing t-shirts and shorts when everybody back in Boston was under two feet of snow. From a purely personal standpoint, I'd spend your relatively "carefree" undergrad time in a place of sun, and only if you've committed to the relatively monastic life of graduate study should you dare live back east. ;-) --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that I am in the minority, but I moved from California to Boston partly because I prefer the weather in Boston. If you want it to be nearly room temperature outside year-round, with little variation, California is nice. If you enjoy a change of seasons, Boston is better. The snow is pretty, and snowshoeing and cross-country skiing are fun. If you are a student and not planning to drive a car (and you wouldn't need one at MIT), the snow is not really an issue. Just get a warm coat, and wear a hat when it is cold and windy. Marco polo (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

MIT, UofM, and CalTech are, in my humble opinion, diploma mills. They are only concerned with undergraduates to the point that they bring to the school tuition. You'll find overcrowded classes, cold uncaring administration and advisors who are too busy to really help. Of the choices you gave, I'd say your best bet would be to go to Stanford - especially if your field is in electronics or communication, since it's the university right next to Silicon Valley, and has many contacts in that community. There are, though, other very fine technological universities other than those you've listed. Perhaps you could expand your options a bit. -- Saukkomies 13:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

@Saukkomies: should we believe that you were at all these universities so you can give your 'humble' opinion on them? In my humble opinion they are far from being diploma mills, but they are way too often object of envy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.1.246 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A "humble opinion" is not a declaration of fact, but an opinion, which does not need to be substantiated with any proof. However, in this case, and since you are making a point about it, I actually yes do have considerable personal experience with MIT, UofM and CalTech. However, I do think that you are correct in pointing out the term "diploma mill" as being a misnomer in this case. I had a different idea of what this term exactly meant. Instead of using the term "diploma mill", I would replace it with the term "diploma factory", which I basically just made up. The idea is that these universities are not substandard in their accreditation (which is what a diploma mill is supposed to mean), but that they are huge impersonal universities that care very little about the individual student and are designed to crank out the maximum number of graduates with the minimum amount of cost and bother to the institution. They see undergraduates as cash cows, caring little whether the individual undergrad makes it beyond the first year, since because of their prestigious reputation they know that there will be many other undergrads willing to fork over the huge tuition they charge who will gladly line up to take the place of anyone who drops out. The reason they are able to maintain their status of academic prestige is because they emphasize research over education, which means that the over-riding focus of these aforementioned institutions is on the research being conducted by the elite members of the faculty, and these faculty members' enslaved graduate students. For someone who is considering entering a university as an undergraduate, I would strongly advise going to a university that might not have the most prestigious research credentials, but rather concentrates on the individual student and the instructional aspects of the institution. After earning a Bachelors Degree, such a person could then go on to graduate school at one of these prestigious universities, and the higher quality of education he or she obtained as an undergraduate would help a lot. Of course there is the point about gaining personal contacts with faculty as an undergraduate in a particular university, so when you go on to graduate school you'll have a better idea of who would be the better faculty mentor to select, but my feeling about this is that as a Freshman entering the world of academia for the first time it is much more advisable to attend a school that focuses more attention on the individual student. I hope that all better explains what I was talking about. Again, it is just an opinion, but it is however an opinion based on experience and sound reasoning. -- Saukkomies 12:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Independence of Rhodesia?

Just curious: it seems that virtually everywhere I read, it's officially considered that the territory now the Republic of Zimbabwe only became independent in 1980 (for example, the article says "On 18 April 1980, the country attained independence and along with it a new name, Zimbabwe, new flag, and government led by Robert Mugabe of ZANU.") when given by the UK, rather than in 1965 when it declared independence. On the other hand, it is widely acknowledged that the USA became independent in 1776, when in declared independence, rather than in 1783 at the Treaty of Paris that acknowleded US independence — even the British The Post Office acknowledged it in 1976 with SG 1005/Scott 785, inscribed "Bicentennial of American Independence 1776-1976". Why is Rhodesia, which (unlike the USA) did not face military resistance from the UK after declaring independence, considered differently? Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 216 may be relevant. Algebraist 16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of military resistance, perhaps because it was not needed? The existance of the UN allows nations to act on a united diplomatic front in a way that just would not be possible in 1776. If Britain had left the nascient USA be, without invading it, but without recognising it either, it would be left in the position of being one of the only states to do so - France, for instance, would have definitely recognised the USA, leaving Britain's position looking rather ridiculous. In the modern era however, its relatively easy to get all of the most influential nations on board on a diplomatic decision. Rhodesia didn't need to be invaded, because their claims to sovereignty could be invalidated through High Diplomacy, rather than military force. Ninebucks (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The United States considers itself to have become independent in 1776. The government of Zimbabwe presumably doesn't recognize the apartheid regime of "independent" Rhodesia to be legitimate, so it considers itself "independent" as of 1980. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So far as I am aware no country in the world, not even the old apartheid regime in South Africa, recognised Rhodesia after the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

can i eat dogfood?

i'm broke and have no family and nothing else comes close too as cheap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.6 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it meat-based food for animals can often fall into the "not fit for human consumption" group. Petfood is no cheaper than human-food if you purchase the right goods - pasta, rice, bread, fruit, vegetables can all be used to produce meals at very little cost. Meat-based food is generally more expensive but seriously unless you are home and all that is left in the cupboards is pet-food - and even then i'd still suggest that there's potential for it to be harmful to you to eat pet-food - it's not produced for human consumption so will no doubt have less strict rules on its creation/food standards. ny156uk (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) as ny156uk said, the primary ingredient is often stuff that's been declared unfit for human consumption. Dogfood also probably lacks a lot of nutrients that humans need (for example, dogs can make their own vitamin C, humans can't). And - according to Dave Lister at least - the reason "dogs lick their testicles is to get rid of the taste of the food". FiggyBee (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In my city, brand X tuna is available at the large discount supermarket chain for slightly more than half of a U.S. dollar for a 6-ounce can, while brand X bologna is less than a U.S. dollar per pound. Is predominantly meat-based pet food really so much less expensive than that? By the way, dogs are omnivorous while cats are carnivorous, so that cheap dog-food has a lot of non-meat filler... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been through periods of being poor, so poor that I counted my money in U.S. cents rather than dollars. The foods that I found cheapest and healthiest were dried beans and rice. It's best to get brown (whole grain) rice rather than white rice, because brown rice has a lot more protein and vitamins. As for dried beans, any kind will do, chick peas, lentils, red beans, black beans, white beans. They tend to be cheaper than canned beans (when you consider that one pound of dried beans makes about 4 pounds of cooked beans), and they are easier to carry from the store. (If you are as poor as I was, you cannot afford the bus.) To add flavor and vitamins, you can cook these things with cheap vegetables, like carrots and onions. Dried beans take time to prepare. It is best to soak them in water overnight, the drain the soaking water, and then you may need to boil them for more than an hour. Brown rice also needs to boil for 45 minutes or so. But if you are very poor, you probably have time to do this. If you can afford a little cooking oil (or butter), the onions taste good fried in the oil. Also, it is good to have a little oil in your diet. There are few nutrients that you would get from meat that you can't get from rice and beans. If you want to add animal protein, look for kinds that are relatively cheap, like chicken livers (good fried lightly with onions), or possibly eggs. You don't need to have animal protein every day. Once or twice a week should be enough. It is more important to save money for cheap fruits (apples?) and vegetables so that you have vitamins. A diet of mainly rice and beans, with some cheap vegetables, would be MUCH healthier and no more expensive than dog food. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We were all assuming that he was turning to pet food for cheap meat. I was just at a supermarket an hour ago, which happens to be part of the lowest-priced grocery chain in my mid-sized metropolitan area, and I found that the cheapest tuna ("Bumble Bee" brand) was at 52 cents for 6 ounces, or $1.04 a pound, while the cheapest packaged bologna (generic store brand) was at 88 cents for 12 ounces, or $1.17 a pound, and the cheapest canned cat food (didn't notice the brand) was at 28 cents for 5.5 ounces, or $0.81 a pound. (I didn't price dog food for the reason mentioned above.) However, the cat food is subject to sales tax (while the tuna and bologna aren't), so that the approximate 8% sales tax in my local area will raise the actual checkout price of the cat food to about $0.88 a pound. So I have to wonder if he's really so impoverished and desperate for meat that the 16 cents a pound price difference between cat food and tuna, or the 29 cents a pound difference between cat food and bologna, will really be worth it to him... 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

Note that public relations people at dog food companies always make a point of eating their companies' products in front of the camera to prove how good they are. This has given rise to the expression "eating one's own dog food," meaning to use a company's own product internally. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to self. Never take a public relations job at a dog food company. Seriously though go with Marco polo’s suggestion. Eating a lot of canned tuna probably isn’t that good for you either since its mercury content is now very high. (Then again starving to death isn’t good for you either so do what you have to.) --S.dedalus (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were on the countryside and in your situation I would search for trees, cultivated fields and 'take' there something to eat. In a city I would try institutions like Caritas, monasteries, etc. Consider also that chains like McDonald's or supermaket throw tones of almost caducated food away. I would also try to get some of these.217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that according to the dogfood-eating article, they didn't eat it themselves but rather fed it to their own dogs. In Microsoft's case, the dogs are presumably the computers. -- BenRG (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where Microsoft got the phrase from or if the Wikipedia article is accurate. It is, however, true that at least some PR people for dog-food companies will eat their products. Jeanne Moos did a story on the practice, and I've seen pictures of a local dog-food maker eating her product in my local paper. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yuck! I guess that answers the question. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometime in the last 10 years (sorry can't be more specific than that) there was a national news story here in the UK where a couple had been eating dog food for a while without realising it. The labelling on the can was of the "a hearty meal of meaty chunks in gravy" affair that didn't explicitly mention feeding to pets only and had a picture on the front of said product served on a plate. It made the national news for a fair while and resulted in tighter labelling laws, but I can't seem to find a google hit for it. The only related stories I can find are all from The Sun so must be taken with a fair pinch of salt, these include - Artic Explorer using high energy Dog food and that Pet food is more healthy to eat than Fast food. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You should look into Freeganism; at least they eat people food. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you eat dog food and a doctor has to so much as look your way, you'll wipe out any savings you may have suffered through. Dog food components imported from China famously came with a lot of plastic in them, but I imagine it's not much better when they're toeing the line, rather than inching across it. Stick with beans and rice. --Sean 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I too have had periods in my life when I was so broke I couldn't afford to pay for food. However, I have found that it is times like that when it was very important to make sure to keep my strength up by eating well. I know you're talking about getting cheap protein, but I thought I'd share a little hard-earned wisdom from what I did when I was like this. First, buy bulk. It's cheaper in the long run. You might need to space your bulk purchases out so that you buy a 25 pound bag of rice one month, and a 25 pound bag of beans the next, but a 25 pound bag of rice or beans will last you several months at least...

The best bang for your buck is to buy rice, beans, oatmeal (get the kind that is as whole grain and unprocessed as possible), potatoes, onions, carrots and cabbage. You can live just on these foods alone. Make sure to eat onions, carrots and cabbage - these will help keep you healthy and give you the strength you'll need to get by. A person who does not eat onions is a person who gets sick often.

Next, keeping in mind the bulk idea, buy bulk meat. But you don't have to settle on cheap dog food. Often if you look for sales in grocery stores you can pick up a largish ham that will cost around $1 per pound - making it a very excellent buy, since ham keeps well, is incredibly versatile, and is yummy, too. At least a lot more yummy than dog food! Another good buy is pork or beef roast - if it's on sale. Another is turkey legs, which sometimes are sold for as little as 85 cents a pound. The idea is to buy a piece of meat that is large, and then after cooking it, cut it up into smaller portions, put them into individual bags, and then plop them into the freezer. That way you can take advantage of sales and stretch the meat out a lot.

An adult male needs to eat only 56 grams (or about 2 ounces or 1/8th of a pound) of protein a day[9]. This is not very much! A MacDonald's quarter pounder hamburger provides about twice as much protein as this basic minimum requirement... So if you are trying to live cheaply, eat the bulk produce and supplement it with small amounts of protein. That's what kept body and soul together for me when I didn't have money... -- Saukkomies 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When I was poor, I virtually lived on ramen noodles; you could get a whole meal for 25 cents U.S. Unfortunately, I rather overdid it and now the smell of the stuff makes me gag. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical price data for retail automobiles

I know this must be somewhere on the internet, but I've not yet typed in the magical combination of Google terms to find it. Where can I find a chart of average/typical retail automobile prices (preferably inflation-adjusted) from 1900/1910 or thereabouts to the present (or within the last few years, anyway)?—Chowbok ☠ 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

February 5

How do you get over the idea that online dating is weird and pathetic?

Mr.K. (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think at online dating as a better form of brokering than offline dating. At the end you just find the same partner you would, if you kept trying offline. It is only more efficient, similarly as online trading is more efficient than other forms of trading.217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You can get over it by finding your perfect Ms or Mr Right online. It worked for me. Mind you, if you never find such a person online, you might still feel like you're being weird and pathetic by trying. In that case, just put it down to experience, go out for a walk in the fresh air, smile at the first person you see, and wait for what happens next.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Start by finding a site that doesn't appear to be as cheesy or pathetic looking as others. Decide what are the best qualities of an online dating site (perhaps private chat, no online sex, fee-based sign-up to avoid practical jokers), and perhaps one that caters to a specific interest (i.e. for Christians, backpackers, left-handed stand-up comedians, etc.). If you're still feeling embarrassed or put off by it, then perhaps a different approach to finding a partner might be better for you, such as speed dating or desperate and dateless balls. Steewi (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are acostume to 'normal' online dating probably online dating will seem for you as pathetic. In the same way as a bikini can look pathetic if you'are not used to it. Both are product of the new new era. Obvisously people that go the offline or online way find the kind of people as them. Everywhere you go, you'll find people like you, provided you go there where you want to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Need info on St. Mary's Church of the Assumption in Wilkes-Barre,PA

Need info on finding history re: abve mentioned churh. It started as a Russian Orthadox church and then changed to Byzantine (Greek?) Catholic. It's celebrating it's 100th anniversary. Location is North Main Street in the city of Wilkes-Barre, PA. Any help would be appreciated! Also had a school thru 8th grade that close a few years ago. Thanks1to3lat4ever (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Extreme elements photographers in the 70s

I would like to find some information on a pair of photographers that were husband and wife. I do not know their names. I know that I believe they did their major work in the 1970s. The husband would expose himself to extreme elements for several days and the wife would take one single picture at the end of the period. I was told that the husband died after one of them while he subjected himself to being in a swamp up to his nose and he only let his mouth come above the swamp to eat when his wife brought food. Thank you for any help.

Aviaries (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Aviaries

I tried using extreme photographers 1970s but nothing, sorry. Somebody will come along, in the meantime this looks like a candidate for the Darwin Awards... Julia Rossi (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to slog your way through List of photographers. I'd suggest starting with the "art" entries. Bovlb (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

These aren't the folks you're looking for, but they rhyme. --Sean 20:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do people get reimbursed for a travel expenses going to a job interview in Switzerland?

Would someone get reimbursed for travel expenses for going to a job interview in Zurich? How do you know (wikipedia page, web site, etc)? What is the procedure.

Thank you!

Should we assume that you are not in Switzerland? Dismas|^(talk) 11:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

that's right...

It will vary from potential-employer to potential-employer. There's no resource, beyond the HR department of the potential-employer in your specific case, that you can ask. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? Can you link to a web site where you saw that? Thank you!

As per Sherlock Holmes modus operandi: dismiss the impossible & consider the improbable. I'm doing your homework for you, am I not? (Alternative answer: experience & common sense. In the absence of a Swiss law requiring firms to offer travel expenses - most unlikely - the decision rests with the company.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

it's not my homework, though I'm very curious... I wouldn't like just a 'hunch' though -- personal experience is good too!

Depends on how much they want to hire you.—Chowbok ☠ 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If they offer you a job, they will not offer you a reimbursement for travel expenses. 217.168.1.246 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And if they don't offer me a job, might they offer reimbursement?

Some companies do it, some don't. Asking for reimbursement is considered impolite and they have the right to not reimburse you. 217.168.1.246 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been reimbursed for travel expenses for an interview. In that case, I was told at the time I was invited to interview that my "reasonable costs" would be reimbursed upon presentation of receipts. Both cities were in Canada, but far enough apart that flights and an overnight hotel stay were required. I would suggest that you ask, if the informaton is not volunteered. If you are a very good prospect for a mid- to senior-level job, the company is likely to agree to pick up your expenses. I doubt very much that this is an matter of law or even of the corporate policy of any given company. It is much more likely to be an individual matter, related to the job and to the candidates for it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I also was offered (and accepted) the job. I don't think what 217.168.1.246 said above is necessarily correct. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I made this comment refering to Switzerland.217.168.1.246 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Links between language and reality

I would like to read more about the correspondance between language and reality. What are the current main theories or schools of thoughts and opinions on the subject? Is there a name for this field of studies (is it simply language philosophy)? I guess most theories would fall into big categories such as the logic, empiric, idealist, what are the current dominant ones and their contenders? Thank you Keria (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's normally (in the analytic tradition at least) called the philosophy of language. That page seems to have quite a lot of information. Algebraist 13:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a big, big field. My favorite book in it is George Lakoff's Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things (1987), but I know that many of those who care about such things more than I do disagree with his approach. I find it pretty useful for my own work, though, and its very readable (skim the case studies). He gives an overview, if I recall, of some of the many different approaches others take to the question, though he of course showcases his own views primarily. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You may also be interested in this news story.--droptone (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cancelling postal orders

If I post an order off to someone, and it gets lost, can I cancel it? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article states that you can have the payee's name printed on postal orders nowadays. If you do that, it shouldn't matter if it gets lost, since it won't be usable by anyone except the payee. If you don't... I'm not sure. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's too simplistic an answer. Don't you pay for money orders up front? If so, a lost and uncashed order would be a gift to the post office. Even if not, the questioner may want to cancel the order before replacing it if he doesn't have 100% faith that the loss of the original order was honestly reported. APL (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems entirely possible that the answer, or at least the detailed rules, will be different from one country to another. If Porcupine is from a country where the post office has a web site, it would make sense to look there. --Anonymous, 01:27 UTC, February 6, 2008.

History of data

I am writing up a report about how much IT has made an impact on the world, but I want to open it up with the means people used to transfer data before the age of computers, such as printed manuscripts and such. I will write about the history of the Internet and computers but it's just the age before computers I'm having trouble understanding.

Would anyone be willing to help me out here? Thanks in advance. Druss666uk (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you're having trouble with? Obviously you know of manuscripts, books, and the like, so it's not clear what assistance you're asking for. Also, I would make sure to note the impact of technologies such as the telegraph. — Lomn 14:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would treat the history of information technology as being at least three different strains of development, which I will here just call replication, transmission, and data.

• Replication: You might start off with Johannes Gutenberg and the history of the printing press. What made the press so revolutionary in the Western world is not just that it allowed mass communication (which it did), but it allowed mass replication as well—you, the author, could be reasonably sure that people would be reading whatever you want in exactly the form you meant it (high fidelity, so to speak). Compare that with any pre-press transmittal of information, where you had to rely on the copyist not making errors, or making "corrections" in some cases, or not mis-understanding the thing to be copied in question. Mass printing—cheap printing—took off in the 19th century primarily. The rise of the newspaper, the magazine, the gossip column. Literacy climbs. Printing costs plummet. Suddenly a market opens up for an educated public. Would Darwin have been as socially important had his book not become a popular sensation? Perhaps not—it certainly wouldn't have been discussed the way it was, in so many different circles.
• Transmission: Both the technology of getting information from here-to-there, but also the availability of a market to want to receive the information in the first place. The telegraph and the radio are of course topics to be discussed here, as they allow syndication of information across continents. But don't omit the simple things like a reliable postal service—the British postal service in the 19th century was a thing to be reckoned with—which allowed people to create networks across continents, albeit much slower ones than we are used to.
• Data: Statistics, as the name implies, was originally the "science of the state", and really took off in the 18th and 19th centuries as a way of understanding the populations of various countries and understanding the best ways to govern them. Various methods were adopted to acquire massive amounts of data and to make it useful and accessible. Emblematic of this might be Bertillonage—a system (of using data about criminals) to allow law enforcement to quickly determine whether or not a piece of data was or was not already in a massive database. Running further down the line, it is easy to see how something like this eventually ends up in the massive punch-card machines created by International Business Machines for the state census at the turn of the 20th century.

Anyway, just some food for thought, some blue-skying from someone who likes to try and break things down into major themes as an easy mode of organization, as something that helps sharpen the analysis and keep it from being a progressive this-invention-to-that-invention sort of thing. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Big subject. We can for the time being only chip away at the edge. To the above I'm going to pitch in with carbon paper & Carbon copy, and typing pool (oddly, an article not yet started). But that would only help for the period since the use of the typewriter. Before that, you'd have to consider the legions of clerks who kept things ticking over, and the postal service. It would help us if you could articulate what problems you are having with the pre-computer age. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Microfilm, microfiche and related technologies deserve a mention. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But they should be regretted woefully. ;-) I hate loathe microform—it's a step I wish we'd skipped. It degrades whatever you put on it horribly, and isn't is much harder to use than the original as well. The only benefit is storage and distribution (and even that, to my mind, has to be offset against the ease of losing/misplacing any individual bit once you've got it in large amounts), and for my money I wish we'd have just put things on paper and kept them that way and sucked up the extra costs. I spend a good part of my time each year converting a lot of microfilmed material into digital files. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My favorite: a series of tubes. --Sean 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tally sticks and knotted strings?^{(Hypnosadist)} 07:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethics

what are the humanistic ethics for rhetoric? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.253.222 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I could point you to Humanism, 194.201, I could even point you to Ethics and to Rhetoric, but I have not the first idea what you mean by the 'humanistic ethics for rhetoric'. If you could try to be a little more precise I might be able to help. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For the historical touch on Greek humanism, (start here there's a note on Plato's criticism of the ethics of rhetoric as worked by the Sophists: Plato (427-347 BC) has famously outlined the differences between true and false rhetoric in a number of dialogues, but especially the Gorgias and the Phaedrus... in both Plato disputes the Sophistic notion that an art of persuasion... which he calls "rhetoric" ... can exist independent of the art of dialectic. Plato claims that since Sophists appeal only to what seems likely or probable, rather than to what is true, they are not at all making their students and audiences "better," but simply flattering them with what they want to hear. More or less arguing for content over style. Otherwise, what humanism are you referring to? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Schopenauer and free will

I working may way (slowly) through the philosopy of Arthur Schopenhauer, and am having not a few difficulties. I'm still a more than a little baffled by the concept of Will, which seems to be nothing but a blind force. Is there anything in his work that can be equated with the Christian notion of free will?Sophie Sophist (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sophie, the closest you will come in Schopenhauer to the idea of free will is in The World as Will and Representation, where he discusses Willkür, which has the sense of choice, arbitrary power or caprice. It is, however, quite different from the concept that you may be familiar with from Christian theology. It is will, rather, with the power of choice; will determined consciously by a specific set of motives. As such it is not entirely free, because it is subject to the determination of motive. For Schopenhauer absolute free will does not exist in the word of phenomena. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Location of archives of Gerald Abrahams

Can any user please tell me where the archives of Gerald Abrahams (1907 - 1980), the chess player, author and barrister, are located? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See all this in Google "Gerald Abrahams" --Johnluckie (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

photographer - mass naked people

Who is the artist who has several times persuaded hundreds of naked people to traipse around their various home cities, photographing them en masse? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Spencer Tunick, I believe. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rap music, M to the C

What does it mean when a rap musician sings, eg. M to the C to the 3 of the Z (fictional lyrics, you get the idea)? 81.93.102.185 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Usually they are spelling something. Izzo (H.O.V.A.) is one real example. When Jay-Z says "H to the Izz-O, V to the Izz-A" he is spelling "HOVA" (and using -izzle as an infix). Recury (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

They are usually spelling their stage-name in rhyme/lyrically...So Jay-z (who seems to also be known as HOVA) sings "H to the izz-O, V to the izz-A" - essentially spelling out his nickname. ny156uk (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The central topic of hip hop subject matter is what the singer's name is and whether he got something to say, which is challenging to stretch out to a 4 minute track, so it helps to pad it by spelling out the lyrics. --Sean 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, unless you are twelve years old or younger you are not allowed to claim that one genre of music is in any way inherently artistically superior/inferior to any other. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I made no such claim. I was merely noting that a major theme in hip hop is what the name of the singer is. It's very unusual in that regard. --Sean 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Just putting that out there, lest there was disparaging going on. ;-) Actually, the trope of self-promotion one of the things that makes hip-hop the most post-modern of all musical styles—the authored work is about the ability of the author to author the work (I rap well, therefore I am the shit, as a modern-day Descartes might say). I think of the spelling out of the name in a complication fashion to be something like the graffiti artist who writes their name in a complicated fashion—it makes the saying of the name (long a holy thing) into a work of art itself, and even an expression of the virtuosity represented by the name. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"The authored work is about the ability of the author to author the work"? That's the kind of sprezzatura shiznit that Byron is up to in Don Juan. George G to izz-O, R to the D-O-N, gangsta rapper? 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm 2 to the 4-dot, one-forty-seven, if that helps. See how much more lyrical that sounds when said aloud than just saying "twenty-four point one-hundred-and-forty-seven"? --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in Egypt—Current Deployed U.S. Forces?

At Multinational_Force_and_Observers#States_involved, the current forces deployed from the U.S. as part of the MFO are identified as Puerto Rican NG units. I was under the impression that the group deployed there right now is in fact Pennsylvania NG. Anyone know a good way to find whether or not that is the case, along with information as to their groupings with a similar level of detail to what's currently in the article? Jouster  (whisper) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this MFO web page, the Pennsylvania NG assumed the mission in January 2008. The same page suggests that the Puerto Rico NG held the position until January 2008. So our list appears to be out of date. I will fix this reference, but if you want to do a more thorough update to our article, you can find similar information for all of the members of the mission by following the links from this MFO web page. Marco polo (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Orwell and Trotsky

George Orwell served in the Trotskyite POUM during the Spanish Civil War. I assume this was a reflection of his politics, but have been unable to establish this for certain. Can anyone please confirm that he supported Trotsky? Some direct references would be helpful. Thank you very much. 217.43.9.102 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

George Orwell#Political views would be a good place to start. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I read Homage to Catalonia last summer. I remember, as our article states, that he "joined the POUM rather than the Communist-run International Brigades by chance — but his experiences, in particular his and his wife's narrow escape from the Communist purges in Barcelona in June 1937, greatly increased his sympathy for POUM and made him a life-long anti-Stalinist." In the book, he mentions the Trotskyists in the third persion several places, as if he did not identify himself as one of them. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be best if we allowed Orwell to speak for himself.

The fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is absolutely false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to communism; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference. Notes on Nationalism, Polemic, October 1945.

I was associated with the Trotskyists in Spain. It was chance that I was serving in the POUM militia and not another, and I largely disagreed with the POUM "line" and told its leaders so freely... Pacifism and the War, Partisan Review, September-October 1942

The various other Marxist parties, all of them claiming to be the true and uncorrupted successors of Lenin, are in an even more hopeless position. The average Englishman is unable to grasp their doctrines and uninterested in their grievances. And in England the lack of the conspiratorial mentality which has been developed in police-ridden European countries is a great handicap. English people in large numbers will not accept any creed whose dominant notes are hatred and illegality. The ruthless ideologies of the Continent-not merely Communism and Fascism, but Anarchism, Trotskyism, and even ultramontane Catholicism-are accepted in their pure form only by the intelligentsia, who constitute a sort of island bigotry amid the general vagueness. The English People

Not much evidence there of support for Trotsky and Trotskyism! You should also bear in mind the figure of Snowball/Trotsky in Animal Farm, 217.43. This wise little book is sometimes taken as an anti-Stalinist polemic, but the revolution begins to decay and to corrupt well before Napoleon/Stalin takes absolute power. In political terms Orwell was a 'Tory anarchist', a little bit like me! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is a 'Tory anarchist'? (see question below)Mr.K. (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can a person be a Tory and an anarchist at the same time?

Mr.K. (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about that, but in the second quarter of the 19th-century, there were "Tory radicals", who were highly opposed to the negative effects of industrialization in Britain. Factory owners had a prominent role in the Whig party, so that the Whig party was not the natural home for advocacy for the rights of factory workers... AnonMoos (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess: Perhaps Clio just meant she is a rather independent or free-thinking right-winger? --Taraborn (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

They can hold bits of both. Ones doesn't have to be a fundamental tory and a fundmental anarchist. They could easily associate with segments of each without being entirely contradictory. There feels like a growing trend in politics to think that people must be '100%' whatever party they associate themselves with or they are labeled hypocrites. In reality very few people are outright supporters of every single stance that the party they support has, they just happen to broadly agree with that party (or its philosophies in general). ny156uk (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there is still an inherent contradiction here. A Tory is someone who wishes for government by the Conservative Party. An anarchist is someone who rejects the whole notion of government outright. My simple mind tells me it's not possible to be both. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If a "Tory" is a "Conservative" and a "Conservative" is a "conservative", and a "conservative" wants the least possible involvement of government in daily life, then an extreme "conservative" would be one who wanted no government involvement, which could be the same as "no government", which is an "anarchist" perspective; thus a Tory becomes an anarchist. No? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A Conservative cannot want no government, since by definition they support government by the Conservative Party. Sure, they can argue for a light touch; but at the end of the day they accept the authority of the ballot box and of government by Westminster. An anarchist cannot accept either of those things. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest re-reading Anarchist and Tory, anarchism doesn't solely have to be about the abolishing of the entire government - at least not from my reading of the article. Again as with almost all political philosophies there are areas of overlapping so it is very easy for people to be supporters of parts of each philosophy. ny156uk (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, I did not expect my casual aside to bear such fruit! This is not the place to discuss my politics at length, but it is indeed possible to be an anarchist-a libertarian if you prefer-and a Tory; to resent the intrusions of the state on one's personal freedom; to value liberty above all things. And describing oneself as Tory in an English context is about far, far more than voting for the Conservative Party. Orwell did indeed talk of himself as a 'Tory Anarchist' in the early part of his career, though so far as I am aware he never voted Conservative. I'm being disingenuous, of course; his remark was most likely made tounge-in-cheek. In later life he became a democratic socialist, though of a highly idiosyncratic variety, one might almost say of a Tory and anarchist variety! I, at one and the same time, can embrace the politics of Edmund Burke and the philosophy of Max Stirner. I choose always to think for myself; to select for myself and to live for myself. I choose to be a Tory and an anarchist, not to fit easily into anyone’s narrow scheme of things! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the other way round: Orwell defined himself as a 'conservative anarchist' not a 'tory anarchist'. I don't know if he voted Conservative either or voted at all.

Orwell was someone who has a strong attachment to tradition - particularly of Britain - but also a deep-seated dislike and distrust of arbitrary authority and government interference, whether on a local, national or supranational level. That is: a conservative anarchist. 217.168.1.246 (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Italian heraldic question

I have come across an Italian crest which is surmounted by a crown with 5 balls (which would indicate a Baron in England). What does this mean under Italian heraldic rules please? It seems to be the crest of Francesco Ognibene of Palermo. It could be described as a lion on its hind legs facing right and holding fleur-de-lys (or 3 feathers) in its right paw, on a field azure. Maybe there is a better place for me to ask this. Thank you in advance. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If no-one hear can help, you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Algebraist 21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Crowns usually indicate nobility, but I'm unsure about the Italian rules. It doesn't look like there's a heraldry wikiproject on it:wiki, or I would ask them. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 07:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

February 6

middle ages joustin

is it illegle to do joustin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.151.152 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but trying to do so with sticks you made yourself and bicycles/unicycles/motorcycles/horses is very dangerous and will most likely result in someone getting hurt. bibliomaniac15 01:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends where you are. In Sweden, like in many countries, any type of physical assault is illegal. In Sweden though, it is also illegal to waive the right to not be assaulted; i.e. the act of waiving that right is not illegal, but the contract wherein you waive that right is of no legal value. You cannot sign away the right and thereby make it legal to physically assault you. Anyway, the reference desk is not intended as legal advise, so if you are planning to do it seek advise of a lawyer. Mr.K. (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has at least 18 articles on Swedish boxers, so apparently you're still allowed to get your head bashed in for sporting purposes. However, jousting today often avoids bodily contact by having competitors try to spike inanimate objects rather than their competitors' heads. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern jousting is probably legal, but the question was about medieval jousting. BTW, professional boxing is illegal in Schweden since 1970. So, you are not allowed to get your head bashed too much.Mr.K. (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jousting re-enactments are very popular forms of entertainment in a number of venues, especially in Renaissance Faires. Some dinner-theater venues even have jousting as part of the entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfMoonHP (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Khutbah

Is there any Friday Khutbahs on prejudice and discrimination and the 71 major sins in Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

somali female dress

Hi there, I have a Somali wife and I wanted to buy some Somali dress for her, but I want to know the names of these dresses and where can I find them in Toronto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 03:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

i know almost nothing about this but maybe in somalia they wear "saris", as is the case in certain other africa countries...

Actually, when I google "somali sari" I get:

[10]

"Somali girls wearing Somali Guntino (sari), which has been widely used in southern Somalia."

So perhaps the term you're looking for is either Guntino or sari. I would Google "somali sari" and "somali guntino", and perhaps add Toronto to your search to find a local dealer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.26 (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

John McCain

Is John McCain, the current US presidential candidate, related to the McCain Foods empire? I just Googled it and didn't come up with anything, so he obviously doesn't have close ties to McCain Foods. But is it possible he's a distant cousin or anything like that? Thanks in advance! --Grace (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably not - McCain Foods Limited was founded in New Brunswick and John McCain is from Arizona, isn't he? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of McCain having any Canadian relatives, something the Canadian media would be sure to pick up on in their relentless drive to find a Canadian angle to anything happening anywhere in the world. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunseverick Castle

It depends what you mean by 'related'... Failing evil chances (such as cosmetic name changes and bars sinister), the two men are on the face of it both members of the Irish clan McCain, which is the branch of the Clan O'Cahan (or O'Kane) which claims descent from Manus O Cathain, killed at the Battle of Downpatrick, 1260. Their territory was in County Antrim from the 13th century, and in the 17th century their stronghold was at Dunseverick Castle. Xn4 14:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We're all related at some point. Maybe the two are connected through this person. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Clarityfiend, you've done it again. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

speeches

1 the principal of the college is retired so i want the farewell speech.

2 the college elections are there and i am standing for post of general secretary so i want to convince the students to vote for me, i want the convincing speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.53.96 (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand your first question. Are you asking for advice or help on writing a farewell speech for the principal? On your second question, if you're standing for office your speech should include things like your experience, how you think you are suited to the position, how you understand the students' problems, and so on. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ordinary life in the Third Reich

I'm beginning a study on on everyday life under dictatorship, and am particularly interested in how people lived under the Nazi regime. Was politics an essentail part of their life? A lot of people did not vote for Hitler, so how did they react? Were there ways of living that did not require conformity? How did the working classes, those who formerly voted for the Socialists or the Communists, adjust to a right-wing dictatorship? Thanks for any answers. 81.151.3.134 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of books on this subject. I'd get yourself to a reasonable library and see if they can supply any to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also there was a show called Heimat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimat_(film) that is set around the 'everyday' life of a family during this period. I've not seen it but it is supposed to be good. ny156uk (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It would help, 81.151, if you could get a hold of the survey carried out in the late 1940s and early 1950s by the Institut für Demaskopie (Public Opinion Institute), published as The Consequences of National Socialism. The conclusions are, perhaps, not entirely surprising. In the early period, from around 1933 to 1934, politics and external events had a major impact on people’s lives, as they did in the later period from 1943 to 1945. But the middle period is one of political quietism, when the most important things are work, family life and leisure. The fact is that most people tend, when they can, to live a sub-political life, concentrating on the arena of the personal. Dictatorship of the Nazi kind tends to cut off political life altogether, other than as a form of affirmation, making the private and the personal all the more significant. Even declared opponents of the Nazis were to look back on their Strength through Joy jaunts with a degree of fondness and nostalgia. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Guitar fret markings

Anyone know the origin of the placement of markings on the 3,5,7,9 and 12 fret of some guitars? I mean why not on 2,4,6,8,10,12 for instance?--79.76.249.43 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I poked around the internet to no avail looking for the history of these markings. The forerunner of the modern six-string guitar, the baroque guitar, seems to have had a heavily ornamented fretboard, sometimes with what look like arbitrarily placed markings to help the musician orient by eye. Its tunings varied, too, making the establishment of a convention for fret marks problematic. The marks on today's guitars have significance. The double dot at the twelfth fret shows where to produce an octave of the open string. The fifth fret is the perfect fourth of the open string and corresponds to the next string up (except G–B). The others are more or less scattered evenly in between, I think. The marks are not a necessary component of a guitar; my classical guitar has no marks at all. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The 3, 5, 7 and 9 frets correspond with the white keys on the piano. Not every white key on the piano is marked on the guitar neck, btw. -- Saukkomies 15:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Each fret on the guitar keyboard represents a semitone. In the major scale the first to intervals are tones (0-2 and 2-4 on the neck) and the third is a semitone (4-5 on the neck). The next three are tones (5-7, 7-9 and 9-11) and the last is a semitone (11-12). Thus the dots at frets 3 and 5 don't correspond to white notes: they should be at 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12. For a minor scale they would be at 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12. SaundersW (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, what? The white keys on a piano stay white the whole time; they don't change color based on what key you're playing in. The marked frets on a guitar sometimes end up being white keys (that is, part of the C major scale.) See this diagram for example. If they were on the frets you say, they wouldn't be all white keys- no string on a guitar in standard tuning is a C. The strings are E A D G B E. Friday (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The intervals it marks are minor-third, fourth, fifth, sixth and octave. They're quite useful reference points, especially when you're learning. If you're improvising on a single string, for example, you can switch between any of those frets, and it will make a decent harmony for Western music. It also marks the pentatonic scale, I think. Steewi (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops - should have read the article first - it's not the pentatonic, closer to blues. Steewi (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Don't be too hard on yourself, Steewi. After all, that's a pentatonic scale! Maybe not the major/minor standard ones, but it has five sounds.

Back to the OP's question, let's think of what we could demand from a marking system. I guess we could require:

1. That the system be able to give orientations about the relative height on the fretboard.
2. If possible, that the marks be located in certain natural/topical/focal positions.

The traditional system fulfils these two demands. On one hand, it has certain symmetry/assymetry balance so as to serve for the first objective. Cf. the second system described by the OP: How on Earth could a fast (¿!) player know if (s)he's playing on the 6th or the 8th fret? Finally, all traditional marks are located ap. over 5 nodes. Marks 5th, 7th and 12th stand for the perfect fourth, fifth and octave of the base sound, and appear over the nodes for the 4th, 3rd and 2nd harmonics, respectively. Mark 3th stands over the 7th (weird) harmonic's node, and mark 9th is near an alternative node for the 5th harmonic. Pallida  Mors 02:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Social Security Benefits

Can my spouse, at age 62, begin drawing benefits based on my work history if I my only 60?

B. Warren Rosser

email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.180.252 (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are you located? The answer is likely to be jurisdictional. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can presume that "Social Security" refers to the U.S. Federal program, in which there is only one jurisdiction, with one set of (incredibly complicated) rules for all. In which case, "a spouse cannot begin receiving benefits until the [Social Security] number holder is receiving benefits." [11]. - Nunh-huh 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalists vs. Evangelicals

Our article on Bruce Metzger says he was criticized by "some Christian fundamentalists (but not most evangelicals)". The two links in the quote don't make the distinction terribly clear, so I'm asking here: what (in the context of Protestant Christianity) is the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In the US the terms are often considered pretty close in meaning (here we seem to have more than our share of religious fanatics.) Evangelicals are specifically into evangelizing- that is, going out and spreading the word. They're also into having personal experiences of God. Fundamentalism mainly means being a conservative Christian, probably leaning heavily toward biblical literalism. Friday (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess there's nothing preventing a Christian Leftist practitioner of higher criticism from being into evangelizing and having personal experiences of God, so could such a person be described as an Evangelical? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalism is often associated with Charismatic movement and Pentecostalism while the "Evangelical" term is more associated with the Neo-evangelicalism reponse to fundamentalism. Rmhermen (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Most, but not all fundamentalists are evangelicals. Some, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. Neo-evangelicals, for example, are non-fundamentalist evangelicals. There is overlap but not identity. Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay; can you expand on what the difference is between them? Or did Friday already say everything that needs to be said on the issue? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Friday is mildly confusing two terms: evangelical and evangelise. Evangelicals, while they do tend to evangelise, are named from the "Evangels" or, in other words, the gospels, from which they purport to take their beliefs without any dilution. They are also very fond of the writings of Paul, particularly the letter to the Romans. However they tend to have a a particular set of exegetical authors on whose writing they depend (eg John Stott). Fundamentalists also take the New Testament very seriously, but their emphasis can fall more heavily on the Apocalypse as well as Paul's rules for living. (Curiously I have never come across an Evangelical nor a Fundamentalist who takes the clear prohibition on eating meat with blood in it as per Acts 21:25 as seriously as the oblique reference to sodomy in Romans.) Anyway, Evangelicals tend to be a bit more inclined to the use of reason in their exegesis than Fundamentalists. SaundersW (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for some examples of evangelicals whose views and focus sharply contrast with those of mainstream American fundamentalism, there is Tony Campolo, leader of the Red-Letter Christians and also Jim Wallis (Both somewhat recently featured on the Colbert Report and Daily show, respectively). -- Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Van Gogh PowerPoint Presentation

Recently, I received a PowerPoint Presentation in an e-mail.

The presentation file name was: 7385-vangogh.pps

The presentation is set to music, the Don McLean sone, "Starry, Starry Night"

This is, beyond doubt, the best thing I have ever seen in PowerPoint. This brings me to my question:

Who made this presentation? I don't see any author's name. --- Will Willis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.101.136 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This google search indicates it may be Cynthia J. Rider (3rd link). However, she may have lifted it from somewhere else. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

2 questions ...

Question 1- Im not pretty sure about this but has there been a coding system invented before ? ( Look below ) A=1 B=2 to writte baba ( meaning father in turkish ) IoIo ... if it needs further explanation .... to write baba in a coded style i took the first letter of the number (In turkish ) and wrote (I) then i took the english letter in the number for A which is one ... please tell me ıf thıs system has been ınvented before ? emaıl me at email removed

Question 2 - Well im currently working on a book im hoping to publish it ... and my questıon ıs whether ı can use the names lıke urukhaı or dwarf ın my book please emaıl me ... agaın ... from the adress above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.229.117.166 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

1. As a coding system it's just a simple substitution cipher. They aren't worth a damn, cryptographically speaking.

2. Well, the names themselves don't mean a whole lot but if you are basing a lot of your work on the Tolkien universe you run a chance of having copyright problems, yes. The law for this is not, however, clear cut—knowing whether or not some creation of yours would legally qualify as a derivative work would require actual legal advice (who knew more about your work, as well), and even then the final arbitration would have to be decided in a court. In any case, Uru-khai are exclusively a creation of Tolkien and thus much more problematic than Dwarves, which are derived from Norse mythology. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanding on question 1, your proposed cipher is not reversible. I don't know my Turkish numbers, but I'll discuss the English side of the problem (which is quite enough to sink the theory). Your English-number translation table begins with:

• A -> O(ne)
• B -> T(wo)
• C -> T(hree)

...and there's our problem. When I see an encoded message with a "T" in the English number position, how do I know if it's a "B" or a "C"? Finishing out the table, a cryptotext "T" can be any of {B,C,J,L,M,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z}. That's a lot of ambiguity. So in addition to the underlying problems of a substitution cipher, you can't decipher your message. While one-way functions are themselves vital to cryptography (usually in the form of hash functions), the mapping fails the need to avoid hash collisions and the one-to-one substitution fails the requirement for an avalanche effect. — Lomn 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

sociology help

Can anyone please tell us any movie (which must be critically acclaimed) based on SOCIOLOGICAL issues such as

racism culture division of social classes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird (film), Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, to name but two. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with Tagishsimon - that I'd say that "To Kill a Mockingbird" would really be a perfect match for your criteria. -- Saukkomies 15:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Twelve Angry Men and Brokeback Mountain to name two others. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything by Spike Lee? (I think Bamboozled is brilliant, but I know I'm in a minority there.) --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebel Without a Cause and On the Waterfront, to give you two more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I only have one - A Raisin in the Sun (film) --LarryMac | Talk 17:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Heat of the Night. Deor (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Before we get into a 5-page list, the shorter version would be "What critically acclaimed movie was NOT based on sociological issues?". I am having a hard time coming up with a name. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein? Films about human situations are bound to stray into sociological territory, by the very nature of sociology. But if you scan through, for instance, the National Film Registry list, you'd judge some to be very much more obviously about major sociological themes than others. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Everybody knows that film is about two homosexual lovers—one tragically obese, one tragically undernourished—and their difficulties of finding acceptance in modern society, represented as a freakish un-dead monster. It's one of the most touchingly socially relevant films I've ever seen. (sniff) --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This page (http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/brym/SocAtMovies.html) seems to be about 'sociology at the movies' and has a list of movies - quite interesting to be honest. ny156uk (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For a rather harrowing film about modern Maori (cultural/poverty problems, racism, how the traditional society has fallen in the modern world / finding traditional pride in a changed world etc) how about Once Were Warriors (film). Gwinva (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many interesting choices if you want to get away from some of the big budget, self-important Hollywood "message" movies that first come to mind, especially if you don't want to subject yourself to stuff like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner again. Some good, random choices: Dawn of the Dead, Two-Lane Blacktop, The 400 Blows. —Kevin Myers 21:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

British film maker Ken Loach specialises in films with social issues. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Leigh's Secrets & Lies is a beauty. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reefer Madness. --Wetman (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In the one sociology course I took in college our teacher showed us The Breakfast Club, so that has to be the right answer. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When does Virginia get to vote in the Primary elections?

^topic 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

United_States_presidential_election,_2008_timeline#The_rest_of_February_2008. Corvus cornix_talk 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Peloponnesian War

What is the significance of the Peloponesian War in Greek and world history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fog on the Tyne (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See Peloponnesian War. -- kainaw™ 19:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article really only mentions the significance of the war for ancient Greek history. As for world history in the narrow sense, it had a limited impact. In fact, it merely reconfigured power relations among the city-states of Greece. One could make a case that the war had a world-historical impact in that it prevented the Athenian empire from growing in power and becoming a true empire that might unite Greece, prevent the rise of Macedon, and potentially dominate the Mediterranean world. More broadly, students of history have drawn many lessons from the history of this war, one of the first conflicts extensively documented in the historical record. As the article suggests, one such lesson is that democracy is no guarantee of strength or power. Another possible lesson is that a powerful state, or hegemon, may overextend itself. By making excessive demands and asserting dominance over less powerful states, the hegemon risks sparking resentment. States chafing under the hegemon's dominance may form alliances against it and successfully challenge its power. Napoleonic France is one example of a state that suffered a fate similar to that of Athens (though I hesitate to compare Georgian Britain with Sparta). Marco polo (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If for no other reason the war is significant in giving us, in the work of Thucydides, the first detailed account of the operation and inter-play of military strategy and high politics in history. Beyond that, it weakened both the victor-Sparta-and the loser-Athens-creating just the right circumstances for the rise of Macedonia, and the future emergence of Alexander the Great. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

interaction between humans

if no love 100% none whats so ever shown or given and abused severly how does this person interact with society

It helps us all at the reference desk if you can phrase your questions carefully, so that we might understand exactly what you are asking. Are you wanting to know about extreme cases of child neglect? If so, Feral child is a good place to start. There are specific children linked, including Susan M. Wiley, who spent 13 years tied to a chair or bed. Child abuse offers a more general overview. Gwinva (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It would change depending on every single case of this occurring. Some may react by being extremely timid/shy and very untrusting of others, some may react by trying extremely hard to be liked/loved willing to give someone everything in return for love. You might be interested in reading about the psychological effects of abuse (http://www.lisadunningmft.com/psychological_effects_child_abuse.htm) for example, which whilst focussing on child-abuse is indicative of the wide array of reactions individuals can have having had to experience these terrible situations. 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny156uk (talk • contribs)

Burma dictatorship

why has militry dictatorship in burma survivd so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.105.66 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the military government of Burma, known as the SPDC has maintained a monopoly of violence within Burma. The SPDC maintains iron discipline over the army with an atmosphere of fear and harsh punishments against any soldiers who challenge the leadership. The army in turn brutally represses any opposition among the civilian population. The SPDC has been aided and abetted by its neighbors and major trading partners, especially China and other members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, who have refused to impose effective sanctions for fear of jeopardizing profitable trade with Burma. Marco polo (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I am to look for a long term perspective on your question, 217.42, I would have to say that Burma shows the very same structural factors that have served to weaken democracy in Pakistan, on the other side of the Indian Subcontinent: it has a strong military tradition, a fairly weak civil society, and a fear of national disintegration. The situation in Burma is further complicated by a fear of outside intervention.

Remember, too, that Burma did not gain its independence by the same political process at work in India and Pakistan. Rather, it emerged as a result of the war against Japanese occupation, involving local Burmese as well as Allied forces. This mean that the significant leaders who emerged in 1945 all had a military, rather than a civilian background. It's one of history's ironies that the greatest of these leaders, Aung San, the father of Aung San Suu Kyi, the voice of the democratic opposition, is also the iconic figure who has helped sustain the special place of the military in Burmese politics

This has also been supported, as I have said, by the relative weakness of civil society. During the days of British rule the native Burmese played very little part in managing day to day affairs, with administrators being recruited from among colonial Britons or Indians. Excluded from the civil service, the ethnic Burmese nevertheless formed an important part of the police and the army. Although an embryonic native middle-class was beginning to emerge in the course of the early twentieth century, it was almost completely wiped out in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Fear of national disintegration has roots in the early evolution of the Burmese state. In the two hundred years prior to the advent of the British in the 1820s, the Burmese kings had expanded their control out of the lowlands into areas inhabited by different ethnic and linguistic groups. The Shan, the Karen, the Arakanese, the Mon, the Chin, the Karenni and the Kachin, all non-Burmese speaking, now make up approximately one third of the total population, occupying two-thirds of the national territory. Fears that these centrifugal forces will destroy the integrity of the nation have been fueled by the long-standing insurgencies of the Shan and the Karen. The opportunity this might provide for foreign intervention has strengthened the army's sense of paranoia, creating a siege mentality and a persistent mood of xenophobia amongst the generals. As far as the military is concerned it is they who are the guardians of the nation, the one guarantee that Burma will survive as a unitary state. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of Short Story

I'm trying to remember the name of an Irish short story about a woman who lives her life as a man. Help please! Alan Key (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Joowanah McMan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.72.147 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Alan, I think this has to be Albert Nobbs, by George Moore. It appears in Celibate Lives, a collection of stories first published in 1927. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

February 7

Mahatma Gandhi

Some people say that Mahatma Gandhi changed the law. How did he change the law and did he believed that he need to change it and what were his methods? This is not a homework question. Please, answer it. Thank you. February 06, 2008 7:41 p.m. Toronto. Don Mustafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your question, Don Mustafa, is awfully vague. Which people, which law and where? Ghandi himself never enjoyed direct political power, and was thus not in a position to change any law. He certainly had an impact on the operation of certain laws. On this I would refer you to his campaign against the discriminatory pass laws during his time in South Africa. His method was to promote a sustained campaign of non-violent civil disobedience among the Indian community. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Burkardt / coining of "Renaissance style."

The following appears in a 19th-century manuscript for an entry dated August 1855: "St. Michael, a large Gothic church, has a front of more recent date composed of Grecian details in the style called the 'Renaissance'." The article on Jacob Burkhardt in Wikipedia states that Der Cicerone was not published until 1855. I don't think the author read German. My Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles (1955) gives a date of 1840 for the use of Renaissance in the context of style. If a date is 1840 is correct, in what publication (of Burkhardt?) did it appear? LShecut2nd (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Burckhardt's first book, a study of Belgian art and architecture, was published in 1842, the year before he took his doctorate. However, in his 1847 revision of Franz Kugler's Handbuch der Geschichte der Maleri, he placed new importance on the Renaissance over the Romantic style. I can offer no comment on the (vague) 1840 reference given in your handbook, LShecut2nd. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Waz up i neeed help On a report!!!

Okies iam doing a report on george washington and i do really in depth reports but i like to through in a good twist that most ppl dont really notice Can anyone help me find some stuff that shows a darker side to george washington.

Sethivere ^.^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethivere (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do your own homework, turkey. But consider the angle that he was, in a lot of senses, a traitor to his country -- he was a successful military officer, trusted, and highly regarded by his country, and he wound up turning traitor, joining a militia, and doing immeasurable harm to his homeland's economic and military future. If he had failed, he would have been Timothy McVeigh or maybe even Guy Fawkes... Just a thought, anyway. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya but consider that fact that the guy was a serious jerk in many ways, and people say he was a great general...haha the guy was a joke he sucked!he had now way of fighting inteligently...and as for a trusted man i agree and Woundering a traitor W/e the man killed anyone that ran away in battle even if it was to save himself or another the man was cruel and a racist as well i can look at the good things but i dont mean to be a down strider but damn the guy had alot of bad things to him as well but im looking for fresh material and i cant find any :p i will have you know im an excelling student that doese alot of research...and at the moment is to tired to spell or add puncuation

Respectfully Setivere!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.208.206 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To find the desired dark side of George Washingron you seek, remark on the fact that he owned slaves. Then take every opportunuity to apply 21st-century moralizing to this 18th-century Virginian, with numerous self-righteous asides. --Wetman (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

People really should learn to do their own research and their own homework. Taking the time to spell is also not a bad move. If Washington shot deserters, I don't see how that is different from any other army or general, including modern ones. Washington wasn't a brilliant general but he was an inspiring leader. Not perfect by any means, but he deserves better than to be judged by our standards.AllenHansen (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He slept around. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's time to dig out the "do your own homework" template. And if you can't be bothered to spell or add punctuation, why should we be bothered to do anything to help you? 80.254.147.52 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't WP:BITE. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why be so mean to the kid? He/she did say that he needed help and that he did look around didnt they? And all they need was fresh material right... well I can help you. >.< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blarp (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Movie screenwriting

Could you please show me a sample of a written script. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.19.216 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds available via this simple google search --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Metatron really the voice of God or is Alan Rickman lying to me?

I am trying to find information pertaining to the actual responsibilities and duties of the Metatron. So far I have only been able to find very vague information that deals more with where he came from and not what he does.

I understand that he holds the throne next to God, but what does he do specifically?

If the Metatron really is the voice and hand of God, doesn't that mean that it was he who spoke to Adam and Even instead of God and forced Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden?

--StatusQuo87 (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be getting your theology from a movie. You may want to have a look at our article on Metatron, who appears only in post-scriptural esoteric sources. There is no general agreement on any aspect of anything relating to Metatron, from his existence to his nature and attributes, or to his role. So he can be pretty much anything you or a film script writer wants him to be. - Nunh-huh 07:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Senator vs Senator

In the upcoming U.S. presidential election, both the Republican and Democratic candidates will be serving in the senate. I think this is the first presidential election in which each party will nominate a sitting senator. Can anyone confirm or deny my suspicion? Lantzy ^talk 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the media hype, we don't yet know that the Republican nominee will be a Senator. But before 1952 at least (there has been an incumbent President or VP in each since then) Rmhermen (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Using the list of Presidents who were Senators on List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_political_occupation#Senators as a starting point, I didn't find any time that two Senators of any parties ran against each other as major candidates. Perhaps I missed one though, I have a baby screaming in my ear right now. Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How to become a Muslim?

I want to become a Muslim because I like Allah, Islamic words, and the religion of Islam. I was born Buddhist. I'm no longer Buddhist. My family are all Buddhist and if I become a Muslim, I will be the only Muslim in the family. My family may want to take me to a Buddhist temple even I'm a Muslim. What should I do if they take me to an Buddhist temple? Please no Islamophobia answers and/or comments. Jet (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, it is makruh for a Muslim to enter a non-Muslim place of worship, be it a church, synagogue, or a Buddhist temple, unless some extraordinary benefit outweighs the harm (al-Fatwa al-Hindiyya, 5:346). So while it is not haram, it is not the sort of thing to be undertaken casually. It is acceptable to attend the funeral of a non-Muslim friend, relative, or associate. "And one may follow [the non-Muslim's] funeral from afar" (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2:205). However, it is haram to take an active role in a non-Muslim funerary rite, especially if it involves praying for non-Muslims. "It is not for the Prophet and those who believe to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear that they are people of hell-fire." (At-Tawba, verse 113). For this reason, Muhammad himself was forbidden to pray for his beloved uncle Abu Talib. Lantzy ^talk 06:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So what are the consequences of a Muslim entering a non-Islamic place of worship? I know Hui Chinese people who are nominally Muslim but (at least) enter Buddhist or Taoist places of worship. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is makruh, then it carries no formal penalty. However, it may damage one's standing in the eyes of other Muslims. More importantly, it is supposed to incur divine annoyance. Of course, some Muslims are more lenient than others. It is very unlikely that conservative religious Hui in northwestern China would ever enter a Buddhist or Taoist temple, but it would not be remarkable among the Hui of northeastern China, who have also been known to drink, smoke, and eat pork. It is more a matter of personal orthodoxy than of denomination. Lantzy ^talk 07:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Muslims do not subscribe to a specific "School of Law", but ultimately consider the way they interpret God's Law and attempt to live according to it a matter between God and themselves – a liberal notion many other Muslims find unacceptable, though.  --Lambiam 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a mosque near you? Take your questions there, because they'll be able to give you a better answer than any wikipedist.AllenHansen (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Presidential candidates losing their home state

Another question about the US presidential elections: how many times has it happened that a presidential candidate of one of the leading parties didn't win in his home state? I came across George McGovern not winning South Dakota in 1972, but have there been any other cases? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, we have an article List of major-party United States presidential candidates who lost their home state. FiggyBee (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The most notable one recently, of course, was Al Gore in 2000, who would have won the presidency had he won his home state. —Kevin Myers 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Florida? ;) Aecis^Brievenbus 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Everybody knows he won Florida. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Turks in Germany

Why are there so many people of Turkish origin in Germany? I can understand the preference for South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis) to migrate to the UK due to the fact that those places were part of the British Empire. The same for North African Arabs in France, due to the French control of Morroco and other places there. But what link is there between Turkey and Germany? The only thing I can think of is that the Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany in the 1st World War, but that seems a little farfetched. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles Germany-Turkey relations and Turks in Germany may be a starting point. FiggyBee (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to our article on Gastarbeiter, Germany signed official agreements with several countries during its economic boom in the 1950s and '60s whereby citizens of those countries could easily move to Germany as temporary workers. Turkey was the third country whose citizens were invited to work in Germany under the Gastarbeiter program, and it was by far the poorest and most populous country taking part in this program. As such, the scale of the Turkish migration was larger than the migrations from other Gastarbeiter homelands. As it turned out, many of the Gastarbeiter stayed on to become permanent residents and raise children in Germany. Turks were more likely to stay on as residents of Germany than citizens of Italy, Greece, or Portugal, because those three countries developed rapidly from the 1960s through the 1980s as members of the European Union (or its predecessor the European Community). So citizens of those countries were likely to return to their home countries to take advantage of opportunities there. By contrast, Turkey still remains outside the EU, and it remains relatively poor. If you look at the numbers in the table on page 83 of this document, you will see that Turks are the largest foreign nationality in Germany. However, if you add up the numbers for countries that were formerly part of Yugoslavia, you will see that collectively they are not so far behind. Like Turkey, the former Yugoslavian countries (with the exception of Slovenia) remain relatively poor and outside of the EU. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Names and backgrounds of wives of the Karaite exilarchs

What where the names and backgrounds of the wives of the Karaite exilarchs Hezekiah ben Solomon and Solomon ben Hasdai? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of a symbol?

Could anyone identify the symbol on the bottom left of this image? Thanks. http://z.about.com/d/graphicssoft/1/0/H/N/1/Small_BW_patterns.gif 213.167.126.215 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayan artifact?

I happened to see this listing on Craigs List [12], and I wonder if any of the varied and wise minds on Wikipedia have any thoughts about it. Thanks. --76.16.186.86 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)