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

April 8

"Freest" society ever

Throughout human history, what civilizations/societies have had the least government? Not counting communes unless they lasted for at least 10 years and had over 100 people, but including nomadic/tribal societies. On a side note, when did systems of government first start to emerge in humanity? What sort of heirarchy did a nomadic band of humans have 10,000 years ago? Thanks 81.96.161.104 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to point out that a lack of government is not necessarily freedom. As Hobbes pointed out, to be exposed to the tyranny of nature—of other men, of predatory beasts, of the whims of weather—is not freedom in any true Enlightenment sense of being able to do as one pleases, to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, etc. The mere presence of government does not mean tyranny; the mere absence does not mean freedom. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I didn't mean to imply it was. That's why I put the quote marks up there. I'm of the opinion that a definite degree of government is required for there to be truly guaranteed freedom. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Lord of the Flies illustrates that point well. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Primitive Communism supposedly demonstrated by Hunter-gatherer communities, I suppose. Can this be defined as civilization? Probably not; for civilization entails hierarchy and the division of labour; both entail government, and government entails curtailment of freedom, to greater or lesser degrees. Government is thus as old as civilization. Alas, even the most perfect freedom entailed a watchful form of government! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My sense is that sometimes in the wake of major culture shock governmental structures have often broken down for relatively long periods of time. It is often said of Native Americans that they had a very free form of government, and that seems to have been generally true. But it would be a mistake, I think, to assume their societies were always the way they appeared to the newcomers. Pfly (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also dubious that their societies were anything like what you and I would consider "freedom". It wasn't like a member of a Native American tribe could (or would even think to) say, "Gosh, I really disagree with how things are run around here, and I'm going to make a bid for a massive change in how we do things. Heck, while I'm at it, I think I'm going to dress differently, marry whomever I want, and spend my time however I want." The notion that "primitive" societies were free and open-minded is a Rousseau-derived fantasy. There is no more socially conservative place in the world than a small band of people (barely) living off of the land, even if they don't have much by means of a formalized government. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the freest society ever would probably be the Spartans: they oppressed the Helots to do their work at home, so they could concentrate on war. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AndonicO, the Helots were part of Spartan society; they cannot be abstracted out, like androids! By your measure the ante bellum South must also have been high among the 'free' societies of the world, freer for some than even ancient Sparta. Does servitude make people invisible? I suppose, by some measures, it must, in a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I probably confused them for the Messenians, who (unless I'm wrong again :P) were "enslaved" (though more like "enserfed") by the Spartans. · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot speak of a 'freest society ever' because society is not a homogenous entity, it is a word to lump together all sorts of different people. There's always going to be kings and noblemen at the top of the social hierarchy and peons and peasants at the bottom. Furthemore I wouldn't be too sure that the rich and famous are more 'free' than the poor and desperate. Under close scrutiny the whole notion of freedom dissappears entirely. Everyone is always bound to do what is in their best interest. Defining 'best interest' then becomes the problem, and so on and so forth... Vranak (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers so far guys. If we can safely say that the degree of social freedom allowed by primitive society was incomparable to that of a modern democracy, then I may well have to ask "What has been society that has existed with the least government interference/coercion in private life?". I know that words like freedom make objectivity hard, but surely we can arrive at the least governed/most self-regulated societies that have existed since the Enlightenment. I'm not using freest in a necessarily positive way here, it just is the word that best expresses the concept of a governmentless society. Thanks for any suggestions 81.96.161.104 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading on the Samizdat blog a few years ago the comment that Britain was probably at its most freest in around 1870. I'm also reminded by A. J. P. Taylor's famous first words to his English History: "Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service."--Johnbull (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For a fairly modern example of a stateless society, you may be interested in reading our (surprisingly good) article on Anarchy in Somalia. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960

are the civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960 concerned black voting rights?202.70.124.98 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Civil Rights Act of 1957 and Civil Rights Act of 1960? Corvus cornix_talk 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Les Misérables Quotation

I stumbled upon this quotation while reading the abridged version of Les Misérables and found it very interesting...I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not...and now that I think about it, I'm not even completely sure what it means. So basically I was wondering what the quotation really means so I can better judge whether I agree with it or not.

But from my basic understanding of the quote's meaning, I started to disagree, but when I tried to think of a real life example where it wasn't true I was hard pressed to find one. The quote is: "There are certain natures that cannot have love on one side without hatred on the other (p. 156)."

Thanks for all of your insight and help. --71.98.14.106 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the context? Wrad (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know that too. I would say, though, the statement is probably true of a great many natures. Hatred is not the antithesis of love; indifference is. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the context from the book. It's actually page 106 in this version of the text though. But Clio, if hate isn't the antithesis of love, what is the antithesis of hate? --71.98.14.106 (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that the particular context the quote has in the book doesn't really matter to me; I'm wondering basically how that quotation can apply to life in general. --71.98.14.106 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is also indifference. Hate and love will always walk hand-in-hand. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a context I didn't expect, Mrs. Thenardier. I can see what he's saying, though. the Thenardiers are described later in the book to be immoral and uneducated. Immoral because uneducated. They are simple, selfish, minds used to fighting on the streets for every last penny. It seems pretty easy to see how someone with that background could gain the assumption that giving love to someone means you have to take it from someone else. Wrad (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Visualize the continuum as a circle instead of a line and it is easier to see indifference being farther from love and hate than each other. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, it's not about love and hate as such but describes a manipulative, even calculating nature; a personality at war with itself even – a type the author is trying to make a point about. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the operative words in this quote are "certain natures," i.e. bad people. Hugo wasn't indicting humanity as a whole, just the Thernadier mother who is a pretty despicable character. She contrasts with Valjean who loves Cosette without reservation yet doesn't seem to hate anyone, even Javert who he arguably has good reason to hate. --D. Monack | talk 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

London borough coat-of-arms

Borough of Paddington roundel - 1900

Can anyone help with the history of the coat-of-arms of the Metropolitan Borough of Paddington in London, UK? The image at right, of a roundel marker on a bridge over the Grand Union Canal, shows a form of the coat-of-arms (granted in 1902), but the date given here is 1900 (the date the metropolitan borough was founded). Would the coat-of-arms of 1902 have been in use earlier, or is the 1900 date here referring to something else (the building of the bridge? building of the canal? incorporation of the borough?). Is it possible the roundel was placed here later, even much later, than 1900? Those are the main questions, but another question is whether (as I said in the photo caption in the article) the VR bit refers to Queen Victoria's reign (which ended in 1901)? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The date "discrepancy" is actually not too worrisome -- a lot of civic coats of arms have been used before any formal grant was received from the College of Arms (sometimes centuries before). AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Our Metropolitan Borough of Paddington article says that the crossed swords come from the arms of the Diocese of London, by way of the "vestry seal" - that is, the seal of the Church vestry of Paddington. The 'vestry' was an element of the Church of England which for hundreds of years carried out some local government functions before the elected bodies came along everywhere. The mural crown is very common in civic heraldry, combining the ideas of authority and city walls, so is a natural choice as an extra device. I see the arms in the middle of the roundel you show us aren't identical to those granted a few years later - our Metropolitan Borough of Paddington article says something about where the wolves' heads may have come from. As AnonMoos says, there were informal heraldic devices around in Victorian times, just as there are now. See, for example, Derby School. Xn4 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

equity share in standerd medicals and pharmasuticals ltd (question moved from help desk)

i have 240 shares in the above mentioned co.the compny was delisted from NSC/BSC .i have came to know that this company is trading in hydrabad stock exchange .i live in kolkata .what can i do to sell out thease equity share —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.203.101 (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the firm but try contacting them (http://www.medinovaindia.com/feedback.htm) asking about the above. ny156uk (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fransisco de Miranda in France

I read on your page on Fransisco de Miranda, the South American patriot, that he had some involvement with the French Revolution, and that he was arrested several times during the Terror. What was he accused of and how did he manage to escape the guillotine? TheLostPrince (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Francisco de Miranda was first arrested in April 1793 on the orders of Antoine Quentin Fouquier-Tinville, Chief Prosecutor of the Revolution, and accused of conspiring against the republic with Charles François Dumouriez, the renegade general. Though indicted before the Revolutionary Tribunal-and under attack in Jean-Paul Marat's L'Ami du peuple-he conducted his defence with such calm eloquence that he was declared innocent. Even so, the campaign of Marat and rest of the Jacobins against him did not weaken. He was arrested again in July 1793, when he was incarcerated in La Force prison, effectively one of the ante-chambers of death during the prevailing Reign of Terror. Appearing again before the tribunal, and mustering all his soldierly courage, he accused the Committee of Public Safety of tyranny, in disregarding his previous acquittal.

Miranda seems to have survived by a combination of good luck and political expediency: the revolutionary government simply could not agree what to do with him. He remained in La Force even after the fall of Robespierre in July 1794, and was not finally released until the January of the following year. Now convinced that the whole direction taken by the Revolution had been wrong, he started to conspire with the moderate royalists against the Directory, and was even named as the possible leader of a military coup. He was arrested and ordered out of the country, only to escape and go into hiding.

He reappeared after being given permission to remain in France, though that did not stop his involvement in yet another monarchist plot in September 1797. The police were ordered to arrest the 'Peruvian general', as the said general submerged himself yet again in the underground. With no more illusions about France, or the Revolution, he left for England in Danish boat, arriving in Dover in January 1798. A remarkable man and a remarkable career. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And that's now in his article. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suleiman the clot?

Following up the FA on main page, it seemed Suleiman was off to a good start and middle, but the way he handled palace plots seemed very below par[1], especially the way he treated Mustafa who was a model of his younger self (not to mention treatment of his old best friend the Pasha), until the least likely Selim the Sot landed the best job. Was this ineptitude S the M's weakness for a powerful wife, or was he mentally losing the plot by the time the lads were heir-apparent? It seems such a contrast yet nothing mentions a mental decline. Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, all political careers end in failure, and the magnificence of noon invariably gives way to the disappointment of twilight, does it not?! The important thing to understand here, Julia, is that while every royal court had a share of political intrigue, there were those in the Topkapi Palace, concubines and eunuchs, who existed for nothing but intrigue. There is, however, no reason why Suleiman would see any great virtue in Sehzade Mustafa, or any great weakness in Selim, who incidentally did not turn into 'the Sot' until after he gained the throne. Roxelana almost certainly intrigued against Mustafa, all too aware of the consequences to her own sons if he succeeded. While this cannot be proved conclusively, it seems likely that she persuaded Suleiman that Mustafa intended to force him from power, drawing on the precedent set by Selim I, the Sultan's father, in the deposition of Bayezid II, his grandfather. Indeed, this was not beyond all possibility, and Suleiman would have been mindful that, following the death of Prince Mehmet some years before, the army had considered demanding his retirement. But, in essence, it made no difference to Suleiman, in a typically callous Ottoman way, if Mustafa lived or died, because there were plenty of others to take his place.

Yes, it is true that Suleiman was getting old at the time of Mustafa's execution, and, yes, Roxelana had always been a powerful influence; but there is nothing to prove that she worked specifically on behalf of Selim. Indeed, it seems certain that she would have preferred Prince Bayezid, her favourite son, to succeed to the throne on the death of his father. As it was, her death in 1558 ended all moderating influence on the ambitions of Bayezid and Selim, allowing them to descend into fratricidal conflict. In the end Bayezid lost out by singular lack of judgement, particularly in calling on the support of the partisans of Mustafa and in attempting to draw Safavid Iran into the conflict. It was because of this that Suleiman threw all of his weight behind Selim. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Complicated then (with kismet too), thanks Clio. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Julia. I see people on the Miscellaneous Desk are exercising themselves over his headgear! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As they are. I wonder when someone will notice his obvious hat fetish, unleashing more speculation on the royal bod.  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A Wise King?

Building on the tremendous answers I have had to the various questions I have posed here on Scottish history I would like to hazard another, this time, arguably, of a slightly controversial nature. James IV (r. 1488-1513) is often portrayed as one of the best, most enlightened, of the Scottish kings, but is this an accurate assessment? Hamish MacLean (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all POV really at the end of the day. Its certainly fair to say he was an enlightened king and talented scholar. I dont know whether you are familiar with his works but he was the author of Daemonologie (1596) and Basilikon Doron (1599). More about him can be found at his page...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The question seems to have been about IV, not "the wisest fool in Christendom"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! It was James VI, the great-grandson of James IV, who was the said author of those books, Cameron. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear! I seem to have muddled my numerals! And completely overlook the dates! *goes red*...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I always enjoy your questions, Hamish. As to whether James IV of Scotland is the most enlightened king well, as Cameron says above, these things are always subjective. Historians and laymen alike have their favourites and defend them quite strenuously. Certainly, we know that James was well-educated, intelligent, interested in both the arts and developing technologies. He was also hopelessly romantic, and rather headstrong (witness the disaster at Flodden Field). The article about James linked above is very brief and does not do justice to this interesting period. Perhaps you could encourage your students to research him and improve the article? It would certainly be a rewarding class project.

James was obviously a strong individual; he inherited the throne at 15 and assumed the rule without any talk of a regent, bringing the country to order quite successfully and winning the support of most nobles. He was noted for his clemency towards those who had rebelled against his father (and later rebels), and walked a fairly steady line in his relations with England, negotiating the Treaty of Perpetual Peace (1502) and marrying henry VII's daughter Margaret Tudor, who was some years his junior, despite his interest in prettier women. The romance of the French queen's invitation to support the Auld Alliance proved too much, of course, and he invaded England, risking the Pope's disapproval, and was soundly trounced at Flodden.

The king was renowned for his knowledge of languages (and was the last Scots king to speak Gaelic), the Bible and history, and was a patron of the arts. He provided a pension for poet William Dunbar, funded the first printing press in Scotland, and instituted an act to make education compulsory for all boys of barons and gentlemen (possibly the first act of its kind). He was fascinated by dentistry and surgery (performing some dental operations himself) and founded King's College, Aberdeen (which taught medicine along with other subjects), and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. Interested in ships, cannon and other developing technologies, he oversaw the rise of the Scottish navy under Andrew Wood of Largo. He banned football (but apparently played it himself) and loved the tournament and other hastiludes, held to a chivalric ideal, admired bravery (he even rewarded the defeated English naval captain after a naval battle near Dunbar), and was enthusiastic to go on crusade. He also enjoyed fine clothes, music and other courtly pursuits.

And of course, his love of the fine gesture, and his obsession with those French pikes brought his reign to a rather abrupt end. But his legacy lived on; as we discussed some weeks ago, James's overhaul of the government and general straightening of the country's affairs meant it survived and recovered from the Flodden disaster. So, that is a brief summary; there is more that might be said, and perhaps another (such as Clio) will do so. Gwinva (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No point repeating what Gwinva said. His reputation is good. In Lynch's Oxford Companion to Scottish History we read: "James IV ... is widely regarded today as the most successful of the nine Stewart rulers of Scotland. This was also the view of his own contemporaries" One of the those contemporaries, Pedro de Ayala, Spanish ambassador to England, described him in 1498 as follows: "He is twenty-five years and some months old. He is of noble stature, neither tall nor short, and as handsome in complexion and shape as a man can be." But was he wise? Well, he was much more than conventionally devout, well educated, brave, had a good conceit of himself, cut a regal figure, had a reputation for justice and good rule, but that's not wisdom.

Sir David Lyndsay's Testament and Complaint of Our Soverane Lordis Papingo has a somewhat different view. Lyndsay says that James IV's death was "Nocht be the vertew of Inglis ordinance Bot be his awin wilfull mysgovernance. Alace! that day had he been counsolabill [had he taken advice], He had obtenit laud, glore, and victorie". That doesn't sound very wise at all. Norman Macdougall's book on James is well worth a read. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... he was certainly enlightened, yes, but was he one of the best of the Scottish kings? Well, in general terms, it would have to be said that his reign stands up well when contrasted with that of his predecessor and that of his successor. However, standing aside from this, and assessing the matter objectively, James seems to me to be singularly lacking not just in judgement but in imagination. So, Hamish, let me be controversial in return; if James is to be considered as one of the 'best' of the Scottish monarchs it is really only because they were generally a fairly pedestrian bunch!

So, am I being too hard on James? Let's consider the facts. His father, for all his faults, had been open to the view that the old conflict between England and Scotland had run its course; that nothing further was to be gained by perpetuating ancient quarrels, and everything to be lost by incurring English anger. But no sooner had he taken the throne than James prepared to travel down that old weary road. The Auld Alliance with France-which by this time more often worked against Scottish interests-was renewed in 1491 and almost immediately drew Scotland into a conflict in which it had no interest whatsoever-the dispute between England and France over Brittany. No sooner had James ratified the defensive alliance than Charles VIII made peace with Henry VII at the Treaty of Etaples, not troubling to consult his ally. A wiser man would have taken note of this duplicity. James did not.

James enjoyed, it has to be said, one great advantage that most of his predecessors did not. Henry VII was a practical man for whom war was bad business. Despite all James' provocations Henry wanted peace in the north; not just a temporary arrangement but a permanent or perpetual peace, a term he first used in the diplomatic exchanges of 1494. Two years later he made the proposal even more attractive by offering his eldest daughter, Margaret, as a bride for the Scottish king, which meant that any children they had would be brought directly into the English succession, an attractive prospect, by any reasonable measure. But James demurred, instead offering comfort and support to Perkin Warbeck, the clownish Yorkist pretender, even embarking on a pointless and destructive chevauchee in northern England on his behalf. This might so very easily have ended in complete disaster, for Henry, angered by this breach of good-faith, abandoned his usual caution, calling for full-scale mobilisation against Scotland, a campaign that was only frustrated by the West-Country rising against Henry in 1497. It was the men of Devon and Cornwall who saved James from the consequences of his pointless war.

He did finally have the good sense to make his 'Perpetual Peace', but it was only as perpetual for as long as Henry was alive. The succession in 1509 of the dangerously ambitious Henry VIII, a young king in a hurry, was a time for ever greater stability and calm reflection. Henry was provocative, yes, but James should have the good sense to avoid his provocations, especially as his ambitions were directed not at Scotland but at France. James had a simple choice before him: a Perpetual Peace or an Old Alliance. He chose the latter, with disastrous consequences for him and for his country. I simply cannot bring myself to admire James, a poor politician and an even poorer general. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. Thank you all. I hope, Clio, your view is not conditioned by some residual anti-Scottish sentiment! Hamish MacLean (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course...not! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy questions

What is the precise relationship between Henri Bergson's vitalism, Edmund Husserl's development of time-consciousness and Martin Heidegger's Dasein? Thank you.F Hebert (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just how precise? --Wetman (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any answer here is potentially one of prodigious complexity. So, let's try to keep matters simple, if anything connected with Martin Heidegger can ever be made simple!

The starting point is the publication of Henry Bergson's seminal Time and Free Will, in which he distinguishes scientific knowledge of ourselves from our own experience of ourselves. The division here is between time as a spatial concept, a succession of separate and distinct events, and time as a living experience, a flow or a stream, uniting the present with the past and the future. According to Bergson, this flow resists any kind of measurement. The notion of 'time experience' was to be highly influential, used by Marcel Proust, among others in À la recherché du temps perdu.

In his work on phenomenology, Edmund Husserl deepened Bergson's work by analysing exactly how time appeared in consciousness. Under the influence of both Bergson and Husserl, in 1927 Martin Heidegger advanced the notion that Dasein-subjective existence-has its being in all three temporalities; its past, its present and its possible futures. You will find all of this and more, F Hebert, in Being and Time, the Everest of philosophical tracts! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio. I cannot say just how impressed I am. It is understandable to me now, and with such economy of words. You have a stunning lucidity. Can you please tell me if you think Heidegger's work truly offers support for Sartre's views on existential humanism? F Hebert (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you see, for Sartre Existentialism is a Humanism, as he makes clear in his publication of 1946. That is to say, the existential human subject becomes philosophically central, part of an ongoing quest for meaning and freedom. Heidegger had no interest in this human-centered subjectivity. He is first and foremost an ontologist, not an existentialist. Being and Time, Heidegger insisted, does not advance an anthropocentric philosophy. The central concern is with being, not human subjectivity. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Islamic Influences In The Design of Sleeping Beauty Castle

I was just wondering,does anybody know of possible islamic influences in the design of Disneyland`s sleeping beauty castle,I know it sounds stupid if you ask Me it sort of looks like The Taj Mahal,and the Moghuls were Muslims right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.147.235 (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on Sleeping Beauty Castle, which is littered with citation-needed tags, but it mentions that the design is based on Neuschwanstein Castle. To my eye, the Disney concoction looks nothing like the Taj Mahal, but that's just one man's opinion. --LarryMac | Talk 14:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) You mean with those pointy towers and all ? Hey look - I've found the same thing in the Russia and Scotland and France and Germany and a really pointy one in Australia. It's a goddamn international architectural consipracy, I tell you ! (Actually, I think they are all phallic symbols). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean general pointed arches or onion domes (which are not really exclusive to Islamic architecture), or something more specific? AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This site shows a black-and-white sketch of Herb Ryman's castle design in 1953, and a black-and-white photograph of Neuschwanstein in the 1950s. The likeness is hard to miss. When viewed in color, the Sleeping Beauty Castle maybe appears more Russian or Asian because of its vivid use of gold, turquoise and other colors. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It has to be added, for those who are not aware of it, that Neuschwanstein itself is a faux castle, commissioned by Ludwig II and planned by a theatrical stage designer. As such, it is about as authentic as the Mickey Mouse version. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But then, Ludwig II was not only a bit Goofy, one may even say he had a Gearloose. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

...and more pointy towers appear in Greece, Mexico, Ireland, Canada, Japan ... the pointy-tower architects are taking over and resistance is futile. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall being told that an architect from Disney visited Carcassonne and took some drawings/inspiration from there. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

According to a Disney fan site, "Herbert Ryman began with a charcoal sketch, which he developed into a painting. He used several French castles for his inspiration, among them Chambord, Usse, and Chenonceau. Inspiration also came from the classic Walt Disney animated feature Cinderella." Another site states "Inspiration for the castle, designed by Herb Ryman, came from a few influences. Neuschwanstein (New Swan Stone) castle in southern Germany and France's château d'Chambord,and château d'Chenonceau." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaundersW (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When did "Nice to meet you" replace "Glad to know you" as the preferred introductory reply?

Recently, I've been immersing myself in a lot of old media. Specifically, TV shows from 1950-1970 and written works from 1850-1980. I've noticed that you rarely -if ever- see "Nice to meet you" used. By far, the most common phrase I see is: "Glad to know you". I know the latter isn't really that different; but honestly, I've never heard it used in real life. So, I'm assuming at some point in our history, there was a shift. I'd like to know when. Bonus points if you also know why. My guess was "nice to meet you" being somewhat less intimate just appeals more to today's less-trusting society. Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if a single data point is of any use at all, but my parent's were pretty careful about teaching us proper behavior. "Pleased to meet you" is the response I was taught in the 60s. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This all seems to be specific to the US? I can't think many people would teach children to use either of those expressions here in the UK. When I was a little boy, I was supposed to say "How do you do?" But I'd only say it now to be ceremonious. Xn4 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

These clichés are more accurate as class indicators rather than period indicators. --Wetman (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As for period indicators, see our article on jam rag. Appropriately, it is a red link. And I hope this is all sufficiently cryptic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is specific to the US. I've seen equivalent phrases in French, British-English and even Brazilian-Portuguese literature (not the exact phrase, rather, similar degrees of formality/intimacy). Good catch by BPmullins, i.e. "Pleased to meet you" being the formal counterpart to "Nice.." I guess to simplify, I could narrow it down to US TV shows. Pre-1980, you hear "Glad..." Post-1980, it's "Nice/Pleased". Just wondering if anyone had any insight into the shift. After all, I realize it's a completely trivial question :) Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching I Love Lucy. The characters in the mid-1950s show invariably say, "How do you do." It always sound strange to me (I'm in my early 30s). --Nricardo (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, I was watching Lucy yesterday and heard "Glad to know you". You're right, though. I did hear "How.." a few times as well. Lucy says that, and sounds quite proper in doing so. Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of National Lampoon's Animal House where playboy Eric Stratton's line was "Damn glad to meet you!". Then there was "Belles on their Toes" (1952) set in 1924 by the Gilbreths (of "Cheaper by the Dozen" where Ernestine's line was "Meased to pleat you." Edison (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sartre's drug induced crisis

I came across a brief reference to the fact that Jean-Paul Sartre had some kind of drug induced crisis after his return from Germany in 1934, but can find nothing further, no reference to this in his published work. Any leads here would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.81 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In February of 1935, Sartre, interested in dreams and anomalies of perception, was injected with mescaline at a hospital. At the time he was also suffering a bout of depression. Reporting on the experience to Simone de Beauvoir by telephone, he reported battling with several "devil fish". Over the next few months he began to suffer hallucinations, at first a he believed a single giant lobster was following him, and later more and more of the creatures. A doctor prescribed belladonna, which only made Sartre's problems worse, but by then end of summer he declared that, as far as lobsters were concerned, he had "sent them packing." Fullbrook, K., & Fullbrook, E. (1994). Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre: the remaking of a twentieth-century legend. New York, N.Y.: BasicBooks. pp. 86-7. OCLC 29028752. The authors cite Beauvoir's The Prime of Life.—eric 00:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You will find all of the details in Simone de Beauvoir's memoir, The Prime of Life. Sartre's experience reminds me somewhat of that of Thomas de Quincy in his Confessions of an English Opium Eater. Both men ended being pursued by demons, though Sartre's took a particularly disturbing form. The effects of the mescaline, he told de Beauvoir, were like being trapped in a surrealist text. He wasn't just pursued by the giant lobster mentioned by eric. Huge devil-fish swarmed over his body; de Beauvoir’s shoes turned into beetles; an umbrella became a vulture. These hallucinations lasted for four months, during which time Sartre was convinced he was going mad-"I'm on the edge of a chronic hallucinatory psychosis." Ah, well; just fancy: being pursued down the streets of Paris by a lobster! Makes a change, I suppose, from the usual Lotharios! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the lobster following him had some association with Gerard de Nerval, another writer who lived in Paris, and had experiences with mental illness, and probably with hallucinogenic substances. SaundersW (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps see also The Doors of Perception. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Chirac on Iraq

The article about the former president of France briefly mentions his anti-war stance. I am, however, looking for any article which in more depth reveals Chirac's stance, in particular post-war (most of which is on Google is either very old, or very much in French). Among other things that interest me, is that France's stand against the invasion of Iraq seems based on some degree of (hard-earned (for them and others)) experience (Algerie, dealings in Africa, so forth). Tony Blair, I remember, would recite the president as having predicted the shiite-sunni problems, and that'd strike me as a rather brutally clever notion for a country's leader to have. Finishing off what is increasingly looking like praise of mr Chirac, I am hoping you can help me to either a Wikipedia article that deals more thoroughly with the subject, or perhaps something external. My search is coming up empty, anyway. Thank you. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what I found. In a documentary made for the BBC by Michael Cockerell, Sir Stephen Wall - one of Blair's former policy advisers - has described a meeting between Blair and Chirac in October 2002 during which Chirac made three points about a possible invasion: (1) war is generally not a good thing, as Chirac experienced when he fought as a conscript in Algeria, (2) the US and the UK should not count on being welcomed with flowers, and (3) having the Shia majority take over the country is not the same thing as "democracy". Sources: [2], [3] DAVID ŠENEK 09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the OP. Thank you, but this is not the information I seek. The program in question does not interest me, it merely went ahead and mentioned Chirac's advice, something I thought I'd briefly mention in my own post. Primarily of interest to me are the opinions that Chirac currently has on what should be done in the Iraq war, possibly before Sarkozy became president. 213.161.190.228 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavarian Flask from Bavaria with grasshopper holding a hat trademark

I am wondering if you can find any information about a flask from Bavaria. I have contacted many flask dealers on the internet and none of them have seen this flask before. It is in the shape of a little girl and is about 5 3/4 inches tall and the cork is also the back of her had. On the back there is a grasshoper holding a hat molded into the porcelain and the letters and numbers " K.L. 806" at the bottom of the back. There is also a little butterfly looking emblem stamped into it just before "K.L.". The front is painted, blond hair, blue eyes, pink cheeks, red lips, brown eyebrows, red hat with 3 white flowers, blue scallops on a white dress and pink shoes. She's holding a bouquet of flowers, 3 purple, 1 white, green leaves, yellow centers in the flowers. On the bottom it says "Made in Bavaria" in a circle and the initials "dv" are off to the side. I can send pictures upon request. I appreciate any information you can give me on this flask. Thanks, Martha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary1942 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ma'alaya

Does anybody know what is ma'alaya mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It would nice to have some approximate context to go on (perhaps the spelling of the word in its original form, if it comes from a language which does not use the Latin alphabet)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this relevant – Sri Lankan language film, "Ma Alaya Kala Tharuniya (The Girl I Loved,) director, Sirisena Wimalaweera, February 20, 1959" from our article List of Sinhala-language films. You could ask at the language refdesk for specifics. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We had this before in January; maybe Don is the same user? It might mean "highness" as in "your highness." Adam Bishop (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So this dance means that the ladies are dressing up as princesses and shaking their butts. Isn't some prostitution in U.A.E.? Don Mustafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Signet Rings

(Another) Random Question: why are signet rings traditionally worn on one's pinkie finger in the UK/US? The article says that its primarily a tradition, but doesn't go into further detail. I have speculated that it might be as signet rings are family heirlooms (thus very old), and when they rings were first cast the initial wearer had thinner fingers due to nutrition. As such, the ring no longer fit on the ring finger, and had to be moved on to the pinkie etc. etc. This is pure speculation however, and I would appreciate an answer in greater detail. As always, thank you. :) Zidel333 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use a signet ring for its proper purpose - to create an imprint in soft sealing wax before it solidifies- the little finger is the only practical locus. If you were to wear it on any other finger you would get the hot sticky stuff all over your digits and get blisters on your fingers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just take the ring off, and use it by holding the circlet between two fingers? That way there will be zero chance of blisters. In light of this usage of signet rings (and I have actually seen a person use it thus, whether or not it is the "proper form"), you answer is only partway satisfactory. Zidel333 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But why take the ring off, and run the risk of losing it, when a quick twist of the hand suffices? And there is certainly nothing to suggest that mens' hands were thinner in the past. The classes who owned and used signet rings were better known for over-indulgence than for poor nutrition. Rings were frequently worn all fingers, not just the "ring finger". And what is that, but another tradition? Gwinva (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of a Hindu God

I was ruminating about names of Indian, Hindu Gods, and have been unable to come up with the name of a Hindu God that starts with the letter F. I have asked a number of people and researched as much as I could but unable to unearth a name. Its probably so obvious that it escapes me, or there is something more linguistically inherent in the letter F and its translation from Sanskrit or other Indian languages. Of course I could be blowing a lot of smoke here. Anyway, for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.103.226 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably it's because Sanskrit doesn't have an F sound in it. 69.156.126.7 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The closest to "f" is the फ or "ph". -- Q Chris (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Parvathi.... did u pronounce Farvathi... Slmking (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Slmking

High school band bus crash

Shouldn't there be any updates on the victims who are still hospitalized following that crash which claimed one life on April 5, 2008?72.229.136.18 (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a news item, not an encyclopedia entry. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

left-handed calligraphers

are there any left-handed calligrapehrs? any famous ones at least? thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.30.122 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are, though a quick scan yielded none with a Wikipedia article of its own. Rick Muffler, for example, "the only left-handed calligrapher at the White House". Perhaps there are more famous ones in right-to-left writing systems: I found the 18th century Ottoman calligraphist Mehmed Esad Yesari who "was born paralysed down the right hand side of his body, which gave rise to the nickname "Yesari" (left-handed)". Here is a sample of Yesari's art: "Let man pay heed to the reason for his creation." ---Sluzzelin talk 01:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In your white house link, if I wanted to write in the same script as Rick Muffler, where could I start? I mean his "font" the way he writes his letters. Where can I find letterings in general? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.13.205 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For fonts there's dafont.com. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How to serve warm beer?

I was told in school (way back when--I'm well above legal) that beer was served warm in the Colonial period. People would stick a hot poke into their jug and drink the warmed up beer. Is there any truth to that and how may I imitate it? Imagine Reason (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I should've googled (the beer page doesn't have much).[4] Imagine Reason (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The beer page needs you!

You need beergoogles! hotclaws 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

April 9

Death and the VC

I just read the main page article about the Victoria Cross and I wondered: which war had the most VCs awarded per death? A sort of ratio of deaths to Victoria Crosses. Thanks a lot. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I´d say the Zuluwar wins. See the pretty depressing Battle of Isandlwana#Aftermath. But wait for Clio. She knows better than I do.--Tresckow (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your meaning is not quite clear to me, 81.96, but the answer to your question is almost certainly the First World War, though I have not calculated just how many of the 634 Victoria Crosses awarded were given out posthumously, or the number of medals as a proportion of the total casualty list. Tresckow, the Zulu War saw the most medals awarded for a single action, the defence of Rorke's Drift, though I believe that all of the eleven recipients survived the battle. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Zulu war had high fatalities but few VCs. I've thrown a table together, and am hunting through WP to fill it in; feel free to add in. It might be worth looking at recent campaigns, such as Afghanistan: 2 VCs awarded, with fairly light losses in historical terms (don't know how many). Only 14 VCs have been awarded since WWII. Also check out List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign. nb. I've only considered Commonwealth/British Empire deaths, since VC are only awarded to these soldiers. Gwinva (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I've filled a few more in, but some fatality lists are hard to come by. It gives you an idea, anyway. WWI is far down the list of VCs to deaths. (I presume that was the ratio you wanted?) Gwinva (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

War	years	Military fatalities (British Empire /Commonwealth)	VCs awarded	VCs per death	total BE/cmwth servicemen	VCs per serviceman
Crimean War	1854–1856	4774 (+ 16323 of disease)	111	0.0233 (0.0053)	250,000	0.00044
Indian Mutiny	1857–1859		182
First Taranaki War	1860–1861	238 (casualties)	2	(0.0084 per casualty)	2000	0.001
Waikato-Hauhau Maori War	1863–1866		13
Anglo-Zulu War	1879	1727	23	0.0133	15000	0.00153
Second Afghan War	1878–1880		16
First Boer War	1880–1881	408	6	0.0147	1200	0.005
Second Boer War	1899–1902		78
World War I	1914-18	1,113,710	627	0.0006
World War II	1939-1945	580,000	181	0.0003
Korean War	1950–1953	1964	4	0.0020	109,006	0.00004
Vietnam War	1959–1975	557	4	0.0072
Falklands War	1982	258	2	0.0078
Operation Telic	2003-05	176	1	0.0057
Afghanistan	2001-present	177 [5]	2	0.0113
all others	1854-present		102

Gwinva, yeah that's exactly what I wanted. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Why were there many issued following the Crimean war then? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The medal was instituted during the Crimean War for "valour". There was no precendent, or tradition to regulate or temper its use. I suspect citations decreased over time as the medal became more prestigious: the "we can't hand it out to just anyone" idea. It would also be worth looking at when the other service medals were instituted. Now there are a number of "lesser" medal options, such as the DSO. Only 181 VCs were awarded in the whole of WWII; but how many other medals were issued? Gwinva (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting table. Anyone want to do the same for the US and the Medal of Honor? --Anon, 23:59 UTC, April9, 2008.

Here's an incomplete table for the Medal of Honor. Most of the statistics come from here and here. You can see how it was awarded pretty liberally for some conflicts before WWI, when the standards were tightened. jwillbur 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

War	Years of U.S. involvement	Military fatalities	MOHs awarded	MOHs per death	total servicemen	MOHs per serviceman
American Civil War	1861–1865	140414 (Union only)	1522	0.01084
Indian Wars	1861–1898	919	426	0.46354
Korean expedition	1871	3	15	5	~650	0.02308
Spanish-American War	1898	385	110	0.28571
Samoan Civil War			4
Philippine-American War	1899–1902	1020	86	0.08431
Boxer Rebellion	1900–1901	37	59	1.59459
Occupation of Veracruz	1914	22	56	2.54545
Occupation of Haiti	1915–1934	146	6	0.04110
Occupation of the Dominican Republic	1916–1924		3
World War I	1917–1918	53402	124	0.00232
Occupation of Nicaragua	1909–1933	48	2	0.04166
World War II	1941-1945	291557	464	0.00159
Korean War	1950–1953	33746	133	0.00394
Vietnam War	1959–1975	47355	246	0.00519
Somalia (UNITAF/UNOSOM)	1992–1994	29	2	0.06897
War in Afghanistan	2001–present	290	1	0.00345
Iraq War	2003–present	3282	3	0.00091

Thanks! --Anon, 23:05 UTC, April 15, 2008.

If I convert to Judaism and become a Jew, I'm still Asian and Thai American or not?

I don't want to convert to Judaism now. I'm Asian American, Thai American, and a Shia Muslim. If I convert to Judaism and become a Jew, I'm still Asian and Thai American or not? I know if I'm born Asian and Thai American, I will be Asian and Thai American forever in my life. Jet (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, did your last sentence not answer your question? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The important thing to consider is the difference between ethnic identification and religious identification. The two are a bit confused in Judaism and Jewishness. You can be Jewish, but not believe in Judaism, and I think you can convert to Judaism, but not become a Jew (certainly not ethnically - it doesn't change your DNA). You can also have multiple ethnic identities. In fact, you already do. You're Thai, Asian, American and the combinations of those. I don't think it would be strange to add another identification in there, if it's merited. You could certainly take up Jewish traditions, and identify culturally with Jewishness. Steewi (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You can categorize yourself however you want to. Other people will categorize you however they want to. In general, you will be categorized in three ways: Ethinicity, religion, and nationality. All three are arbitrary and capricious, and frequently a term such as "Jew" will conflate the categories. It is very easy to find people that self-identify in multiple races, multiple nationalities, and multiple religions. The best course ot to avoid these ridiculous labels entirely. -Arch dude (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Please correct me if I'm wrong) If you didn't know, to be an "ethnic Jew" your mother must be a Jew. To gain Isreali citizenship so that your a Isreali national (or your nationality is Jewish) one of your grandparents must have been Jewish. And to be religiously Jewish you must convert to Judaism (no idea what this involves other than a sharp knife) --Shniken1 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To be accepted as a Jew in the religious sense, either your mother must be a Jew (possibly a convert!), or you yourself must convert to Judaism. The ethnic notion of Jewishness is much vaguer, and has more to do how people identify themselves and how they are seen by others – who may use other criteria than matrilineal descent.  --Lambiam 12:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Who is a Jew?.  --Lambiam 12:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What's Thai American? I'd be way more concerned over my citizenship. Are you Thai or are you American? Beekone (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See Thai American. Kultida Woods and her son, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No I get the use, I don't get why it's accepted though. Were you born in America? Do you pay taxes to America? If Thailand went to war and instituted a draft, would you be eligible? Beekone (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh good lord Norman Tebbit, maybe it tells them something useful about their cultural upbringing. It's not always sensible, but it's no need to come over all National Front. 130.88.140.107 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to hyphate your nationality to remember your heritage? I'm sorry, I can't believe anyone's that stupid. Why don't you make it a point not to prefix "American" to help you remember to be loyal, patriotic, proud, any number of virtues that have nothing to do with snubbing your heritage? I'm not a Dutch American, I'm an American with Dutch roots... and to be more topical, I would still be an American with Dutch roots even if I converted to Judaism. I also apologize if I'm coming across as "National Front" but I think it's no less a ridiculous addition to this thread as the initial question. Beekone (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have your way of refering to yourself, they have theirs. Neither makes any more intrinsic sense. For example, it is quicker and easier to say they are Thai American than American-with-Thai-roots, and nobody except you seems to interpret it as meaning anything different. And why on Earth would where you put the 'Thai' or the 'Dutch' affect whether you 'remember' to be 'loyal, patriotic, proud'? The initial question strikes me as someone a little confused about the meanings of words and the difference between various labels trying to get some feedback and think something through; not ridiculous. You came across as rude and unpleasant, looking for a fight. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

would it be possible to do an IPO with shares that are worth 0% of the company?

Could a company start selling shares in an IPO each of which are for 0% of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.13.205 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What you mean is issue something that will pay dividends but not give voting rights or share of assets. I think, by definition this is not a share - I believe in the UK it is known as a bond issue. As you have no say in the country the payments you get are (usually/always?) fixed in advance. I am going from memory from a course I took decades ago so I would appreciate someone confirming this. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible for a company to issue preference shares, in which investors give up some or all of their voting rights in exchange for preferred treatment in dividend distributions or greater protection in case of liquidation or takeover. However, these types of shares are normally only issued by private companies - it would be unusual to see them offered in an IPO. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article Share (finance) gives the following definition:

A share is one of a finite number of equal portions in the capital of a company, ....

I've underlined the word finite, since it implies that the portions cannot be 0%.  --Lambiam 12:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why its called a share! Shares, even preference shares have a percentage of equity. A company can issue a bond, however, which does not have am equity share. From the Article:

Bonds and stocks are both securities, but the major difference between the two is that stock-holders are the owners of the company (i.e., they have an equity stake), whereas bond-holders are lenders to the issuing company.

I think that issuing bonds is different from an IPO, but has the same result in raising capital. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Tuesday?

Why are so many of the elections in the United States held on a Tuesday? Is this done by The Man to minimise voter turnout? Surely you would get a higher turnout if they were held on a weekend when most people aren't at work.--Shniken1 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they are legally or constitutionally determined to be on Tuesdays. And you can be exempted from work to go vote. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion may be an issue with weekends. Jews and Seventh-day Adventists worship on Saturday. No one considers Tuesday a holy day. Wrad (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I worship the pancake and I do! hotclaws 05:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

see: Election Day (United States)#History.—eric 06:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

mmm, pancakes...81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the US Constitution about it being on a Tuesday; the only constitional requirement is that all the presidential electors vote on the same day, along with permission to Congress to regulate when the electors are chosen. It must be a legal exercise of this permission. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy

Is there any way of a man living with 2 or more woman without legal problems if the man doesn't marry but live together with the women for life by not-marrying-but-living-together in US and Europe? Is there any other problems if all the women and the man have no problems in that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.138.38 (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the legal marrying that's the problem, living plural isn't really anyone's concern afaik. Australian actor Jack Thompson's "unusual living arrangements" were well known. He lived with two sisters for 15 years[6] until having children with one of them, so it seems to work up to a point if everyone agrees. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fornication laws have been generally repealed in most legal jurisdictions in the developed countries, so the real legal problems would be if you attempt to formally legally marry two spouses (in which case you would be subject to bigamy laws), or if you want the formal legal rights which come with marriage to apply to both your spouses. AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

While I believe fairly rare, in some places such as Utah you could be charged with bigamy (check out the legal sitution section) even if you aren't actually legally married to both spouses if you are found to be in a common with multiple spouses. However even then, I believe this is still very rare (I think one of the only cases to actually be prosecuted was based on statements the person had made suggesting he was married to more then one person) and the trend is mostly to target things like welfare fraud, child abuse etc rather then people who are simply practicing polygamy. Having said that, particularly in places like Utah you may find many people would consider such an arrangement social unacceptably and so you may find you have other non-legal problems in your day to day interactions Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the above comments are, but the person clearly said "if the man doesn't marry." As far as living together, ever heard of roommates? Many people in the U.S. live in apartments where they have roommates. And they can be of opposite genders too. So I don't see a legality issue in it (and I'm no lawyer). Neal (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Neal: Many jurisdictions (Canada for one) has a legal definition where people living together 'as if they were married' are considered to be married, even if they haven't gone through the ceremony. This applies to various areas including divorce and welfare. Whether it could be applied to bigamy is a question I wouldn't want to answer, but it's certainly not inconceivable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: ''as if they were married' - that, right there, is the problem. How can we know if a bunch of college students sharing an apartment act or live as if they are married?If they act as if they were married but aren't, and a country like Canada considers them to be legally married, then is there any strong definition or standards of marriage? Of course, you make that claim, where I certainly doubt it, so I'd need faith in order to believe what you said was true. I obviously think a country like Canada has standards on their definition of marriage, but all you have to do is prove me wrong. *shrug* Neal (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Feel free to consult a lawyer if you don't believe me. Any divorce lawyer will give you the facts. And yes, it is often hard to know whether people are 'acting as if married'. The test is much more strict than "are they having sex", or "are they living in the same room", though, so most house-sharing students probably don't qualify. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I might do, just that. I have to meet up with my lawyer on something. Although, the original question was regarding the U.S. and Europe, and I can't answer for Europe, but I guess you meant Canada lawyer regarding Canada (which I don't have). But we seemingly threw in words like bigamy as a potential issue, but I don't see how a man living with 2 women could be charged with bigamy if neither 3 of them are married. That just makes no sense. *Sigh* ;\ Neal (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

See common-law marriage. --D. Monack | talk 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax definition

I am doing my US federal taxes (a few days early, go me!), and I have a 1099-MISC that says at the top of it that the money is a "non-qualified fellowship award". I've tried to figure out exactly what that means—I think it means it is taxable because it is not being used purely for tuition purposes, yes? Googling has only confused me because I know quite little about tax code definitions. (I'm not asking for tax advice. I'm doing it all in TurboTax anyway so there's not a lot of discretion on my behalf—I just enter the numbers in and pay whatever gobs of money they tell me to. I'm just curious.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Non-qualified" implies that the amount is taxable. See further here for how and where to report this.  --Lambiam 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! That's what I thought, but wanted to check. What a strange lexicon they use for these things—would kill them to just call it "taxable" or something. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rochester the puritan

Is it true,as some of his biographers have suggested, that John Wilmont the poet was a closet puritan?English Teen (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of a biography of Rochester which claims he was a closet puritan and reading his letters and poetry I find this hard to believe. But obviously it can't be ruled out. This shouldn't be confused with Rochester's becoming 'the greatest penitent' in 1679-1680 and finally almost evangelical in his burning of his obscene images and writings, and his persuading of his wife to rejoin the English church. (in fact at this stage of his illness he was probably mad) Lord Foppington (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to know which biographers, English Teen, because it is complete and utter tosh! John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, is about as far removed from Puritanism as it is possible to imagine. More than that, he represents, it might be said, the Restoration's antithesis to the heavy and joyless hand that that had ruled England for over ten years. Wilmot was an atheist and a hedonist-No glory's vain which does from pleasure spring. His poetry is a celebration of pleasure in its many forms, especially sexual pleasure. He did not just practice debauchery, he advocated debauchery!

Her father gave her dildos six;

Her mother made 'em up a score,

But she loves nought but living pricks

And swears by God she'll frig no more.

Now, ask yourself: could John Milton ever have penned those lines?! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I never knew they had dildos back then. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they did, Bibliomaniac, as you will discover if you ever read the poem whose title appears below! I'm just about to enlighten you still further on this delightful subject! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dildos date back to the Upper Paleolithic, according to our article. I have seen an ivory object from Siberia, unmistakable to my eyes, but labelled "a shaman's implement". Alas, there is no cabinet in the Pitt Rivers Museum equivalent in intent to the Secret Museum, Naples. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signior Dildo

Is there a latent political agenda to Rochester's bawdy poem? If so, what? I REALLY need help with this-SOON.English Teen (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. During the Parliamentary session of 1673 objections were raised to the proposed marriage of James, Duke of York, brother of the King and heir to the throne, to Mary of Modena, an Italian Catholic Princess. An address was presented to King Charles on 3 November, foreseeing the dangerous consequences of marriage to a Catholic, and urging him to put a stop to any planned wedding '...to the unspeakable Joy and Comfort of all Your loyal Subjects." Wilmot's response was Signior Dildo (You ladies all of merry England), a mock address anticipating the 'solid' advantages of a Catholic marriage, namely the wholesale importation of Italian dildos, to the unspeakable joy and comfort of all the ladies of England!

You ladies all of merry England

Who have been to kiss the Duchess's hand,

Pray, did you not lately observe in the show

A noble Italian called Signior Dildo?...

A rabble of pricks who were welcomed before,

Now finding the porter denied them the door,

Maliciously waited his coming below

And inhumanly fell on Signior Dildo...

And so on and so forth! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Female hysteria on the loose, methinks. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that this answer has been added to the Dildo article, but the poem really warrants its own article (hint, hint, Clio). Does anyone read Rochester nowadays for anything other than this poem? --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do; I have the Yale edition of his complete poems. I simply love his sarcastic wit, a wonderful window into some of the attitudes of Restoration England. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam god's Kingdom

What does Islam say about Christianity's God's Kingdom? Does it say in the Qur'an and is there a Friday sermon about this God's Kingdom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 13:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mosque links to salah which is the practice of praying five times daily, but that article makes no mention of Jannah, which is the Islamic heaven. Jumu'ah is the communal Friday prayer, preceded by a Khutba, which seems to have as much freedom of scope for the preacher as any other religion. So I doubt they specifically address the Christian idea of heaven very often, they probably place more emphasis on follwing the five pillars of Islam in order to be rewarded with a place in Jannah. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that not all Christians equate 'The Kingdom of God' and 'heaven'. Many consider the Kingdom of God to be an earthly kingdom (as in Christendom) that transcends political boundaries. The realm of Islam may be analogous to this, but I'm not familiar enough with the Qur'an to be able to comment on that. Steewi (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See Kingdom of God and in particular Kingdom of God#The Kingdom of God within Islam.  --Lambiam 10:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't think of that. I guess that the Islamic equivalent would be the caliphate then, at least for some denominations. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

What does Islam say about the Evolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

From objections to evolution "Islam accepts the natural evolution of plants and animals, but the origin of man is contested and no consensus has emerged". So it's not a huge topic in Islam like it is in American Evangelical Christianity. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Except in Turkey, which is the country with the highest percentage of people rejecting evolution. (2nd place is United States).--Goon Noot (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Armageddon

What does Islam say about Armageddon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See Islamic eschatology, it seems pretty similar to both Judaism and Christianity, which isn't that suprising as they are all Abrahamic religions. So basically they think there will be a judgement day when all sinners will be cast into Jahannam and all devout souls will be rewarded with admittance to Jannah and the presence of Allah. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Princepality of Hut River passport holder

Dear Friends! I am a responsible person from the Principality of Hutt River. I want to ask you a few questions: 1. If PRH is the part of Australia, why PRH is exempted from the taxes levied on the Australian Nationals? 2. If PRH is the part of Australia, why HRH Prince Leonard is not convicted for issuing the currency and passports? 3. If PRH is the part of Australia, why we are receiving letters with the stamps of PRH? Is there any other state or province of Australia that is using its own postal stamps? 4. If PRH is not taken seriously in the world why and how we are traveling on the passports of PRH? I would like to upload the image of the letters (with stamps) sent by PRH to Spain to show to all of my friends. If permitted, I would also show the visas issued on my passport. I'll be thankful if anyone helps me uploading the images, please. I would be happy to see a healthy critic about our Principality. If we have not moved fast, it is not because of our legality, it is because of our lack of resources. But we are sure that we'll get the recognition in this decade. Thanks to all.

Move here by Cameron on behalf of anon.

Perhaps viewing the article Principality of Sealand would answer some of your questions? --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And then there is also the Principality of Hutt River. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He/she was already seen that one...he/she originally posted this comment on that talk page but I moved it here as I thought the questions were rather more likely to be answered here = )...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And the answer to the actual questions are;

1, It isn't. [7]

2, Because there are no laws in Australia against making your own coins or passports.

3, Because you got lucky - it's not unusual for letters to be delivered despite not having legitimate postage, especially internationally.

4, Because you're not traveling "on the passport", you're travelling on the visa that's inside it.

FiggyBee (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But what government would issue a visa when presented with an unrecognised passport? --Kvasir (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Visas are issued based on a whole range of identity documents and personal information, so you're right, no-one's going to get a visa based on a HR passport alone. A passport is merely an identity document, it doesn't provide any right to entry or travel in its own right. FiggyBee (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hutt River Province is ambiguous in its relationship to Australia. Its denizens (including Prince Leonard) do not consider it to be part of Australia, and therefore do not trouble themselves with taxes, etc. I suspect the Australian government is not worried about the status of HRP and prefers to lose some taxes rather than create a controversy over HRP's secession from the Commonwealth of Australia. Steewi (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The sovereignty of an entity does not depend on being recognised by just one other country. Even if Australia were to recognise the government of HRP (which is almost impossibly unlikely, since the Australian government is constitutionally prevented from unilaterally recognising a secession from within its borders; at a minimum, s.123 requires that for any state's borders to be changed in any way: the people of the state must agree at a referendum; the state parliament must agree; and the Federal parliament must agree) there's still the rest of the world to consider. A few other countries might fall into line, but whether it would ever get the critical mass of countries necessary for it to be generally considered a separate country is ultra-hypothetical. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Murdoch and Canetti

Your page on Iris Murdoch says nothing about her relationship with Elias Canetti. I would like to know why he turned against her towards the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codliveroil (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A Google search turns up a number of reviews of Party in the Blitz.—eric 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You will find much of the detail in Iris Murdoch: A Life by P. J. Conrad (Harper Collins, 2001). Elias Canetti lived in England for nearly forty years, seemingly hating the experience. In his resentment he turned on Iris Murdoch, with whom he had had an affair, seeing in her all of the perceived faults of the country. She was, in his eyes, a 'complete Oxford parasite'. She dressed badly, her figure was wrong, she was promiscuous, bisexual and religious. She was a person who had enjoyed 'vulgar' success, in novels that were far too Oxonian, with characters who were merely caricatures of her friends and pupils. She was, unlike him, an illegitimate Poet or Master of Transformation. And so his memoir continues in this sour and silly tone. At one point he uses literally hundreds of words to criticise a revealing blouse she wore to attract Sir Aymer Maxwell, who, though homosexual, was grandson to a Duke of Cumberland.

It all reveals so much about Canetti's character. It also, perhaps, reveals some lack of judgement on Murdoch's part in ever entering into a relationship with such a shallow egoist. As far as I am concerned his writings, both his fiction and his non-fiction, are amongst the most grossly overrated of the last century. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

resemblance

erm, i was reading Innocent today, and i strongly feel that there is a resemblance. 82.43.201.36 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be the straight guy. (I was going to say, "I'll bite", but feared someone would draw an unwarranted conclusion from that expression about my attitude to this "newcomer.) So, "resemblance" to what? And what is your question? ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody needs to suitly emphazi. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We can all merely guess, but in case you are referring to Innocent X, more specifically to Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X, then the model himself agreed and noticed the resemblance too; he purportedly said his portrait was "troppo vero" (too truthful). Or did you mean the resemblance between Bacon's Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X and its model? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Feeling a semblance with the screaming popes? This sounds like 45 inquisitions for medical advice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

resembling

The above question made me think of one too: which things most resemble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.13.205 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(I feel more like I do now than I did before I read that question.) Edison (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The things that have most in common? From Resemblance there's analogy (this stands for that) and similarity is some degree of symmetry... in ... resemblance between two or more concepts or objects. You get to pick which objects and notice which qualities they share that brings them close to each other. There's also difference, sameness and equality. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A duck: one leg is both the same.  --Lambiam 11:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Orley Farm

in what way does Anthony Trollope use his novel Orley Farm to examine the debates surrounding the emancipation of women in victorian society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.236 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as our guidelines dictate: 'Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first.' The best place to start is reading the book first and then our articles on Orley Farm, Anthony Trollope and Women in the Victorian era. If you're still stuck, come back to us... Lord Foppington (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Orley Farm, Trollope's first serialised novel, was published in the early 1860s, a time when the question of women's rights was becoming ever more topical. Four years before he started writing a woman had been refused permission to sit the examination for the University of London's medical, diploma. The debates issues like this engendered are reflected in the novel by the likes of Lady Stavely and Mrs Furnival, who take a conservative view. According to Mrs Furnival 'women ought not to have any spheres', an opinion attacked by her daughter and by Lucius Mason, who argues that the mind of a woman 'is equal to that of a man', and that 'they ought to make themselves careers as brilliant.' Clio the Muse (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've clearly been on the internet too long. I read that as ORLY? Farm and imagined that owl saying it.Snorgle (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Master Slave Dialectic

Could you please explain Hegel's master slave dialectic to me? I'm completely lost. P. S. Your article does not help.Caroline Finkel (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Master-slave dialectic is one of the central arguments of The Phenomenology of Spirit. Yes, I know it's not easy, Caroline, but it might help if you substitute 'individuals' for Hegel's somewhat perplexing usage of 'self-consciousnesses'. Looking at it from this perspective, then the idea to hold on to is that each individual requires another to establish full self-awareness. What is required from the other is acknowledgement or recognition. The integrity of my self-consciousness (not, I stress, to be mistaken with embarrassment in strict English usage) is threatened by the existence of another who refuses to acknowledge me as a person.

It is this mutual relationship that is complicated in the relationship between master and slave, a relationship of domination and dependence; it is the division, in other words, between the ruler and the ruled. In this relationship the master would seem to have everything: he has both the subservience of the slave and the fruits of his labour. But what of his need for acknowledgement? The master acknowledges the slave, true, but it is the acknowledgement only of a 'thing', not an independent consciousness. In this unequal relationship the master has failed to achieve the acknowledgement he requires. The slave, too, lacks adequate acknowledgment; but he transforms and shapes the external world by his labour. He achieves permanence in labour, not the merely temporary gratification of the master. In this process he becomes aware of his own consciousness; for he has created before him something meaningful and objective. In this he discovers the nature of his own mind.

I'm all too well aware that this might still sound horribly complicated, but it's almost impossible to make it any simpler. There are some good basic guides to Hegel I could recommend, if you wish to take the matter further. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Hegel is trying to set up the labouring class as a slight variant of the noble savage, ennobled by his toil. Such a philosophical stance would certainly suit the interests of the nobleman, who can go on enjoying his elevated social status while holding the ludicrous idea that their peons are the lucky ones. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too? Vranak (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio the Muse. Yes, I think I understand. Could you please tell me if Hegel offers any resolution to this problem? Caroline Finkel (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

His argument starts to become just a shade, just a shade, less abstruse, Caroline, as the Phenomenology starts to deal with real historical situations. There is a discussion of Stoicism, a philosophy that could embrace the master in the shape of Marcus Aurelius, on the one hand, and the slave in the shape of Epictetus, on the other. It is in Stoicism that the slave, who has achieved self-awareness in work, can achieve a more complete type of freedom in withdrawal from the immediate conditions of existence into deeper forms of consciousness. In other words, the Stoic in chains is free because the chains no longer matter to him.

The problem here is that thought, cut off from the real world, is ultimately barren of any real substance; so the spirit moves on, through successive stages of existence and experience. If you intend to read the Phenomenology, or are reading it, there are huge passages here that you could quite happily skip, though there is an interesting discussion of forms of society based on laissez-faire economics, where Hegel's critique comes very close to that of Karl Marx. Just remember that the central idea to keep hold of is that the mind or the spirit, if you prefer, is moving towards ever higher forms of consciousness, with freedom as the ultimate goal. The French Revolution, then, becomes the climax of history, the stage where the mind achieves a state of absolute freedom.

So, there you have it: history is simply the arena in which the spirit achieves full consciousness of itself. The whole thing is highly abstract, almost impossibly so. There were those like Marx who were to turn Hegel's wordy speculations in a much more historically concrete direction, in concepts like alienation and class-struggle. What do I think? What can I say other than to offer you the following observations of a far greater thinker that dear old Georg;

If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.

Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus [...] scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right. On the Basis of Morality

Stay clear of the madhouse! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio. I shall do my best!Caroline Finkel (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must say that there are others with different evaluations of poor old Georg's works' worth and non-nonsensicality. One that is probably unfamiliar to most (all?) in the humanities is this chap's repeated observation that Hegel "completely anticipated" his best buddy's greatest hit, for which I refer to Hao Wang's last books. At your own risk, Enter the Madhouse!John Z (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels II

Hey, Clio, thanks for your very full response to mt last Magda question. Can you tell me at what point in the war when she stopped believing in a German victory and confessed as much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first intimation that she knew what was coming was probably Christmas 1944, when she said to her secretary 'Next year there will definitely be peace.' The secretary later reported having a premonition that Magda was telling her that she would not be alive by the time Christmas came again. The most open confession that it was all coming to an end was made on a visit to her friend Ello in February 1945. Ello, full of concerns for the future, sought reassurance from Magda, who filled her with the usual comforting assurances about 'miracle weapons'. However, later that day a care-worm Magda asked Ello to sit down beside her, saying;

I have to tell you something. I lied to you this afternoon, I told you about the miracle weapons that will be coming soon...it's all nonsense, just some fraudulent rubbish that Joseph has cooked up. We have nothing left, Ello...total defeat is barely a matter of weeks away.-We're all going to die, Ello...but by our own hands, not by the force of others. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Youngest age of legal marriage -- how real was this

What is the youngest age that individuals can or could marry? I will restrict this by saying: now, or in the latter half of the twentieth century, and not within Islamic marital jurisprudence. For example, I believe that before the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976, the minimum age for matrimony in Quebec was very low (can anyone confirm that it was 12 for girls?), and one of the planks of the PQ's election was to reform all sorts of old laws relating to women's rights. (And, incidentally, our article says they were the first in North America to enact sexual orientation equality legislation.)

Secondly, a question for statisticians: taking any of these low-minimum-jurisdictions (once our legal historian friends come up with some), how many people actually got married that young? Was it one in a hundred or one in ten thousand marriages? How many years older was the other spouse on average? And is there any way of telling how many of these child-brides were pregnant? (ie how long between marriage certificate and birth certificate). I assume this is available in government records almost anywhere in the world -- this info will be on the various certificates. Whether it has ever been collated I have no idea. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There mention of 12 here[8] if it helps. A world-wide table for age of consent here[9]. cheers , Julia Rossi (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Julia, thanks muchly for the parliamentary overview, which refers repeatedly to it having been an "indictable offence for any male person to have sexual intercourse with a female under 14 who was not his wife", which grammatically assures us that there must have been wives under 14. When this changed I am not clear. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Value added tax

I'm in the UK. If I buy a book from a bookseller in the UK I pay 17.5% VAT to HM Treasury. Well actually I pay the bookseller and the bookseller pays the treasury.

However, if I buy the same book from the USA I pay no UK VAT. But does the bookseller still have to pay VAT to the US Treasury? (and therefore is it included in the price I pay?)

• If yes is this a different rate?
• If not doesn't this mean that the US can undercut UK prices, and vice-versa?

what's the point in that? I am not a dog (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the UK books are zero-rated for VAT (ie VAT=0%). In the US, sales tax is applicable on a range of goods, with varying rates between states. Taxes such as this can often be claimed back on exports. For example, UK airports will provide desks to claim back VAT paid on goods being taken out of the country, but some of these might then be liable for customs import duties at the destination port. The average individual is rarely bothered by such taxes when buying goods around the world, figuring that what they lose on the swings they gain on the roundabouts, but businesses employ tax accountants to work out the most cost-effective way to manage taxes on imports and exports. Some retail companies are set up to make the most of tax undercutting, such as www.amazon.co.uk which sells and distributes DVDs from Amazon Jersey. Gwinva (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In Canada, where VAT is called GST, you pay it on things you import into the country as well as on things you buy. I don't like mail-ordering stuff, but I have had it happen that I bought something from a US source, and the shipment was sent to a customs broker who notified me of the duty (if any), the GST, and a service charge (about $10) for collecting it. I made my payment and the package was delivered to me. If the UK does not have similar arrangements I would be surprised -- but this is not to say that every package on which tax could have been collected actually has it happen. --Anonymous, 00:14 UTC (edited 00:19), April 10, 2008.

US-based online retailers generally do not assess state sales taxes. Almost certainly, they don't assess VAT for the UK. It so happens that in my state (Massachusetts) buyers are legally liable for the state sales tax and are supposed to keep a record of online purchases and pay the cumulative tax at the end of the year. I would think that if the UK does not collect customs duties or VAT on imports from online retailers, it may require purchasers to pay such duties on their own. You might check with a tax accountant. Marco polo (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The tax on out-of-state purchases that Marco refers to is called a use tax and is commonly on the books of states that have sales taxes. However, in practice, it's completely unenforceable as far as individuals are concerned, and few people report their use tax to their states. Online retailers are increasingly collecting sales taxes under voluntary agreements with states. As mentioned above, countries typically allow tourists to reclaim their VAT/GST when they leave the country under certain conditions; however, your home country may charge duty on the items you buy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Imports to the UK via the postal system are indeed theoretically liable to VAT and/or various other duties. The value of a package is declared on the C100 customs label (previously the C1 label) fixed to the package by the sender, allowing HMRC to assess what is due without opening the package (although they retain the right to do so). However, when the declared value is below a certain value (last time I looked, a few years ago, it was £18) it is considered uneconomic to collect the VAT/duty and the package will be delivered as normal. When duty is payable, the carrier - Royal Mail, DHL, UPS, or whoever - will require payment of the tax (plus their own fees for collecting and processing the tax) before they will deliver. The moral of the story is to order lots of small packages rather than one big package, with the caveat that if HMRC open a package and discover an invoice that says it's "part x of y" of a delivery and quotes the overall price of the order, then they'll assess VAT on the value of the complete order (I know, it's happened to me!). For many years there was an anomaly where products physically delivered were VAT-chargeable, but products delivered intangibly over the Internet (e.g. software) was not; this was resolved a few years ago by EU directive, which required companies supplying over the net to register for VAT in at least one EU country (usually Luxembourg, since it has the lowest VAT rate). -- Arwel (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hence, if you order several DVDs through Amazon Jersey, they will each be processed, invoiced, and packaged as a separate order. Gwinva (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshire Ridings

What exactly is the meaning of a riding and why was it applied to these historic areas? Simply south (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For starters see Riding (division). --Anonymous, 00:16 UTC, April 10, 2008.

April 10

Stories within stories

I remember once reading several stories in which the characters tell each other stories. They were all by the same author. Does anyone know who I might be thinking of? Thanks ahead of time. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Canterbury Tales? Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall them being about pilgrims. If I remember right, I think that one of them was about merchants on a desert trade route. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

However, I may also be wrong and they may not all be attributed to the same author, but just grouped together. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Thousand and One Nights? That's not really by one author though. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My first thought (stopped by quadruple edit conflict) was The Decameron which includes at least one tale of the desert as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1001 Nights does include plenty of stories about merchants, and many nights involve someone telling a story about someone telling someone a story. They're all portrayed as being the stories of one woman, too. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It definitely was not the 1001 Nights. I know this because there were several books in that collection. The stories I read were in one book. While the ones from 1001 nights were in an entirely different one. Also, non of the stories had 100 stories within stories in them. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

99.226, on a point of information The Canterbury Tales are told by pilgrims; they are not about pilgrims. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So they're real pilgrims, and not pilgrims in the story? Or is it that they're fake pilgrims in the story who are telling stories to other fictional pilgrims for the sake of connecting the stories? But I suppose it doesn't matter. Because it's not the canterbury tales. XD 99.226.39.245 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And if we haven't yet delivered what you seek, see also the articles on frame story and story within a story for more literary examples. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As proof of the obscure nature of this story these stories, I haven't been able to locate in the articles.99.226.26.154 (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To briefly explain the Canterbury tales, it's the story of a band of pilgrims who tell each other stories along the way. These stories are narrated by one of the characters, but have characters all of their own, and Chaucer interjects quite often to make points about the tale-telling characters. It might be worth looking at story within a story to see if the one you're looking for is in there. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, the story is not to be found in the articles. Thanks for the suggestion, though. 99.226.26.154 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple which haven't been mentioned, and aren't in those articles are the Heptameron and Melmoth the Wanderer (which takes story within a story within a story ... to ridiculous lengths; a favorite of Wilde and Balzac, though probably not what you're looking for)John Z (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Several dozens or even hundreds years newer is Arthur C. Clarke's Tales from the White Hart. --LarryMac | Talk 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a horror story or only half(three quarters) finished, and there was no science fiction involved.99.226.39.245 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly either If on a winter's night a traveller or The Castle of Crossed Destinies. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dual county seats

Most counties in the United States have one county seat, including all the counties in at least 45 states. Arkansas is the big exception: it's got (I'd estimate) at least a dozen counties with two seats. Any ideas on why this is? Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The county seat article says that "The practice of multiple county seat towns dates from the days when travel was difficult." Particular instance may also have other historical reasons - in a similar circumstance, the country of the Netherlands has an interesting situation where Amsterdam is technically the capital, but The Hague is where the government is (see Capital of the Netherlands). -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian County is a special case, for a few years after it's creation the county seat was moved back and forth between Fort Smith and Greenwood as rival political factions attempted to assert control of the county government. A later compromise allowed for the creation of two districts, which is specifically mentioned in Article 13 § 5 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution. Writers' Program of the Work Projects Administration in the State of Arkansas. (1941). Arkansas; a guide to the state. p. 146. OCLC 882129. Twelve Arkansas counties have two county seats, but all have the same county officials. The two districts in Sebastian have each their own county courts and quorum, and are essentially separate counties. Wager, P. W. (1950). County government across the Nation. p. 532. OCLC 502998.—eric 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That may have been the case at one point, but a perusal of the Sebastian County website ([10]) reveals that it now has a single quorum court (county legislature). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the Arkansas Supreme Court stopped the practice of maintaining two separate quorum courts in Robinson v. Greenwood District, Sebastian County Quorum Court (1975). This 2006 Attorney General opinion speaks to what is or is not a "county seat" in Arkansas counties with two judicial districts.—eric 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline Prices

I was wondering the other day if all major oil companies in the U.S. have some sort of agreement to keep their gasoline prices within a certain amount of each other. I have never seen gas stations compete by attempting to charge lower prices, and this does not make a great deal of sense to me as almost no one i have known personally prefers a brand of gasoline over any other and everyone is mostly looking for the cheapest available. Wouldn't selling gas 30 cents cheaper than all the surrounding stations easily create such a high demand for your gasoline that the 30 cents could be easily offset? Thank you for your time, i greatly appreciate it. 24.88.103.234 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Timmy

In most parts of the United States you will find gas stations that sell gas for 30 cents more than the lowest price in their area. These are typically service stations that aim to make money on repairs and the like rather than gas sales. Then there is a large group of stations with prices all within maybe 5 cents of each other. The reason why they are all within that range is that they are charging a price close to their cost. The lowest-priced stations may be charging 1 cent or less above the cost of providing the gas. They are hoping to make money on volume and on sales from their convenience stores. It would be impossible to charge 30 cents less than the lowest-priced gas stations without losing money on every fill-up. The cost of gas in a given area is virtually the same from one oil company to another. This is so because the wholesale price of gas is essentially set on a global market. The cost of delivering gas to a given metropolitan area is virtually the same for every company. Then, there are uniform gas taxes charged in any given state. Marco polo (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] No firm source for my thought, but I think I've read somewhere that gas stations make almost no profit (like 1¢ or 2¢ on the gallon) on the gasoline itself anymore. My father has spoken of fierce price wars before the 1973 oil crisis, so I'd guess you, like I, am simply too young to remember such a thing. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen gas wars in the U.S. years ago where competing stations across the street from each other were lowering the price reactively to stay cheaper than the competition, clearly selling below cost, with cars lined up to take advantage. It sometimes dropped to half the regular price. Edison (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting stuff! 24.88.103.234 (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Timmy

Wouldn't any price-fixing agreement constitute a cartel, and wouldn't that be illegal even in the US? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and yes, but "even in" the US? --LarryMac | Talk 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nyttend is correct that the end marketer (the corner gas station) typically makes only a few cents per gallon profit - by far their greater profit margin is on things like twinkies and bottled water. If any station today could sell at 30 c under the typical rate in an area, they would run out of product far quicker than they would reap any profit by virtue of increased volume of sales. There is certainly no agreement among companies to set prices - most retailers, even biggies like Exxon, must purchase (on the open market) much of the oil they refine into gasoline, because they cannot come close to refining enough from their own production to accommodate the demand at the gas station - so they sell it at whatever price they must to make that tiny profit. Generally, that will be about the same amount for everyone in a region. The price is "set" by supply and demand for the most part (daily fluctuations in oil price reflect jitters and emotions on the part of market traders, but the general range of price reflects supply and demand.) Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several states that mandate a minimum gas price. [11] With the charge for each credit card transaction, some stations loose money selling gas. [12] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts: retail gasoline in the U.S. (and probably many other countries) is highly price competitive. Few other products advertise their price to the tenth of a cent on large roadside signs. The consumers are already in cars, so driving down the road for a cheaper price is not much of a burden. Anecdotally it seems that consumers are extremely price sensitive, at least in deciding where to buy their gas, with many consumers sometimes driving miles out of the way to save as little as a nickel per gallon (not realizing they're losing any savings in increased fuel usage). It's no wonder retail gas profit margins are razor-thin. --D. Monack | talk 14:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, I always wonder why, when I see two stations across the street and in plain view of each other with differing prices, why the more expensive one still does great business. There are three stations on at my corner, with the convenience-store-brand being reliably cheaper--sometimes by 10¢ or more--than the brand-name ones. The prices only change once or twice a week, with one brand-name always the most expensive, the other brand-name a little less, and the convenience-store "brand" substantially less. They clearly aren't competing on price alone. A few weeks ago, the spread was over 20¢, yet people were still filling up at the most expensive one. DMacks (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

J.J.J Tissot

I found a painting by J.J.J Tissot the title: A Spring Afternoon. My question is, was one of his series of paintings in reference to this one A Spring Afternoon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by April Correll (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just had to clarify for myself by clicking off that caps lock. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on James Jospeh Jacques Tissot. Unfortunately, I do not understand what your question is about. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tissot painted two works titled Spring: an oil on canvas in 1865 and an oil on panel ca 1878. The prints and posters titled A Spring Afternoon which are sold online and elsewhere are copies of Tissot's A Widow from 1868 (oil on canvas, private collection). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

William Essex (author)

I am trying to find information of William Essex. I have managed to find out some of the books he's written, but I need information on his life. Essex has written the book I'm doing a report on: The Pack. It was published in 1987. The only article I could find out about a William Essex was about a man who lived in the 16^th Century. If somebody knows of a site or article I can look at with information on the Essex I'm researching, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.133.228 (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You could try a search on "John Tigges", which seems to be his real name, but I could not find a biography under that either. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk/Humanities in libraries (WorldCat catalog) -Arch dude (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Iconic photograph

There's an iconic photograph that I've seen, but have absolutely no idea what it is of (in terms of specifics), or what it stands for; and it's kind of hard to search for, being a photograph. Anyway, it's of a man standing in front of 3 tanks preventing them from passing. Anyone who can point me in the right direction? Ta! AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article about it: Tank Man.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From most countries, if you search Google Images for "tiananmen square", versions of this photo are the top results. However, I am told that this is not the result obtained within the Great Firewall of China. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

statehood within the United States and ambassadors

Have U.S. states ever sent ambassadors (by whatever title) between themselves? Is or was there, for example, a Maine ambassador to North Carolina? Were there ever permanent legations or embassies between the states, at a subnational level? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Historically, no. There may be some equivalent to ambassadors in the Colonial period, where the pre-states did act as de facto nations. After the founding of US, no real equivalent in the legal sense. (Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii maybe an exception as they were true republics before becoming states in the US; other more powerful states such as California, which if it was a nation would be the 6th largest economy, may have offices.) On a side note, while many have compared the European Union to the United States, the comparison only goes so far as the US is a truly a Federal State as opposed to a Supranational state. And of course, Supranational states retain certain rights, such as to continually operate their own embassies, unlike states.

Other considerations: first, states are sovereign. This means that US citizens technically belong to both the state they reside and pay taxes in, as well as being American. States are their own operating entities in the Federal sense; e.g. they have their own state wide legal system that may have completely different from National legal standards (ex. Louisana's law system is based on French and Roman ideas as opposed to the Federal government's basis of English Common Law).

In the end however, history has taught us rather bloodily each state is inherently equal to any other but ultimately under the Federal Government so only the Federal government may operate embassies. It is also due to the legal implications of the Full Faith and Credit Clause as well as the Privileges and Immunities Clause, states traditionally did not, nor ever will have embassies in other states. Delegations maybe, satellite offices maybe, official visits maybe, but embassies no due to legal, financial, and lack of historical precedent among other reasons. Zidel333 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't prevented states from occasionally sending delegations (that are not embassies) to other countries, or other subnational entities. For example there has certainly been cooperation, and even treaties proposed, between the US states and the Canadaian provinces surrounding the Great Lakes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Article I of the United States Constitution says very specifically:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

-- AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, and thanks for all the links. "Delegations, satellite offices, official visits" sounds perilously close to quacking like an ambassadorial duck to me. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Help: What are the lyrics (in English) for the song "ARENA CALIENTE" by Torazinas?

Moved to entertainment desk.

I think therefore I am

In his dualist philosophy does Rene Descartes go so far as to suggest that the mind can exist independently of the body? Caroline Finkel (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Also of interest is this article.--droptone (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But what I mean is does the mind continue to exist in the event of the death of the body?Caroline Finkel (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As most of us on the reference desk are in a state prior to the death of the body, the best you can hope for is speculation, surely not a suitable method for encyclopedias.

Induction, however, is a notoriously problematic mode of reasoning, meaning that I can not exclude the possibility that some advisors on the RD have, indeed, passed away whilst maintaining some earthly networking connection.

Some other notoriously speculative hypotheses can be found under the entry on religion, life after death and the fate of the granny and Little Red Riding Hood.

The reverse question, "has the mind existed prior to the birth of a body", curiously enough, is infrequently pondered. Cookatoo ergo non Zoom. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again thank you. But it is not really your speculations, or anyone else's speculations, that I am interested in. Rather I would like to know if Descartes expressed a view on this problem?Caroline Finkel (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The important term in his noted quotation is not cogito, it is dubito. The citation is sometimes given as "Dubito, ergo cogito; cogito, ergo sum".

On the other hand, in his Meditations he attempts to prove God´s existence.. It is a moot point if the idea of God contravenes the "laws" of his methodological skepticism.

From my recollection, R.D. states that body and soul are distinct, potentially independent entities and postulates the possibility of a mind existing without a body. I cannot remember any speculations of his referring to an afterlife but I may be wrong, having read R.D. long ago (and only in parts).

I can only suggest studying his Discourse on the Method and Meditations for any definite references to his opinion. His books, as you may know, were banned by the Vatican (he remained a Roman Catholic till his death, despite living in the Netherlands and dying in Stockholm).

I apologise as I can not answer your question precisely. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Caroline, I offer you this from the Meditations on First Philosophy;

Next I examined attentively what I was. I saw that while I could pretend that I had no body and that there was no world and no place for me to be in, I could not for all that pretend that I did not exist. I saw on the contrary that from the mere fact that I thought of doubting the truth of other things, it followed quite evidently and certainly that I existed; whereas if I had merely ceased thinking, even if everything else I had ever imagined had been true, I should have no reason to believe that I existed. From this I knew that I was a substance whose whole nature is simply to think, and which does not require any place or depend on any material thing, in order to exist. Accordingly this I-that is, the soul by which I am what I am-is entirely distinct from the body, and indeed is easier to know than the body, and would not fail to be whatever it is even if the body did not exist.

In the end Descartes 'resolves' the whole problem of the mind-matter interaction by an act, it might be thought, of intellectual bad-faith; by saying that it is a mystery, only understandable to God.

Picture, if you will, the following images. There is a bewigged philosopher in a pensive mood. A bubble appears from his mind with a question mark. “Ah”, says the sage, “I think therefore I am.” The said philosopher continues in his pensive mood. Another bubble appears. This time nothing comes. A look of panic appears on the thinker’s face. The bubble only contains an exclamation mark. And then-POOF!-the thinker vanishes from the scene, wig and all! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Caroline, in response to your question about the mind existing after death, the answer, is, I believe, yes. As C.e.Z and Clio note above, Decartes was a devout Catholic, and God was central to his whole philosophy: God provided the certainty and assurance that everything held together. The idea of separating flesh (matter) from spirit (mind/soul) was not new in Christian thought, and although Descartes approached it from a different angle, his basic premises were the same: the mind (spirit/soul) is the true individual and exists and lasts outside of this temporal, material, world. Life exists after death, the soul will be united with God, the mind will find completeness within the ultimate knowledge (truth) provided by God ("now I know in part; then I shall know fully"). A mind that did not exist beyond death has little meaning in a Christian philosophy, and certainly offers none of the certainty Descartes was looking for. As to C.e.Z's speculating about the mind existing before the body, I have no idea what Descartes thought on that, but mainstream Christian thought holds that the individual exists before birth (and even, before conception, hence the Catholic concerns about contraception). Gwinva (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstanding, "now I know in part; then I shall know fully" is not a statement made by Descartes but one by Paul of Tarsus in 1 Corinthians 13:12 that became part of general Christian belief. It is interpreted by some Christians not so much as referring to life after death, but to the conditions that will arise upon the second coming of Christ (see Continuationism).  --Lambiam 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your responses. A particular thanks to you, Clio. That's exactly what I was looking for.Caroline Finkel (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Kiev

I've been reading about the Russian defeat in the 1941 Battle of Kiev. I would really like to know-not fully explained in your article-what acconts for the completness of the disaster, beyond the aggressive tactics of the Germans? Was there a failure of leadership, and if so was this local or central? Would a break out not have been possible? Is there nothing the Russians could have done to retrieve the situation? Thank you.Turnvater (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, standing back from the tactical details, the broader picture might be that the German army had not yet endured a Russian winter, while the Soviet army had not yet recovered from Stalin's purges... AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lieutenant-Colonel Albert Seaton in The Russo-German War, 1941-45 emphasises the orders of the Soviet High Command to hold the line of the Dnieper at all costs, and Hitler's diversion of the armour formations of Army Group Centre towards the Donets basin and the Caucasus.

The movement of von Schweppenburg's 24 Panzer Corps to the area of Starodub and Gomel and the destruction and dispersal of the divisions of Kuznetsov's Central Front were regarded by the Kremlin as an effort to outflank from the south Timoshenko's West Front and the Reserve Front, both of which lay one behind the other covering the western approaches to Moscow. The Soviet High Command was hardly at fault for its failure to appreciate the illogical thought processes by which the Führer had sent his panzer troops off at tangents to the obvious and shortest axis to Moscow. pp. 144-5.

According to Zhukov, he had advised a withdrawal even at the cost of the abandonment of Kiev on 29 July. The result was an angry outburst from Stalin, and Zhukov's replacement as Chief of General Staff by Shaposhnikov. Khrushchev would claim that he and Budenny asked permission to withdraw on 11 September, but the request was categorically refused by Stalin. Only Budenny was removed from his post. Khrushchev would also claim that Shaposhnikov ignored all warnings of the impending catastrophe, that he proposed a widthdawal again on the 16th, but that by the time Stalin agreed it was already too late. Seaton states that Khrushchev's account "is unlikely to be entirely true".—eric 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There was certainly a failure of leadership; and as Stalin had ultimate responsibility, the failure has to be his. But there is more than this; for Stalin was a politician, not a soldier. He had to trust the command of the Red Army; and he had to trust Semyon Budenny, a military dinosaur, whose moustache was far more impressive than his intellect or his judgement. Stalin wanted to hold the line of the Dnieper, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that he would have ordered a tactical withdrawal to the east if this was the advice given by all of his senior command; but Budenny said that he could fight it out in front of Kiev, and that he had at his disposal "formidable defensive positions."

It's also as well to remember that, even if a withdrawal had been ordered, it would have entailed huge risks in the face of almost total German air superiority. Budenny, moreover, had a huge force at his disposal-a million men-, who could have been expected to make the passage of the Dnieper very difficult for the enemy. But the whole thing was appallingly mismanaged. If Semyon Timoshenko, or Zhukov, or even Mikhail Kirponos, Budenny's subordinate, had been in charge, matters might have turned out differently. Instead the Red Army did nothing, as vital days slipped past. What could have been achieved with the right kind of aggressive leadership was shown by the 2nd Cavalry Division, with its daring probes on the flanks of Walther von Reichenau's Sixth Army. But local successes could do nothing to make up for Budenny, who stood transfixed, like a rabbit in the headlights. Heinz Guderian was allowed to advance with his tanks, uninterrupted and unimpeded, cutting across the rear of the Soviet 5th Army.

Budenny was eventually relieved, though by that time it was far too late. The situation was beyond retrieval. Permission was eventually given for a withdrawal, though only after Walther Model and Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist had closed the ring. By this point the Russians had neither the ammunition, nor the fuel nor the necessary co-ordination to attempt a break-out. The courage of the ordinary soldiers was extraordinary but in the circumstances, completely and utterly futile. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just from reading the article, the battle was a horrific defeat for the USSR. The USSR lost 163K killed an wounded and 450K captured, versus the Nazi 150K killed and wounded, for a 5-to-1 advantage to the Nazis. However, this was in reality a phyrric victory. The USSR could afford to lose at 5-to-1 to the Nazis, and the "winners" were also completely exhausted in the military sense. It does not really matter whether Stalin or his subordinates understood this. The USSR forces at Kiev delayed the Nazis until the beginning of winter, and this assured the defeat of the Nazis before Moscow. war in Russia is all about logistics. -Arch dude (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the Tolstoyan view of history! War is always about logistics; but it's also about people, in Russia as much as anywhere else. It is also about calculation and risk. In the opening stages of the Battle of Moscow the Germans destroyed the last significant Russian reserves in the European theatre. All that remained was the Siberian divisions, facing the Kwantung Army on the Manchurian border. On Richard Sorge's intelligence that the Japanese did not plan to attack the Soviet Union, Stavka took a calculated gamble in moving these units to the west. The German advance had certainly been slowed by poor weather conditions, though by the October thaw, rather than by winter's hardness. When the ground froze again the advance continued, though impeded by equipment failures and the tough resistance of the Soviet 16th Army before Moscow. Once the Siberians were in position, the counter-attack began. Winter did not defeat the Germans; Zhukov did. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing pyrrhic about the German victory at Kiev. It was complete and total. It destroyed almost the last of the pre-war Red Army in the West - as Clio said, the only other place there were trained soldiers was the Far East - and cost vast amounts of equipment. The Red Army lost over 600,000 men permanently, mostly dead or soon to die in German captivity. German dead and seriously wounded can hardly have been a tenth of that number, the rest, the great majority of the 163,000 casualties, would have been back with their units quite quickly. In round numbers, if we guess on 30,000 German permanent casualties, German permanent losses, compared to the total strength of the army in east, were about one frontline soldier in a hundred, while Soviet permanant losses were rather more than one sixth of the Red Army's frontline strength. Catastrophic doesn't really do the scale of the Soviet defeat justice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, Angus; it was arguably the most crushing defeat in world history. But for the Far Eastern reserves it's almost certain that the Soviet Union would have gone under. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just another point of view: Józef Czapski was a Polish officer captured by the Soviets in 1939 and recounts in his partial autobiography The Inhuman Land how the Russians were apparently quite content to abandon their matériel in the face of Operation Barbarossa but insisted in retaining their prisoners, death marching them away from the Germans. This is a very good read, by the way; Czapski's life was saved during this retreat when a fellow Polish prisoner, a doctor, recognised the early signs of hypoglycaemia, and surreptitiously passed him a sugar cube which saved his life (the doctor himself died shortly afterwards). In the book, however, Czapski himself marvels at the perverted sense of priorities which placed the preservation of prisoners above sensible defense and rational military priorities. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Browning and Strauss

Good afternoon. I would like to know, please, to what extent Robert Browning's poem "Christmas-Eve and Easter-Day" was influenced by David Strauss's "The Life of Jesus", an English translation of which appeared not long before its composition? Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.6.121 (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The third great aspect of Christian thought in 1850 which Browning dealt with in Christmas-Eve was Rationalism, and this point of view was represented by the lecture of the "hawk-nosed, highcheekboned Professor" in the university at Göttingen on ChristmasEve...the figure and the discourse mainly represent the German critic of the Scriptures, David Friedrich Strauss and his book, Das Leben Jesu, published in Germany in 1835. Browning's German was not adequate for reading the book in the original,...but read it first in the translation by Marian Evans (George Eliot) which appeared in the late spring of 1846.

DeVane, W. C. (1955). A Browning handbook. pp. 201-2. OCLC 165051290. The author cites Fnäulein Käthe Göritz, "Robert Brownings Christmas-Eve and Easter-Day und Das Leben Jesu von D. F. Strauss", in Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen 147:197-211 ( 1924) and Raymond, W. O. (1950). "Browning and Higher Criticism." in The infinite moment, and other essays in Robert Browning. OCLC 575969.—eric 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Browning fashions Easter-Day as a discussion between two voices, exploring, amongst other things, the nature of faith, how insecure it is, and how necessary God's help is in sustaining it. The simple fact is that the Victorian world was beginning to lose some of its past certainties in matters of faith and religion, a process that the publication of David Strauss's The Life of Jesus helped to accelerate. Browning was later to say "I know the difficulty of believing...I know all that may be said against it [the Christian scheme of salvation] on the ground of history, of reason, of even moral sense. I grant even that it may be a fiction. But I am none the less convinced that the life and death of Christ, as Christians apprehend it, supply something that their humanity requires; and that is true for them." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

Isn't it getting cross with each other over a name a bit silly. Why not name FYROM "North Macedonia", and then maybe the Greek side "South Macedonia". I do not expect any great offers of money for this brilliant insight that one is more north than t'other, but do so in the interests of humanity. I am not a dog (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a great article on this at Macedonia naming dispute, but after reading it the whole thing only seems slightly less silly to me. "Upper Macedonia" was suggested for FYROM but it "had invariably fallen foul of the Greek position that no permanent formula incorporating the term "Macedonia" is acceptable". Recury (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From the point of view of many Greeks, the name "Macedonia" was originally imposed by Tito as part of a communist plot to impose Communism on Greece and partition its territory, which resulted in years of fighting in which thousands of people died, and so is not especially "silly"... In any case, Greece has found "Slavomacedonia" acceptable for years now. AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Self identity

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but here goes anyway: in the article self identity, it says that this is the idea that "sentient beings hold for their own existence." Does this mean we exist for the sake of existing?--AtTheAbyss (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Define 'we' 'exist' and 'sake' :) Not being facetious; it's not really answerable without this. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Self identity begins thus: "Self-concept or self identity is the mental and conceptual understanding and persistent regard that sentient beings hold for their own existence." In simple words, this means: "Self identity" is a word for how people think about themselves. Well, I've tagged the article with {{confusing}}. Sandstein (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

persistent regard makes those sentient beings sound so self-centred. 130.88.140.110 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Persistent" refers to those cases where the awareness of your identity is subject is not subject to major discontinuity. It is not a confusing term, it is a necessary term. Some mental patients (possible some bipolar disorders et al) may NOT have a persistent awareness of their self.  ::::This, however, is unrelated to the query by the OP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you meant "is not subject to major discontinuity"? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the right place. I'm not surprised by your confusion, AtTheAbyss; the statement in question is devoid of all meaning and sense: it is quite literally nonsense. It is not even clear what is meant by 'sentient beings', if sentience is understood in the widest sense, to include non-human subjects. Do dogs hold a 'persistent-regard' for their own existence?! And in what precise way is the 'self-concept' different from 'self-consciousness', which, so this argument proceeds, 'is an awareness or preoccupation with one's self.' They would seem to me to be exactly the same thing! I can just imagine what Wittgenstein would have made of the woolly-minded assertion that the 'self' is based on the 'sum total of a being's knowledge and understanding.' Do you wake in the morning, does anyone wake in the morning, with the sum total of your being and understanding at your disposal?! Alas, I am the limit of the world, but I cannot draw a boundary round it, for to do that I would have to be able to step outside of it, which I cannot do! There is no I, no ego or subject, that stands alone in the world and sees and thinks and confers sense on what it sees and thinks. That wasn't me, guys; that was Wittgenstein! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I appreciate the help. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Financial Markets - Azerbaijan

Really random question but does anyone know anything about the stock market in Azerbaijan? Im trying to understand how many companies are listed there, what the market cap is, market cap/gdp, government bond market turnover and corporate bond market turnover for 2000-2006/7. I've been looking on bse.az but not getting anywhere so i thought i might as well have a stab at asking here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.251.12 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Azerbaijan stock exchange has a web site, presumably in Aziri. The article on the Baku stock exchange has a link to http://www.feas.org/Member.cfm?MemberID=6, which contains information which may be of use to you. I know too little of the subject matter to evaluate the data. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, http://www.bfb.az/index.php comes in English and Russian, as well. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Death of Bayezid I

we know no more about death of Sultan Bayezid after battle of Ankara? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enver M (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enver. Apart from the article on the battle of Ankara there is an entry on Bayezid I, which has some notes on his captivity on the Timurid court. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a lengthy article on Bayezid I at http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/imber.pdf, but it does not refer to his captivity in Aksehir. There is, of course, an article in the Britannica, but this requires a subscription (or a free trial), so I don´t know if it contains anything new. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Britannica article isn't helpful here. It's a short article and ends: "In a confrontation between Bayezid and Timur in Çubukovasi near Ankara (July 1402), Bayezid was defeated; he died in captivity." -- BPMullins | Talk 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Enver, the story of Bayezid's end is altogether more prosaic than that given by some of the more fanciful Ottoman accounts: he died of natural causes in March 1403 in the central Anatolian town of Akşehir, as you will discover if you ever consult the Reisebuch of Johann Schiltberger. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Legal Definition of a Public Space

Hi, to begin with I am aware of Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, and I'm not asking for legal advice here. My question is whether anyone can point me to any online legal codes or case law that may or may not be relevant to the legal definition of a public space in Canada (specifically Vancouver, BC). Specifically, I am interested in whether the outdoor, common land of a strata title (i.e. condominiums, apartment blocks) is considered public space, and to what extent "consuming alcohol in a public place" laws may apply. To reiterate, I'm not asking for legal advice or interpretation, I'm asking if anyone knows of any resources that might be relevant.

Thanks in advance, -24.82.140.138 (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that if you have to ask if something's OK, it probably isn't. Vranak (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As a guide, in Oz, the common land is managed by a body called the Strata Management which looks after the externals and the interests of the property. They would know the details if you ask about whether it's okay for people who own/rent the properties to do so in the common spaces. It's not okay for outsiders to just use the space, so it's common space, not public space within the grounds and environs, though this can be hard to police unless there's a specific incident and a complaint, afaik. If people who are residents want to hold a party near the pool say, as a courtesy they usually let others know re noise and how long it will go on for. Best to check with a management body. I get the feeling complaints need first to happen at the body corp level. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• BC statutes and regulations
• Vancouver by-laws -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, those references helped. -24.82.140.138 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pipeworks toy

When I was a kid (mid-1980s) I had a toy that I think was called Pipeworks. It consisted of PVC pipe with special holes drilled in it, and little connector pieces that you could use to snap them together (and a little plastic tool used to make them separate again). It came with some sort of book or manual with all the neat sorts of things you could make out of them (a chair! a slide! a car! a jungle gym!). It was sooo cool. But now I can't find anything about on the internet, and were it not for this blog entry that mentions them (and has a little scan out of said manual in the corner) I would doubt their name and existence.

Who made these? Where can I find information on them? Are they still made? Were they at all popular? If anyone can give me any information at all about them I'd be so happy. I spent YEARS playing with these things and now I can barely remember them. --140.247.240.182 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a little more searching, and I see they were made by Hasbro and even found a copy of the manual. Damn they were cool. --140.247.240.182 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh snap, there's even a Wikipedia entry on them. Playskool Pipeworks. Well nevermind then. I think the problem is that Google searches for "pipe works" when you search for "pipeworks" so unless you add the company name, nothing useful comes up. --140.247.240.182 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if you try those two searches (pipeworks and pipe works), you'll find that's not the case. You will see, for example, "Texas Pipe Works" in the first search, because their domain name matches your search string. There are ways to modify the search so that domain name matches don't come up, but I'm a little too lazy right now to hunt down that syntax. In any event, I searched for pipeworks toy and Hasbro was one of the first hits. --LarryMac | Talk 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You can sometimes force it by searching pipeworks -pipe-works. The - in front acts as NOT and the - connecting pipe-works makes it a phrase. But it is annoying when you know exactly what you want to search for and Google thinks it knows better :) My cousin had one, and I was very envious. Now I know what I was envious of. 130.88.140.110 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethics vs. Morals

What is the difference between ethics and morals? The article pages seem to suggest they are synonymous, simply two sides of the same coin, or related to each other like theory and practice (and here I've heard people call ethics both the theory and the applied practice, so that distinction in itself seems confusing). All this seems a little unsatisfying. To take as an example, some might say it is immoral to be sexually promiscuous, but it wouldn't make much sense to call sexual promiscuity unethical, or at least it doesn't sound right to my ear. Likewise, if I stole someone else's writings and then published them under my own name it would be easy to call that unethical, but immoral sounds wrong, at least to me. It seems like morality has to do with care for the self, whereas ethics have to do with care for others. What's going on here?--Beaker342 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall from my legal ethics course, ethics is a discipline of philosophy and tends to be concerned with abstract, rather general rules on how one should act, e.g., the golden rule. Morals, on the other hand, are a sociological or cultural phenomenon; written or unwritten community norms concerning correct behaviour. They are typically specific to a culture, civilisation, time and place; they also tend to be more concrete (e.g., what sort of clothing is considered decent). Indubitably, more learned folk than I will soon correct me. Sandstein (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds right, but then how do we account for people like Kant and Rawls explicitly calling their work Moral Philosophy? Here I'm apt to just throw up my hands and say the words have been hopelessly muddied and move on.--Beaker342 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the lines have blurred to the point that there's now a considerable degree of mutual overlap between what we mean by ethics, morals, principles and even values, so it's become reduced to a semantic question. (Anyone who disagrees with me has none of any of them, obviously.) The preceding parenthetical sentence isn't actually true, obviously. I was just highlighting that these are all personal matters, and what may in the doer's mind be ethical/moral/principled behaviour may not appear to be so to an observer, or any observer. I hesitate to mention his name, but if you asked Hitler about the moral or ethical basis of the atrocities he caused to be perpetrated, I'm sure he wouldn't just hang his head and plead utter absence of either; no, he'd go into interminable chapter and verse about why what he did was highly principled, moral and ethical, and of profound value to his nation. I trust you wouldn't ever be convinced, but that's not the point. I realise this may not be of even the slightest assistance in helping with the distinction between morals and ethics, assuming there is one any more, so I'll shut up now. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the article on ethics states "Ethics and morals are respectively akin to theory and practice."

Consider: Would you then call the categorical imperative a philosophical or a moral construct? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On the categorical imperative: I would not consider it necessary to have an either/or situation with philosophical and moral. Although my opinion is that Kant himself would have said that it was a philosophical construct designed to illustrate moral truths. Categorising it like that also depends on what you mean by a "moral construct". If you mean a rule/set of rules derived from morality, then it certainly is not that, but if you mean a statement designed to give moral guidance then it qualifies. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In my understanding, ethics are concerned with the best course of action because acting in such a manner will give you good results in the long run. Morals state behave properly or else. Ethics comes from enlightened self-interest, morals come from authority and fear of punishment. Again, this is in my understanding. Vranak (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to draw the line between morals and ethics, although I'm sure my answer will be far from definitive. Morals are essentially social, they are the process by which we distinguish right from wrong, right and wrong clearly being defined by society, context and tradition amog other factors. Ethics, or to put it better, ethical thought, is the act of attepting to define when something is moral, which is to say whether an action is right or wrong, inside of a coherent system. So I may say that "my actions were moral, based on my subscription to utilitarianism", or "my belief in Kant's ethical system leads me to believe that my actions were moral". So although it is a little more complex, Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM summed it up pretty nicely with the quote about theory and practice. Ethics is essentially an attempt to rationalise morality, and morality is basically the act of of identifying actions as right or wrong. They overlap a lot, and can be used as synonyms without much complaint, but they are seperate concepts. I hope that helps rather than making things more complicated 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The word ethics comes from ancient Greek; it is derived from the word ἔθος (ethos) meaning "custom". The word morals comes from Latin; it is derived from the word mos meaning "custom". This suggests that the distinction is originally not deep. One can distinguish the degree to which the use of these words involves a philosophical outlook or not. Another dimension is whether it involves principles stemming from an inner conviction of what is right and wrong, or rather external norms as determined by society or Church. The following summarizes my impression how these and related words are actually used:

• ethics (noun) — philosophical, principled
• ethical (adj.) — possibly philosophical, principled
• unethical (adj.) — usually not philosophical, principled
• morals (noun) — usually not philosophical, usually not principled
• moral (adj.) — possibly philosophical, usually principled
• immoral (adj.) — usually not philosophical, often not principled

 --Lambiam 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of death

I am trying to find out the date of death of a person for an article. He was born in 1887 and the last known record has him living in New Jersey in 1952. Any suggestions? --SpinningSpark 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Social Security Death Index. If he got a SSN, you know what state he probably died in, and he isn't named John Smith, it should do the job. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighting

I'm writing a graphic novel. I've finished the first chapter. Can I copyright the first chapter and protect the whole book at the same time? The reason I'm asking is because I need to show it to others to get advice before submitting it to a publisher. Particularly my writing coach. Thanks for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.18.174 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright in the United States automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship, which is to say your first chapter is already copyright, as presumably are the characters in the story. You cannot copyright something that has not been written; copyright is not of assistance in protecting the plot of your proposed book. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But although you're work is automatically your intellectual property you want a way to prove it was written at a certain date and thus be able to enforce your right if there is theft or unauthorized use of it (I wouldn't be too paranoid about it). You can register what you have written with a lawyer (or at least ask him for advice) for a fee or with something like the writer's guild of America or some such association that deals with graphicaly comical novels (also for a fee). I don't think mailing it to yourself registered post still works in court, maybe if its done properly (stamped post-stamps sealing the envelope) You're 1st chapter has to be pretty original for you to want to copyright it though since for any use of your drawings you're covered because you have the originals and can prove they are yours (e.g. your name on the top of the page). You only need to worry about someone stealing your plot or characters but then what an homage! Don't worry about it too much and good work. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Assuming you are in the US or in a country that is a member of the Berne Convention then you don't have to do anything to have your work automatically covered by copyright. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's automatic in Australia too, though international copyrights have to be sought usually. Afaik though, people still stand a better chance if they document whatever they have created (copies, images, CD etc) with logs, and mail it to themselves registered post, (which you leave sealed and file away) than being empty handed and on the back foot. You might as well do your best with precautions in the first place as a personal practice. The law likes concrete proof after all. Originality is moot, but authorship is something else. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

Ah, the poor man's copyright. I seem to have seen this come up on the reference desk a few times in recent months. Note that the article provides little reassurance in its actual effectiveness. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 07:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A better solution, IMO, than the standard poor man's copyright would be to scan the image as a TIFF and calculate a hash for it, and then post the hash all over the place wherever you can, and e-mail it to a bunch of people too (put it in your e-mail signature, even). You could easily prove that your original file was the source of the hash, and it shouldn't be too hard to rustle up witnesses to having received the hash if need be. You could even post the hash to your Wikipedia user page—it has a nice, firm timestamp (and if need be you could get someone involved with WP to write an affidavit saying that you would have had no ability to retroactively change the date). (I don't know if any of these solutions would hold up in a court of law, but in any case they aren't totally novel. Galileo used to do stuff like this to protect the priority of his own ideas; sending little encrypted bits to his friends and competitors so that later he could tell them how to decrypt it and they'd see he had it all along. I think a solution like this is much more sound than a poor man's copyright, because it involves so many more independent people.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, check this reputable explanation of copyright facts and myths and, (if you feel you must register the written chapter somehow), how-tos . Be aware there are copyright registration scams out there too. WikiJedits (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I found that confusing. Quote: Registration is a prerequisite for filing a copyright infringement suit, but it is not required for copyright protection. So without registration you can't sue someone who infringes your copyright. What kind of protection is that?

The argument that it is easy to fake PMC is also a bit weak. If you have an envelope with the flap along the long side, use the back side of the envelope as the address side and place the postage stamps such that they go across the lower edge of the sealed flap, and convince the postal clerk to put the postmark stamp also partially overlapping that edge, then it is very hard to open the envelope later and reseal it without visible evidence. With some kinds of envelopes – I don't know the name for the material, but it is hard to tear it – and self-adhesive stamps you have fairly tamper-proof evidence. Also, instead of addressing it to yourself, you can send it to a trusted party who keeps the sealed document for you, and who can testify under oath, if needed, that the envelope was received shortly after the postmarked time, and has not been tampered with.

I further wonder if, in the US, the services of a notary public can be used to facilitate establishing authorship.

See also Trusted timestamping, which, it would appear, can be used on a digitized copy.  --Lambiam 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to register to file the suit, but you can still sue over infringement that takes place before you registered (although you can only recover actual damages for that). --Carnildo (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Countering code talkers

In code talker:

Adolf Hitler knew about the successful use of code talkers during World War I and sent a team of some thirty anthropologists to learn Native American languages before the outbreak of World War II. However, it proved too difficult to learn all the many languages and dialects that existed. Because of Nazi German anthropologists' attempts to learn the languages, the U.S. Army did not implement a large scale code talker program in the European Theater.

Wasn't it easy to counter code talkers? Hitler could send some spies to Australia and the North and South Americas to hire native language speakers to Berlin under various wonderful excuses, e.g., circus performers, church activities, factory labors, ... anything other than language research purposes. By the time the U.S. entered the war, he could retain the language speakers and force them to help the Nazis. Did he do this?

Then how did the U.S. prevent the loss of language to the enemies? Did Uncle Sam monitor or control obscure native language speakers?

I think Nazi Germany didn't need to have strong language expertise to make it work. The remote possibility that they could understand one language could have forced the U.S. not to use that language. Owning a number of native speakers and maybe a little bluff (e.g., a radio message of a Cherokee saying hello to his people recorded during pre-war language collection) and luck could have forced the U.S. not to play this trick in the very beginning. Then, how could the U.S. play the same trick again? -- Toytoy (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing to remember about code talkers is that their communications were not just a direct in-language translation of the message content. There was a substitution which added another level of complexity "(the word for "potato" being used to refer to a hand grenade, or "tortoise" to a tank, for example) ... To an ordinary Navajo speaker, the entire code-talking "conversation" would have been quite incomprehensible, because the nouns and verbs were not used in the contextual sequence for conveying meaning within Navajo sentence structure." So even if Germany/Japan had someone who understood Navajo/Choctaw/etc., they would still need to figure out why the U.S. Army wanted to feed potatoes to their tortoises. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks to be a dubious claim in the code talker article. According to Kenneth William Townsend in World War II and the American Indian, the difference in employment between theaters was due to the success of the Marine Corps training and recruitment program, and the failure of the Army's.—eric 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I share Eric's scepticism here. Toytoy, this is a subject, I confess, of which I know little, but I would treat that statement about Adolf Hitler and code talking with extreme caution until such time as some definite and reliable support is forthcoming. It all looks so very Indiana Jones! The extensive use of Navajo code-talkers, in particular, in the Pacific theatre was because Philip Johnston, the son of a Protestant missionary, who grew up on a reservation, conceived the idea of constructing an unbreakable code on the basis of the Navajo language. His proposal came before Major General Clayton B Vogel of the Marine Corps, and was duly taken up. It was used in the Pacific theatre because, well, that is where the Marines did almost all of their fighting. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Many years ago, I have seen a number of pre-war Japanese anthropological reports in a research library. Japanese people have always been interested in their ancestry (as a race or a nation). Their scholars went everywhere in South East Asia to study the aboriginals. That is why when I heard the code talker story, I was kind of skeptical. Maybe you could fool them for a while, but their brightest minds could always solve the puzzle in a few more months.

I guess the code language shall only consist of a limited number of words. The change of grammar shall be irrelevant to a linguist who knows nothing about the language but armed with all study tools.

I think these codes were only used for instant decisions. If you can not solve the code in five minutes, you may take your time to enjoy an afternoon shower of 500 lb high explosive bombs. It would be too risky to use the code to transmit the placement of your navy fleet.

Did the U.S. really use any Native American language during WW I? -- Toytoy (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Choctaw code talkers were apparently used for a short period at the end of WW1 - see Choctaw#Code talkers (1917). My understanding is that code talkers were only used for tactical battlefield communications, in situations where there was not time to set up a more secure radio code. They also provided a check on the authenticity of radio messages, as a native speaker could easily tell whether or not they were talking to another native speaker. To counter this and respond sufficiently rapidly, the enemy would have to embed translators at company level, which would require hundreds of translators. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 5 of Simon Singh's book "The Code Book" deals with the use of Navajo code talkers. He quotes the official report on the original proposal "The Navajo is the only tribe in the United States that has not been infested with German students during the past twenty years." He continues "In Northern France during the First World War ... eight men from the Choctaw tribe (were) employed as radio operators. ... the Choctaw language had no equivalent for modern military jargon. A specific technical term in a message might therefore have to be translated into a vague Choctaw expression, with the risk that this could be misinterpreted by the receiver." For the Navajo code talkers, the complete original lexicon contained 274 words with specific military meanings, and less predictable words and phrases were spelled out using a phonetic alphabet based on English words translated into Navajo. (Alternatives were added for the most commonly used letters.) Another 234 common terms were added later. Before they were sent into operation, Navajo code speakers' transmissions were sent to an American Navy Intelligence unit, who had cracked the Japanese Code Purple. They reported that they "could not even transcribe it, much less crack it". The Navajo were to serve in all six Marine Corps divisions, and were sometimes borrowed by other American forces. Altogether there were 420 Navajo code talkers. It remains one of the very few codes that was never broken, as acknowledged by Lieutenant General Seizo Arisue, the Japanese chief of intelligence. SaundersW (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

April 11

Escanaba in da Moonlight

What is the first song in Escanaba in da Moonlight called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen it, but if you could provide sample lyrics, perhaps someone else might know which song you're talking about. (BTW, while I was doing a quick search for a soundtrack listing, I ran across a link to the album For Diehards Only by Da Yoopers - your song may be on there, or on another Da Yoopers album.) -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

John Yoo and the National Lawyers' Guild

What was the tally for the National Lawyers' Guild vote to sanction John Yoo, what exactly passed and what are the case numbers and judges of the two (more?) war crimes cases? Also, are the Berkeley kids sitting in in his office? 75.61.107.140 (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Corporate government

Hey guys. I was thinking about nationalisation, especially in Britain in the 1960s, and I wondered why governments don't run for-profit corporations. I can see there may be ethical issues due to regulation etc, but that could easily be curtailed by law. So why do governments not run the railways in the manner of a for-profit company, with the intention of decreasing the tax burden through use of revenue? I'm sure there are multiple reasons why this is unfeasible, at least to the extent that I would propose it, but what are these reasons? Thanks in advance. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Governments have run as a business (some still do). If you want to be positive about it, you can argue that letting the government compete with private industry is a conflict of interest since the government regulates industry. It will certainly have difficulty regulating itself. If you want to be cynical, you can argue that the government cannot compete in private industry as it has a long track record of over-managing everything to the point that it goes three times over budget and four times past due. -- kainaw™ 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See Crown corporations of Canada. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Governments frequently do that, often when they have ownership of a company they don't really want to control. For example the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was run as a trading fund for a while before it was (partly) sold off. The point was that the government didn't want to be running it, but no-one would have bought it in the state it was in initially. British Airways and British Petroleum were essentially run as for-profit organisations for many years prior to their privatization. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent BBC Radio 4 documentary on this called "Nationalise it!". It is available as a podcast [[13]]. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Norway are doing! The oil industry in those countries is nationalised and the huge profits are being spent on improving public services. Britain on the other hand prefers to spend its oil profits on CEO's wages :-) Cambrasa 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason that certain public services like public transport, healthcare and education aren't run for-profit is that the government wants to provide them at a cheaper price than the market clearing price. The justification being that a) the poor should have access and b) these services are merit goods that create positive externalities, ie. they benefit society as a whole and their macroeconomic benefits (such as a healthier workforce and avoidance of traffic congestion), outweigh the microeconomic costs incurred by running them at a loss. Cambrasa 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get the part about nationalisation, but why don't governments market military technology? Or research science that's government funded? The NHS must have at least some research being done by its staff, that could then be sold off in other countries and used to fund the NHS in the UK. Or the government could invest money in tourist industries or something. I don't know the economics of it but surely the government could run a competitive company alongside others. Or would that be too risky? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Governments do, or certainly did market military technology. The Challenger tank (UK main battle tank) was designed and developed in the first instance for the Shah of Iran by UK Ministry of Defence R and D, and built in a UK Royal Ordnance Factory, under the name Shir Iran. It became Challenger after the Iranian revolution left the UK govenment with no buyer. SaundersW (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Qinetiq 79.66.105.94 (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Poland and the Outbreak of the Second World War

Is there any way that the invasion of Poland in 1939 could have been avoided? Was there no possibility of a peaceful agreement between Poland and Grmany? What I am asking, in short, is there any way in which the Second World War could have been avoided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.104.193 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you have read Invasion of Poland (1939) and Causes of World War II. The Nazi Party had assumed power with a declared policy of obtaining Lebensraum to the east for the German people. The party's policy responded in part to German resentment over the loss of territory to Poland and the Free City of Danzig in the Treaty of Versailles. There was no way that this policy could be reconciled with Poland's territorial integrity. Germany's determination to provoke war with Poland was demonstrated by the Gleiwitz incident, which Poland could not have foreseen or prevented. Probably the only way that Poland could have prevented the invasion would have been to submit to Germany's territorial demands and to accept the status of a German vassal. Even if Poland had surrendered in this way, it is unlikely that World War II could have been avoided. One of Germany's major strategic goals was to secure access to a reliable supply of petroleum, most likely in the Middle East or the Caspian Basin. A subservient Poland's resources would probably have been harnessed for a drive to the southeast, which would inevitably have brought Soviet and/or Western military resistance. (Foreseeing such resistance, Germany might have first attacked France, as it in fact did after consolidating its eastern front.) Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the invasion of Poland probably could have been avoided-though possibly not the Second World War-if the country had acceded to German requests for the reincorporation of the Free City of Danzig into the Reich, along with an extra-territorial transit route through the Polish Corridor to East Prussia. There were those in the German government, most notably Herman Göring, who were anxious to reach agreement with the Poles.

Hitler met Josef Beck, the Polish Foreign Minister, and most important voice in the government, at the Berghof in January 1939, to discuss the outstanding issues between the two countries. But Beck was obdurate, saying that Polish public opinion would resist any further concessions on Danzig. After Joachim von Ribbentrop returned empty-handed from a visit to Warsaw later that month, Hitler's policy changed from one of friendly overtures to one of pressure and veiled threats. As part of this process the destruction of what remained of the Czech state was accelerated, with Slovakia being turned into a German puppet on Poland's southern flank. Hitler also gave final authorisation for the preparation of Fall Weiss, the plan for military action against Poland, to be implemented if diplomacy failed. It was the British guarantee to Poland, following soon after the German occupation of Prague, which made the Second World War not only inevitable but also determined its early shape and course.

It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if Beck had given way to German pressure. Poland would have certainly have survived as a nation-at least for the time being-, though in the German orbit, a fate surely better than what was to follow. Yes, it would have survived, even if only as a satellite; but it would have been drawn into a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Considering that the pre-war borders of Poland were dangerously close to Moscow, and considering also that the Poles would have been obliged to allow the passage of German troops through their territory, as the Romanians and other Axis allies were to do, it is possible that Stalin would have ordered some kind of pre-emptive attack on eastern Poland. In any event, it is almost impossible to imagine, given German ambitions in the east, that some kind of Second World War would not have happened. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Peace is a valuable and desirable thing. Our generation, blood-drained in wars, surely deserves a period of peace. But peace, like almost everything in this world, has its price, high but definable. We in Poland do not know the notion of peace at any price. There is only one thing in the life of men, nations and states which is priceless. And that thing is honour. — Józef Beck

And this why the invasion on Poland could not heve been avoided. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gorky story

Hello. I remember reading a story by Maxim Gorky in which one of the characters is called Help or Helping or Helpful, something like that. I've forgotten the title. Does it sound familiar to any of you? S Brake (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gorky's short story is called Chums, S Brake, the chums in question being Hopeful and Jig-Leg. You will find it in any edition of the Collected Stories of Maxim Gorky. My own copy is that edited by Avram Yarmolinsky and Baroness Moura Budeberg, published by Citadel Press. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

US recognition of a UDI before Kosovo?

Hello all,

As part of my interest in the former Yugoslavia, I've been following the events out of Kosovo. As we speak, the US has recognized the area and has opened up an embassy. This has lead me to wonder. Before Kosovo, when was the last time the US recognized a countries Unilateral Declaration of Independence? The candidates in my mind are Ireland, the Baltic states, and Rhodesia. However my reading of the Declaration of Independence (Ireland) article says the USSR was the only country to recognize. The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia) seems to say that no country recognized their UDI. The US State Department's Background Notes seem to interfere that the Baltic States were recognized after WWI and don't mention a UDI. So after this, I'm stuck. Thanks for any help. - Thanks, Hoshie 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoshie, when Indonesia declared independence from the Netherlands in August 1945 it was almost immediately recognised by the United States, though it took a four year struggle before the Dutch were willing to make a similar concession. I can't think of any other examples offhand, though I assume there must have been early recognition of the Republic of Texas in its UDI from Mexico. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel of course is a bit later, 1948, the only one where the USA is listed as the first recognizer in the table in Declaration of independence. But that doesn't seem to be the question. From the table there are a good number dating later, many from the breakup of Yugoslavia and earlier, the USSR. The latest is Montenegro in 2006, according to its article "Montenegro declared independence on June 3, 2006 making it the newest fully recognized country in the world."John Z (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Companies greater than GDP

If the worth of companies, owned fully or in part by the state (like banks), is greater than the GDP of the country, what is this the cause of, and/or the symptoms of? Scaller (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The worth of a company is its value, whereas the GDP of a country is (vaguely) it's income. So that would be like you owning a house that was more than your annual income. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Deterministic excuses

Existentialist believe that people are responsible for their behavior and consequently no deterministic excuses are allowed. However, how do existentialists deal with people that endured hardship, are taking drugs or suffer from some kind of phobia? Mr.K. (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself. I don't call myself an existentialist per se but I do believe in taking responsibility for your own life (or in modern American parlance, 'owning' a situation). So, to wit:

• Enduring hardship is a great way to build character, making your life richer thenceforth.
• Taking drugs: Andrew Weil#Medical philosophy is a good reference point, have a look.
• Suffering from phobia: This is just another form of hardship. Something to be overcome, that will make you a stronger and deeper person in the long run. Worst case scenario is that you'll only overcome such hardships by passing on, but there's no reason to think that death is something to be feared or avoided. Think of it as a fresh start by the obliteration of the present self. Although such a notion is unproveable at best, if it's a lie, it's a useful lie.

It's been said that the only unforgivable sin is boredom, and I tend to agree that boredom is the worst possible human condition. But if you're enduring hardship, taking drugs, or suffering from phobia, you're likely not bored. So things could always be worse! Although, as Nietzsche wrote, he who guards himself completely against boredom deprives himself of the most refreshing internal spring, or something like that. So really, in the end, it's all good. Vranak (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Vranak. However, I still don't have an explanation about how we can talk about choosing what we are if there are so many external factors influencing what we are. Some people don't have to endure hardship. Can they still build character? Mr.K. (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we all have only one thing: the present moment. Whatever problems or issues need addressing most urgently will be on our minds, in that moment. It's pretty much automatic to be moving forward. You had this issue of existentialism and free will on your mind so you came here to confer. Conferring with others is a good way to move forward. So is thinking things through with yourself. So is sleeping, and allowing your subconscious to plough forward. It's a piecemeal, long-term process. And even despairing and breaking down and throwing a tantrum all serve their purposes. Vranak (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Andrew Weil is a good reference point to talk about anything. He may be a alumnus from Harvard, he may be a physician, but he widely considered just a charlatan. WikiWiking (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Widely considered? I suppose you must be one of those who considers consensus gentium as good grounds for knowledge. I don't. Regardless, for an alleged charalatan, Dr. Weil sure makes some good oatmeal.[14]

Still, I am interested in knowing exactly who it is who considers Dr. Weil a charlatan, and how their interests are threatened by his ideas about health. No doubt anyone profiting from pharmacology (most researchers and doctors) would have reason to decry him as a charalatan, especially if what he says has merit. Regardless, the truth will out. Vranak (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

hmm, about Weil, I found a link on his talk page that states he endorses homeopathy, which is essentially an enormous con-job, and his page states that he believes "mainstream" (which is to say, real) medicine should only be used in a "crisis", and 'alternative' (which is to say, unproven) medicine should be used for "prevention and and health maintenance". So based on the fact that he is a promoter of folk remedies and psuedo-science, appears to promote conspiracy theories about the nature of pharmacuetical companies and even believes that mushrooms contain "lunar energy", it is fair to call him at best a charlatan and more likely a crank. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Vranak, you are right pointing out that consensus gentium is no good ground for knowledge. However, I didn't say that he is a charlatan because everybody says so. It is simply true that many consider him a charlatan. They must not be right, but believing in a sort of 'lunar energy' triggers my suspicious if this guy is a lunatic. Further reading doesn't help to steer me away from this position. If you come along some real discovery of him, I would, of course, reconsider what I said. WikiWiking (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Far be it from me to try to convince anyone who would put 'Andrew Weil' and 'charlatan' in the same sentence that doing so is in error. I'm sure Mr. K has looked at Dr. Weil's ideas about drugs and come to his own conclusions – that is my interest.

That said, Dr. Weil's ideas about mushrooms having 'lunar energy' is perhaps a little too cute to be considered acceptable, so I can see why professionals might be a little leary of him and his writings. Vranak (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never really been into the Satre school of existentialism myself so I can't say how they'd deal with it, but it seems that the conflict between environmental factors and self-determination can be resolved if one takes the view that the environmental factors are actually irrelevant to the creation of one's self. Not in the sense that they do not affect who you are, but in the sense that it is not what made you that it is important but what you make yourself that truly counts. Existence precedes essence may be a useful page. The important thing to remember is that in the eyes of the existentialist we are essentially able to escape the trappings of our birth and childhood and become the person we want to be. They may miss the point that the person we want to be is likely shaped by our childhood, but is our ability to transcend these difficulties that makes us human. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume, Mr K, that you must have been reading Existentialism is a Humanism? Though more accessible than some of Sartre's other philosophical musings, it is not necessarily the best introduction to the forms of existentialist thought. Remember, too, that existentialism is so much more than the thought of Jean Paul Sartre, and has roots going back well into the nineteenth century, not just in formal philosophical discourse, but in literature.

The important point to bear in mind about existentialism is that there are no pre-determined meanings, nothing that that can any way explain or shape the course of each individual life. The choice is not between determinism and responsibility, but determinism and freedom. Even people in the midst of hardship, or taking drugs or suffering from some form of phobia or mental illness, if you prefer, have choices to make, choices that are not predictable or preordained. Indeed, can you imagine anything less predictable than the life-patterns of many drug addicts? People in the midst of hardship or illness are also faced with the same existential dilemmas as anyone else, possibly even more, since they are confronted often with dilemmas that may expose the very roots of their existence

Let me give you some specific examples from pre-existential literature, of writers who anticipated the kind of arguments later to be made by the existential school. Consider the figure of Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. In the midst of hardships that carry him close to the threshold of starvation he makes a choice, a crucial choice, which opens up a whole series of possible alternatives. He does not have to murder the old money lender and her sister, but he does. He believes himself to be beyond conventional notions of morality, to be an incarnation of Napoleonic amorality; but he is not. By his actions, by his free actions, he is pushed deeper and deeper into paranoia, into a crisis of meaning and of faith. His only resolution is to accept that path towards his personal redemption is in suffering.

Take another example, again from nineteenth century Russian literature, this time from the work of Leo Tolstoy. In his novella The Death of Ivan Ilyich he depicts a character who is the exact opposite of Raskolnikov, a man who is successful and well-placed in the world; a man full of self-conceit and self-satisfaction. But that world in all its artificiality falls apart when Ivan Illych develops an unnamed terminal illness. Everything that was important before, even his own family, become hateful to him. In the face of this great crisis of existence his life appears to have had no meaning at all. It is only in confronting his mortality that he eventually achieves a deeper sense of understanding and acceptance.

Existentialism is not just how we perceive ourselves, but how we are perceived by the 'other', in a process, perhaps, of mutual shaping. Think of Gregor Samsa in Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis, who goes through stages of self-reappraisal and reappraisal by those around him; or the character of Meursault in Albert Camus' The Stranger, who seems to be carried along on a wave of indifference, only finding authenticity in himself in the face of death.

Returning now to Sartre-though I do stress that he an existentialism are not interchangeable-you might want to glance through Saint Genet, his account of the life Jean Genet. It is in this that you could find no better account of the way in which choices are made, and how they are conditioned by the worst forms of hardship, with outcomes that cannot always, if ever, be anticipated. The following passage I took entirely at random;

Remember the story of a child from the state orphanage fostered to brutal peasants who beat him and starved him. At the age of twenty he could not read, so they made him a soldier. When he left the Army, he had learned nothing except how to kill. So he killed. He said: 'I am a wild animal'. When they asked him at the end of the trial if he had anything to add, he said: 'The prosecutor asked for my head, and will doubtless have it. But if he had led my life, then perhaps he would be in my place and I, if I had led his, would be putting the case against him.' The court was appalled: everyone in it had glimpsed an abyss, something like a naked existence, undifferentiated, able to be anything and which, according to circumstances, became Hoffman, Solleilland or the Public Prosecutor-human existence. I am not saying that it is true: it isn't that judge who would become that criminal. But the argument carried weight and will continue to do so: he was pardoned, learned to read, did read and changed. But what is important in all this is the vacillation of the self that occurs when certain consciousnesses open before our eyes like a gaping maw: what we had thought to be our most intimate being suddenly takes on the appearance of something contrived.

We must indeed imagine Sisyphus happy. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Murdoch and Marxism

How could anyone as intelligent and sensitive as Iris Murdoch ever have been attracted to Marxism? It occurs to me her passage here might have been similar to that of Simone Weil? Would anyone agree with this? Codliveroil (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That depends - was the veiled assertion that Marxists are naturally thick-witted and insensitive deliberate, or merely the result of poor phrasing? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

With the experiences we've had in this century of Marxism and its detrimental effects, it is easy to say that it is a bad idea. But many of the most intelligent people ofthe early 20th century were attracted to Marxism, primarily because of the clear rich/poor divide and the awful working conditions in the very, very laissez-faire marketplace. Many people of the time, not just Marxists, did not realise the negative effects it would have on development, and as such thought that socialism or one of its many variants would provide a modern utopia for all its citizens. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of us are not so impressed with the workings of early 21st century capitalism and consider that Marx has some still-valid critiques, even if most of his predictions and prescriptions have been proven wrong. I'm not well versed in Murdoch's political positions, but I think that in her later years she tried to rescue the baby from the dirty bath water. Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, Codliveroil, Iris lived in a time, and belonged to an intellectual milieu, when to be a Communist was almost de rigueur; a moral reflex to the seemingly irresistible march of Fascism across Europe. Her fellow CPers at Oxford included the likes of Robert Conquest, later chronicler of Stalinist atrocities, and Denis Healey, a future minister in the British government. It might even be said this was a time when to be a Communist was indeed the sensitive and intelligent thing. But it could not last. Sensitive and intelligent people may have joined the Communist Party, just as sensitive and intelligent people had a tendency not to remain in the Communist Party. By 1945 she was reading Arthur Koestler, whose depiction of the cynical betrayals of Communism in Darkness at Noon helped cast light on her own intellectual darkness, as it did with so many others. Yes, her thought did begin to move in a more Christian direction, but not, I think, to the same mystical extremes of Simone Weil. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Overleaf

Is it okay to write 'overleaf' when referring to the next page/opposite page, that is actually facing the page on which 'overleaf' is written? ----Seans Potato Business 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Overleaf" means the back of the sheet on which "overleaf" is written. To indicate the facing or opposite page, I would refer to the "facing page" or "opposite page". Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to text that follows and ends up on the facing page, (below) should do it. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Who does this Indian picture represent?

---

This file may be deleted after Friday, 18 April 2008.

My wife was given this picture with an ebay purchase from India. The black background is about 18cm by 23cm (7 inches by 9 inches). I am not sure who the picture represents. The snake around the neck makes me think it could be Shiva/Parvati, though it is not one of the canonical images I have come across. There is a picture in our mandir of Arjuna wearing a similar helmet, so it could be Arjuna/Draupadi. My daughter has also suggested Rama/Sita. If anyone can identify this image I would be grateful.

Also does anyone know what kind of leaf it is painted on? Thanks -- Q Chris (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with this page suggests it might be a pipal or Bo tree leaf. SaundersW (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As well as the cobra, the other Shiva symbol is the river (Ganga) falling from the crown of his head. And I think I can see the crescent moon on the front of his helmet. He might be even wearing the traditional antelope skin too. Those symbols seal it for me as a Shiva image. Rama would definitely have a bow and Arjuna would probably have one too. WikiJedits (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not helmet, cloth or hair, I think. WikiJedits (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wagner the Philosopher

It is said that what first brought Richard Wagner and Friedrich Nietszche was there mutual admiration for the work of Arthur Schopenhauer. Is there any evidence that Wagner's operatic works were directly affected by Schopenhauer's ideas? I can see some possible influences, especially in Tristan and Isolde, though the water seems a little muddied. Can anyone make the picture clearer? Mark of Cornwall (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Case of Wagner might be a good place to start -- suffice to say that Nietzsche eventually grew disenchanted with both Schopenhauer and Wagner. Vranak (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Wagner may have read Schopenhauer, Mark, but he sure as hell did not understand Schopenhauer! Perhaps apes also read the great pessimist with as little understanding as they bring to Nietzsche?! Anyway, Wagner, by his own account, read The World as Will and Representation several times, impressed by the idea of music as the striving of the will. But he was equally impressed by the notion of the denial of will. His enthusiasm was expressed in a letter to Franz Liszt: "I have...found a sedative which has finally helped me to sleep at night; it is the sincere and heartfelt yearning for death; total unconsciousness, complete annihilation, the end of all dreams-the only ultimate redemption." He comes closest to Schopenhauer's ideas, as you suggest, in Tristan und Isolde, when the lovers express their longing for their individual existence to end. But Wagner transforms this gloomy abnegation to a climax of erotic love, effectively turning Schopenhauer upside down. Tristan and Isolde do not escape the blind force of Will; they just become yet another link in its ongoing evolution. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great answer, Clio-thanks. I take it that you are not that fond of the Master, then? Mark of Cornwall (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to be as detached about him as I can be, Mark, though my opinion is perhaps somewhat coloured by the fact that my father once took my brothers and I to enjoy the delightful pagan excesses of Bayreuth. I have to say I find the plots for most of his music dramas confused and tiresome. For goodness sake, the gold is Albrecht's by right! What need for all the silly drama? Clio the Muse (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tolstoyan view of history

What does Clio the Muse mean by the Tolstoyan view of history? (see Battle of Kiev above)81.129.86.71 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See War_and_Peace#Tolstoy.27s_view_of_history. SaundersW (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Better still, read the original, especially the last thirty odd pages! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh. I tried, I really did, but I finally had to skip to the end. Much as I skipped through all of the talk of Masonry. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Corvus, I hope you did not miss the description of the wolf hunt, Natasha's dance, and the passages dealing with Borodino. There is no comparison in all of literature. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for precision, the original is not a Wikipedia article, but a novel written in French and Russian, an English translation of which may be found here. SaundersW (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely Clio intended the Tolstovian view of history, from what I've known of the Divine Clio. --Wetman (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Her blessing is upon you, Wetman! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

How were the dead sea scrolls dated? Wouldn't this make hypocritical many of those who use the scrolls to argue for Christianity yet believe in creationism?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be hypocrital about those beliefs? I've never seen anybody claim that the DSS date from before the presumed date of the creation. This page dates the DSS to about what I've always thought about them. Far away from 4004BCE. -- BPMullins | Talk 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean think about how they date dinosaurs other stuff which is like really really old.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your questions here. The dinosaurs have nothing to do with the DSS. Creationists and evolutionists would both agree that they were written about 2000 years ago. The DSS really have nothing to do with a pro- or anti-creationist view. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If one already accepts that God made the Earth look a lot older than it is and created the stars more than 6000 light years away with the light already sticking out, why would it be difficult to accept that He made some things give incorrect radiocarbon dating readings? That's seriously small potatoes once you've got talking snakes in your world view. --69.134.125.223 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

He's saying it's hypocritical to accept dating techniques for biblical artifacts but not for dinosaurs. Wrad (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

However, different specific dating techniques are used -- carbon dating would be completely useless for dating dinosaur fossils. On the other hand, even carbon dating turns up dates far older than 6,000 years ago. AnonMoos (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My resident fundie says that these things are placed by God so that belief in God and the infallibility of the Word is by faith alone, without the benefit of proof. But then my resident fundie is also diagnosed psychotic. SaundersW (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

this is an old belief: see Omphalos (theology) 203.221.127.95 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hume and Mills

What were David Hume and Mills thoughts on experience as related to ethics?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is sort of that Hume felt it was a more natural thing were as Mills thought it was learned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UhOhFeeling (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals and John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, On Liberty and The Subjection of Women, UhOhFeeling? The short answer is that Hume conceives of morality arising from sentiment; that moral judgements can never be based on reason alone. Mill, I suppose, takes a much more instrumental view, advancing the notion of utility 'as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions'. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The symbiotic relationship between the media and the government.

Trying to find authors as citations for the argument that a symbiotic relationship exists between the media and the government. The media needs the gov't for source information; the gov't needs the media for info dissemination and mobilization. Looking for authors to cite.74.166.0.251 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this like looking for an experiment to prove a specific, original conclusion? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)?

How about this from Walter Karp -“The most esteemed journalists are precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the powerful that they gain access to the ‘best’ sources.” We could do with, but don't have an article on lapdog journalism to balance our watchdog journalism, a less common canine. Propaganda, News Propaganda and other articles linked therein, like Propaganda model could help a little. More detail in the request could help too, its just a fact that an awful lot of "the news" is just press releases, somebody must have statistics on that. Here's a blog post referring to an NYT article with relevant quotes from Max Frankel and Bob Woodward; their books, autobios could help. More googling suggests these books for the symbiosis idea - Wilbur Schramm, Fred Siebert, and Theodore Perterson, Four Theories of the Press (Urbana, IL; University of Illinois Press, 1956 ) and John C. Merill and S. Jack Odell, Philosophy and Journalism (New York: Longman, 1983 ). People like Woodward, Thomas Friedman and even Seymour Hersh have been criticized for being a bit too cozily symbiotic at times. HTH a littleJohn Z (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A low-powered radio broadcaster for the spies?

In numbers station:

Some governments may not need a numbers station with global coverage if they only send spies to nearby countries.

Unless your country is really poor, I don't see a reason why you run a small numbers station.

Let's say Country A sends a spy to Country B. Would you set up one highly efficient directional antenna pointed at the spy's home at exactly required power? No! You're telling Country B which area to look for the spy.

If Country A's spy agency has money, it would setup a big radio station and cover the whole world. No one would know who's listening.

Then why are there these small stations? -- Toytoy (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be a number of reasons. It is likely that much of the money spent by espionage is highly secret, and so bulding a number of small station is easier to hide than one hugely expensive one. You may not need world coverage. The smaller stations would not be directed at one specific area, they are likely to simply cover a smaller-than-global range. It could be that I am the German secret service and my spies are in both France and Italy. One station could cover both, but there's no need to cover more than that. Or it could be to create a plot device for a nonsensical but still fantastic drama/inadvertent comedy. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed consider Taiwan, I don't think they give anything away by targetting one or more number stations at China. I don't think China is any any doubt they have agents in China. Or Cuba targetting the US. Also consider that if you have one large number station, if it gets bombed (say you go to war), you have no more number station. If you have 5 small number stations spread out over a wider area, you have a larger target area. Even if the number stations are targetting a different area, you may or may not be able to move the antenna to target the area you need to target. And of course you could use small number stations to create a false impression. For if you have 3 number stations, one targetting country X+Y, one targetting Z+A, one targetting B+C but you only have enough agents (or whatever) for country Y+B you may be able to fool countries X, Z, A, C into thinking you have agents there when you don't... Global coverage won't achieve that effect not to mention being a waste. Ultimately of course, no one really knows what countries are doing, or why they are doing it.

April 12

how much would a train ride cost from budapest to paris

one-way. i cant seem to find the proper sites :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.50.125 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this site seems to let you book trains across Europe, but when I filled in the form for Budapest-Paris I couldn't find a date that actually had trains going. It was £166.50 for Paris-Budapest, though, so I guess it's going to be pretty expensive. Perhaps you should hitch-hike? Europe is really good fun to hitch-hike through, and you'll get to see way more places than just the two cities you mentioned. If I find anywhere that does have trains running though, I'll let you know. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

166.50 seems very cheap to me considering it costs me more than that to get the train to travel the 100 miles or so to London from here! Nanonic (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your help and kind suggestion! what about ride-share sites, do you know of any big ones for europe? maybe someone is going my way anyway and we can just split fuel costs or sth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.50.125 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a matter of price, probably the cheapest way of moving around Europe is flying. Try some low-cost carrier like Ryanair or Easyjet. Mr.K. (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no direct low-cost flights on this route. He will need to connect by train to Munich or Vienna first. Cambrasa 10:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You could also consider a Eurail or InterRail pass depending on your location. Nanonic (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seek advice from The Man in Seat 61. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you make use of special offers, Munich-Paris will cost you €29 [15], Vienna-Munich €29 [16] and Budapest-Vienna another €20 or so. So in total is should cost about €80, or £50. Don't use Raileurope to buy the ticket. They are a travel agent and charge you a big markup. Get the tickets directly from the rail operators on the liks above. Cambrasa 10:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambrasa, actually he will not have to connect to Munich or Vienna first. Ryanair flights from Budapest to Frankfurt, Dublin, Glasgow... In total it should cost you less than €80. Mr.K. (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whichever way he does it, he will need to do at least one leg of the journey by train. Whether Frankfurt-Paris or Budapest-Munich. Or book two budget flights. And that will cost more than €80. Cambrasa 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Czech Railways' international tariff calculator quotes a price of CZK5340 (€209.40) 2nd class 1 way, routed via Budapest - Hegyeshalom - Vienna - Buchs (SG) - Disentis - Brig - Lausanne - Le Locle - Paris, though why it defaults to a route involving a private railway in southern Switzerland rather than via Germany I can't say! -- Arwel (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambrasa, indeed I found a ticket Budapest-Dublin for €39 (taxes and fees included). Dublin-Paris should not be much more expensive. It seems possible to fly Budapest-Dublin-Paris for less than 80€. Mr.K. (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cherry tree and Washington

Why did Washington cut down the cherry tree? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a myth. There's no evidence that he ever cut down a cherry tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paragon12321 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To get to the other side. More seriously, there was no cherry tree, and no one chopped it down; that's a pious invention (i.e., lie) told by one of George Washington's biographers, Parson Weems. We cover this in some detail in both the linked articles. Weems's explanation of the (fictional) behavior: "[Washington] was made the wealthy master of a hatchet! of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way". More rain on the parade: Washington also never threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm aware he didn't actually cut down the cherry tree, I always thought that the reason he was supposed to have done it was that as a child he was given an axe and just went a bit crazy, as children will. The real moral of story is "don't give weapons to your children, they'll just destroy something you love". Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Given Weems' propensity for making things up, it's very likely this story is in the same category. But I suppose it's actually possible that he really did hear it from the cousin, the cousin was telling the truth, and Weems happened to be the first person to write about it. Stranger things have happened. Vegetarians sometimes eat meat without ceasing to be vegetarians, and boys who cry "wolf" sometimes actually have a wolf at their heels. But I wouldn't bet money on it. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Weems was the sort that - if he said the sky was blue - you'd have to double check to be sure. And even Weems didn't claim Washington "chopped down" his neighbor's cherry tree. He said he "barked" it. - Nunh-huh 06:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... the context I remember it being told to me under was that George Washington could not tell a lie about chopping down the cherry tree. In other words it was an admission. So all these years I've been admitting things I've done wrong on the basis of a false story intended to get people to tell on themselves. No wounder we needed a fifth amendment. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He should have claimed "executive privilege". - Nunh-huh 06:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bogus surnames on the Census list

Does the U.S. Census Bureau add nonexistent surnames into their surname frequency lists so that they can catch people who plagiarize their lists? On their list at http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/dist.all.last the 39,652_th_ surname is Pantojz. However, typing in Pantojz at http://www.ancestry.com gives you a page that shows there are no records of the name on the site. Although it has the form of a Polish surname, there are no immigration records for any surname anything like Pantojz at www.ellisislandrecords.org. If it were a real name that had been in the United States as of 1990, a few people by that name would have died and they would have been recorded by Social Security, but a search at www.familysearch.org show no records, not even in the Social Security Death Index. A Google search returns not a single real person with this name. So do you think this was made up to catch list duplicators? 67.164.59.98 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pantojz: I see many people by that name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Candace Pantojz, Dr. Kizzie Pantojz and Dr. Willia Pantojz all appear on spam sites that use the same three-asterisk convention in their titles. A name that appears thrice on such sites but not on any real person is almost certainly made from a random name generator (like the spammers who send you emails with a random first and last name for the sender). At first glance, the baseball player Leon Pantojz looked real, but a closer inspection reveals that that site is fantasy baseball. Fantasy baseball makes fictional names from huge first name and surname databases, and the Census Bureau's surname list would seem a likely place to gather them. 67.164.59.98 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Many census records are illegible, illiterate scrawls which misspell the name the person gave them. Some persons giving info to the census taker just make up a name. Some entries are based on misinformation and gossip provided by a neighbor. I would attribute the appearance of a name lacking real-world corroboration to error rather than cleverness. 24.13.255.212 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pantojz is the 39652nd most popular last name (surname) in the United States; frequency is 0.000%....

The frequency thus still could be as high as 0.0004%, giving >1,000 people called Pantojz.

There appear to be some South American folks named Pantojz, so I assume it to be a Hispanic surname. There is also an entry on a Portuguese genealogy site, which may indicate that it is a Portuguese / Brasilian spelling. Of course, it could be of Slavic origin, as you have speculated.

http://record2008.net/index.html (needs a membership, 35 USD / 20odd EUR) has Pantojz on their list. This need not be a reference to a US citizen but it is likely to be so. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that US census data, like all data created by the federal government, is not copyrighted, so they should hardly care about plagiarism. It's not illegal to reprint census data in any way, shape, or form. I find it very unlikely that they would add copyright traps, since there is no copyright to be had. (That has no bearing on whether there is inaccurate data in the census. But it does argue strongly against it being purposefully added for that purpose.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Census keeps personal information unreleased, for privacy reasons, until 70 or 80 years after a given census. Then personal information is released, mainly, as I understand it, for genealogical use. I see no reason why they would purposefully degrade the data. Pfly (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pantojz doesn't sound even remotely Polish to me. On second thought, I'm Polish and my family name doesn't sound very Polish either. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Heraldic question

Arms of Danderyd Municipality in Sweden

My last question on the reference desk did not get a single reply. :-(

I remember that question, and I tried to find out at the time, but I came up with zilch. Hope this helps. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope I have better luck this time...

How would one describe the arms to the right in the correct Frenglish heraldic terminology? These are the arms of Danderyd Municipality, north of Stockholm. They incorporate (in the part below the chief with the roses) the arms of the Banér family that once possessed Djursholm Castle, which is located in the municipality and serves as the town house. Olaus (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't seem to find how to say that one on wikipedia, as we don't have the terms for that grey or for the three roses above. I'm sure the roses are quite a common motif though, so something will turn up. Cendrée is a darker grey than that in your coat of arms. Blazon might be helpful. This site says that in Swedish the blazon is "En silverspets i rött fält och däröver en chef av silver, belagd med tre röda rosor.", and in English "Gules a Pile Argent issuant from dexter pointing to sinister and on a Chief of the second three Roses of the first.". But that site seems tohave the coat of arms on a white background rather than grey. Hope that helps. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The color in question is "argent", or silver: I think the difference can be accounted for by assuming one site has rendered silver as white (as is usual), and the other has rendered silver as grey. - Nunh-huh 12:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The blazon in English given by Michael Clarke sounds all right, if a little awkward. In French heraldry there's the word embrassé for the main feature, but we don't seem to have it because it isn't used much in English heraldry. "Gules and argent embrassy on a chief of the second three roses of the first" would be much neater! Xn4 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you! "a Pile Argent issuant from dexter" sounds good. I saw the "pile" in the charts in the heraldry article, but from those it would appear that what looks like a pile from below would be called "party per chevron", so I wasn't sure if it could be a pile from any direction. (Or perhaps a pile "issuant from below", or whatever it would be called, would be more "pointed"?) Olaus (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Stuyvesant

Can it be confirmed that some family members of Peter Stuyvesant, because of his reputation, changed their sirname (last name) to Sturtevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.229 (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely; no such name changes are mentioned in the standard genealogical work on Stuyvesant; Sturtevant was a British name, while Stuyvesant is Dutch; if one is changing one's name to avoid being associated with someone, a more radical name change might be expected; and Peter Stuyvesant's reputation was perfectly reasonable. If someone has said that one of his descendants changed their surname from Stuyvesant to Sturtevant, he owes you the details. - Nunh-huh 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

On the last part, I guess it depends where you live. Not being an American, I'd never heard of Peter Stuyvesant the person before in my life (as far as I'm aware). So the first thing I though of when I read the anon's post was cigarettes, a fairly common brand in both Malaysia and New Zealand (and from the article, Australia, Greece and South Africa as well). While these may have nothing to do with Peter Stuyvesant the person's reputation, it doesn't change the problem I guess although I agree with the rest of your post Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is the problem with the reputation of Peter Stuyvesant? I would imagine most people would be delighted to claim descent from him. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't he a tyrrant, ruling with an iron fist and wooden leg!! Supposedly, he was mean and not very well liked according to some family history. Is this not so?? How do we know that Sturtevant is British? My family, the Sturtevants, are supposed to be Dutch.

Quite to the contrary, "Stuyvesant" remains a name to be conjured with among Old New Yorkers. How many generations of Stuyvesant Fish can you count? Bad reputations don't get carried forward in names: how many Americans do you know named Adolf? --Wetman (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Geneology.com has a Stuyvesant and a Sturtevant coming from Holland. It also says that Sturtevant is a derivitive of Stuyvesant. Can it be trusted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.229 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Theyness

Sartre borrowed the concept of 'theyness' from Heidegger, as I understand it. How did he adapt it within his general existential theory? To what degree does he use it in his literary work? F Hebert (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The concept of 'Theyness' is, of course, derived from Martin Heidegger's Being and Time. For Heidegger the essential problem of being is that people are preoccupied with a practical world, a world of doing, and lose sight of the wider problems of existence. It is because of this that we fall into forms of inauthenticity he calls Theyness-"We take pleasure and enjoy ourselves as they take pleasure; we read, we see and judge about literature and art as they see and judge; we find shocking what they find shocking. The 'they', which we all are, prescribes the kind of being in everydayness." If you find this difficult to comprehend-and I know most people will-just be mindful of your own usage of language, of the habitual formulas one tends to sink into in everyday usage, with references to an anonymous collective simply known as 'they' or 'them.'

It was from this that Sartre concluded pessimistically that Theyness and absurdity are insuperable. You will find this nowhere better expressed, F, than in his play, No Exit. The dramatic structure is wonderfully simple, cutting the theory-and the characters-mercilessly down to the most basic levels. It is set in Hell, but the tortures are not physical; they are mental.

Just imagine; three mutually incompatible people, destined to exist together, forever in the same room: a coward, a lesbian and a child-murderess. They seek in each other forms of validation, of reassurance, that they will never attain. Each tries to force the other to look at her or him, in the case of the coward, in the way that they would like to be seen. In other words, they each want to see their vision of themselves reflected back by the other, as if it was a mirror. What happens instead is a clash of egotistical self-visions in permanent conflict. Mutual deception or bad-faith, the confirmation of a lie, could work, might work, if there were only two characters; but the triad makes it impossible, because the third person is there to explode all illusions by a critical glance. It would, of course, been possible for each of these individuals to remake or reform themselves if still alive; but they are dead; the game is over; they are judged solely by what they did in life.

This, for Sartre, is the very thing that characterises all human relationships: we are all judged not by what we have done, but what we have done wrong. Noble intentions are not enough; they are bogus; they are second-hand; they are inauthentic. The road to Hell is, indeed, paved with good intentions.

Read the play. Better still, see it performed. It's incredibly uncomfortable, like a surgeon, cutting away at illusions and self-deception as if they were cancers. Now, ask yourself how terrible this vision of Hell is, far worse than the depictions of Bosch or Michelangelo; far worse than all the Medieval horrors. Picture yourself, if you can, in a room with two other people, people with whom you have nothing in common, sharing the same space, never sleeping, forever, and ever and ever. Aaargh! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Once (for me) it was one kind of family, another time, one kind of workplace, then again people I travelled with; did Sartre model his characters on anyone he knew? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If he did he must have really hated them! It's a superb piece of theatre, simple and demanding at one and the same time. It requires a lot of emotional maturity and insight on the part of the actors to bring out the three characters in all of their shabby depths. It's better to see or hear the play performed than simply to read it. I first came across it in an old recording, with Glenda Jackson in the role of Inès. Really savage stuff. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kant and Religion

How and in what manner did Kant develop and refine his views on religion and morality after the completion of the Critique of Pure Reason? F Hebert (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed by your dedication...and by your persistence! The important text here is Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, published in 1793, in which Kant takes up some of the themes touched on in the three Critiques. He concludes that Christian worship is no more important than any other form of religious belief;

Whether the hypocrite makes his legalistic visit to a church or a pilgrimage to the shrines of Loretto or Palestine, whether he brings his prayer formulas to the heavenly authorities by his lips or, like the Tibetan...does it by a prayer wheel, or whatever kind of surrogate for the moral service of God it may be, it is all worth just the same.

In other words the servile worship of God is no substitute, in Kant's mind, for the transcendental critique. The corollary is that morality does not need religion for its own service, "...but in virtue in pure practical Reason it is sufficient unto itself."

He also takes the Biblical figure of Job as a kind of forerunner of the Enlightenment, a man who speaks the way he thinks, caring nothing for false flattery. In the 1791 On the Failure of All Philosophical Attemps at Theodicy, Kant says that Job "...would most probably have experienced a nasty fate at the hands of any tribunal of dogmatic theologians, a synod, an inquisition, a pack of reverends, or any conspiracy of our day." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio, I do not agree with you on the religious disinterestedness you claim to find in the Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der Blossen Vernunft. In part three, Kant claims explicitly that 1. the formation of an 'ethischen gemeinen Wesen' is necessary 2. the formation of an ethical commonwealth is only possible in the form of a (visible) church and 3. the church must be founded by a document/revelation (i.e. christian).

And, 4. It can only be realized as a "Volk Gottes unter ethischen Gesetzen" (a people of God under ethical laws).

This reasoning leads me to the conclusion that Kant was in fact still a "christian". His claim, however, is not about christianity in particular, but about worship. Real ethical conduct is more important then symbolic piety, is his prime statement. (But perhaps this was what you meant). --Mcknol (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mcknol. Yes, indeed so. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mussolini and Hitler

Why did Hitler become an ally of Hitler? Was it simply because of they saw the world in the same way?Lewis Cifer (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably: Why did Mussolini become an ally of Hitler? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Cifer...hmm; could this possibly be Lucifer? Sorry, I could not resist the joke! Hitler as an ally of Hitler? I wonder just how that would have worked out!

So, Mussolini and Hitler? It comes down to one thing, and one thing alone, Lewis-the war in Abyssinia. Prior to that Mussolini had aligned his foreign policy closely with Britain and France, Italy's wartime partners, most recently in the Stresa Front, a mutual declaration against any future revisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Mussolini, despite some ideological similarities between Fascism and National Socialism, had no time for Hitler; he disliked him personally and despised his anti-Semitism. At the time of the Night of the Long Knives he described the Germans as a 'nation of pederasts.' Later that same year, following the assassination of Engelbert Dollfuss by Austrian Nazis, Mussolini ordered several divisions to take up a position on the Brenner Pass, to preempt any German move into Austria.

When the British, acting on a League of Nations initiative, took the lead in imposing sanctions on Italy, Mussolini was surprised and antagonised, especially as nothing had been done to halt the earlier Japanese move on Manchuria. Snubbed by those he regarded as his friends, he was open to sympathetic noises from his enemy. Thus it was that the Rome-Berlin Axis was born.

It is important to understand, though, that the Axis at this stage was an 'understanding', not an alliance. There were those in the British Foreign Office who believed that Mussolini could be brought back into the Stresa Front. It might just have happened but for Stanley Baldwin and Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, both of whom were keen to work with Hitler. According to Eden an agreement with Hitler "...might have a chance of a reasonable life whereas...Mussolini is a complete gangster." Eden, it has to be said, was a man of extraordinarily poor judgement, a 'bear of very little brain', amply demonstrated later in his career. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4

Radio 4 transmits different output on FM and Long wave. Which of them is carried on DAB? - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The FM output is carried on DAB. Samilong (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Eichmann

What was it specifically about Adolf Eichmann that turned him into the Nazi expert on Jewish affairs?Lewis Cifer (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure he was seen as an expert. The Nazis thought they knew everything there was to know about the Jews. Eichmann's page says that "his organizational talents and ideological reliability" lead to him being tasked with "facilitating and managing the logistics of mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps". So it's more because he was a reliable Nazi and efficeint bureaucrat that he was chosen, than any expertise on Jewish people. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lewis, he was indeed the Nazi expert on Jewish issues. A member of the Sicherheitsdienst, he was an early recruit to a section set up to examine Judaism, Department II/112, then run by Elder von Mildenstein. It was under Mildenstein's guidance that Eichmann was encouraged to learn about Zionism, at a time when emigration was the favoured solution to the 'Jewish problem'. Eichmann was ordered to summarise the history, structure and activity of the Zionist movement, reading Theodor Herzl's Der Judenstaat, the founding text, and Adolf Böhm's Die Zionistische Bewegung, a work of 1921 analysing the movement up until the foundation of the British Mandate of Palestine. He did such a good job that his findings were printed and distributed to other SD departments, as well as more widely among the Allgemeine SS.

Eichmann also used his expertise to make contact with Zionist groups in both Germany and Palestine. He met one Feivel Polkes, a Palestinian Jew, who proposed that the Nazis and the Zionists should work together to increase Jewish emigration. Eichmann's continuing work in D II/112 was the basis of his war-time career, including his participation in the Wannsee Conference, though by this time the priorities had changed from emigration to extermination. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Character of Eichmann

A supplement, if I may, to the above. Is there a key to understanding the character of Eichmann? Did his trial in Jerusalem serve the ends intended? Lewis Cifer (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm really not well-versed on the topic, intersting though it is, but The banality of evil is often said to be the key to his behaviour. And then there were the Milgram experiments, which threw up some intersting conclusions. Hope that helps. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As always the key to understanding Eichmann, or any other like him, lies in history, ideology and politics; in a system of beliefs that served to dehumanise a whole group of human beings; to render them problematic. It has nothing at all to do with the silly Milgram experiment!

Your second question is, perhaps, a little more problematic. It certainly served some purpose, revealing ever more detail about the bureaucratic mechanics of the Holocaust. But there were those, like Harold Rosenberg and Elie Wiesel, for whom the trial was not just a disappointment, but a failure. Imagine, if you will, an announcement that the Devil himself was to stand trial; people would expect a manifestation of evil in its most lurid forms. Instead, what they got with Eichmann was a colourless little bureaucrat, a tiresome, self-pitying mediocrity. Evil was not grand; it was banal. Eichmann's very ordinariness seemed for some to defuse the impact of his crimes. In his frustration Elie Wiesel noted "It irritated me to think of Eichmann as human. I would have preferred him to have a murderous countenance." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan, North Korea and Iran

Although apparently Pakistan has never stated any desire to wipe Israel off the globe while Iran has repeatedly stated such intent, how were Pakistan and North Korea able to fund and build nuclear weapons and what about places like Cuba and Venezuela and other countries which lack but want them? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan's program to develop weapons of mass destruction came as a reply to India (they don't get along well). The program was started sometime during the 1960s, only recently official. Our article on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction isn't too shabby, if you want to have a look at that. All country-WMD articles on Wikipedia are standardized to follow that formatting, so you can quickly reach North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure NSA or FBI will have you flagged for googling "building a nuclear bomb", but nuclear weapon design should save you this inconvenience. All honour to the contributors of those articles, but I remain somewhat unsure of how to answer your question. This and this state that Venezuela are receiving help to build a nuclear reactor, made plausible by this source. In order to build a nuclear bomb, one first needs a nuclear reactor to produce enriched uranium, a major component in the further construction of the bomb. The expertise is normally the most difficult thing to get a hold of, since you need people with a know-how for all the different stages of construction. Nuclear proliferation is also something to take a look at, and deals a bit with resource trading. What I find most likely is that the expertise in North Korea comes from the former Soviet Union. Seeing as the country is as poor as it is, the actual production is humble to nothing. Scaller (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You've got a few errors there. The NSA and FBI don't care if people google about nuclear weapon design—it's all over the internet and being curious doesn't mean you have the will or means to build one. A reactor does not produce enriched uranium, it produces plutonium. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

According to our article Enriched_uranium, reactors can indeed produce enriched uranium, although I'm sure other reactors can produce plutonium as well. GreatManTheory (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First the US thought that Germany was going to make a bomb, so they made a bomb first. So then the USSR wanted one. After the US threatened PR China fairly explicitly with the bomb (First Taiwan Strait Crisis), China wanted one too. At first the USSR helped out, but China had to finish it up on their own after they had a falling out with the USSR (and thus had another reason to want one). Then India and China had a war, and India wanted a bomb. After India got the bomb, then Pakistan felt it needed a bomb. In the meantime, Israel had gotten a bomb. North Korea felt isolated and insecure, so it wanted a bomb. Iran probably wants a bomb both to stand up to the US and to Israel, as well as be the biggest non-Israeli power in the region. Countries want bombs because they fear attacks from others (who have the bomb), and because a certain amount of political power and prestige comes from having the bomb (even though in real terms they can limit the types of interactions you can have with other countries that have the bomb).

Pakistan got their bomb material by using Dutch enrichment technology. Then they sold some of that knowledge to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. They may have bought designs from China. But it's worth noting that North Korea, in the end, seems to have had much more success with producing plutonium that they did with enriching uranium, which they did by operating a reactor they originally got from the USSR.

Bomb design is easier for uranium, harder for plutonium. In both cases, though, a country with sufficient technical resources can accomplish it if they work at it long enough. The hardest part about getting a nuclear weapon is getting the materials for it, in either case. Production of either enriched uranium or plutonium requires rather large facilities with specialized staff and specialized machinery. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Captain Ref Desk for laying out the sequence of motivations. I would assume then that even if Israel did not exist Iran would still want the bomb if for no other reason than Iran is probably next in line to have some kind of secular trouble with its neighbors and since Iran can't just buy a bomb (or can it?) then what other choice than to make their own. However, I do not think anyone is going to let Iran buy the bomb or make one, even if at this juncture they fully recanted their desire to eliminate Israel. In fact, if Iran is to blame for the continued fighting in Iraq then I would expect to see more and more of what is being sown in Iraq, being reaped in Iran. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cuba and Venezuela. What don't they have? is sort of the wrong question—it's not technical issues that are keeping them from trying to develop nuclear arms. They're both members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which means that their nuclear facilities are all monitored by the IAEA. That doesn't mean that they can't secretly try to built weapons, but it means there will be immediate and serious economic and political consequences, and potentially even military consequences, should they do so. Cuba is far too close to the USA to possibly risk trying to develop nuclear weapons (esp. after the tension caused by the Cuban Missile Crisis) and it wouldn't have been in anyone's interest to let them try to do so. Venezuela, on the other hand, has been threatened by the US lately, but the likelihood of military conflict is low, IMO. Additionally, both countries are also parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco and would face harsh retributions for developing nuclear weapons.

Could they technically build them? Any country with reactors could, if they devoted the resources to it and worked hard enough. The science of basic nuclear weapons is well-known. What keeps nations of any wealth and scientific standing from having them is almost entirely political. Fortunately the resources needed for weapons are at the moment outside of the reach of non-state entities, without taking into consideration the real possibility of theft of special nuclear materials. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard a story once about Castro that he was told a certain button would fire a nuclear missile at America and he pushed it and all of the sudden support for missile technology and nuclear technology and even airplane technology began to evaporate. I do not know if the story is true or not but on the other hand if you can not buy nuclear missiles from the former Soviet Union or anyone else then back to square one. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unincluded holy scriptures Jewish/Christian

I am unable to find a complete list of the unincluded scriptures in the bible, and also their cathegory. The following are written wrongly probably, but I am able to find my way within them: the apocrypha, the deuterocanonical, the pseudopedigrapha. Some are mentioned as included in some churches like Enoch in etiopian, and some scriptures are listed in the gnostic church. However, I can not for the life of me for instance find Bartholomew. References like to jewish legends appear without giving me much about where they come from, trying links get just more confusing. By cathegories I refer to where they are to be found, the natural reference. Like "unknown found script" to "the dead sea scroll". I hoped for a list included all the scriptures, complete and incomplete, that have a reference to these holy scriptures. I can not even find Bartholomew's scripture under Bartholomew. I would at least like a general listing more than the official christian. Any general place or cathegory to look more than apocrypha, deuterocanonical and pseudopedigrapha would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestorebo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There has never been any document attributed to Bartholomew on any canonical list of New Testament books, and the Dead Sea scrolls wouldn't contain anything about him either, since they're non-Christian. The terms Deuterocanon/Apocrypha are most often used to refer to works which are accepted as authoritatively scriptural by some Christian church bodies, but not by others, so that there are a fixed and limited number of books which can be included under those terms. By contrast, "Pseudepigrapha" is kind of a left-over category for all works with quasi-scriptural pretensions which have never been highly valued by any quasi-mainstream form of Christianity or Judaism -- so that membership in the Pseudepigrapha is indefinite and open-ended, including hundreds of works, some of which are known only in fragmentary form. However, we do have an article Gospel_of_Bartholomew... AnonMoos (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Roccasecca: To which territory did it belong in 1225

I have been looking at Thomas Aquinas's birthtown of Roccasecca on modern maps of Italy and comparing its location to this map of the Kingdom of Sicily. To me, it almost looks like Roccasecca was not part of the green area marked as Kingdom of Sicily, but rather part of the yellow area marked as Papal States. WP's map shows the boundaries of 1154 and states that they would remain virtually unchanged for 700 years. The map may not be completely accurate. Either way, Roccasecca lies near the boundary, but on which side? Thank you in advance for maps or other references showing exactly to which territory Roccasecca belonged in 1225, the year Thomas Aquinas was born. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Italian page for the city has it more definitely placed in Lazio. But another problem is that in 1225, the Kingdom of Sicily was supposed to be a papal fief; it wasn't, because it was ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor (as Frederick II was both king of Sicily and emperor), who was constantly at odds, or in outright war, with the Pope, so the boundaries were not very stable. In fact in 1225 Frederick well on his way to being excommunicated. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia names the place "The Kingdom of Naples" [17]. The same page also states that the birthdate is not certain; it may have been 1225 or 1227. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The abbot of Monte Cassino had settled a junior line of the counts of Aquino there in the tenth century. Though under contention, Roccasecca was part of the lands of the abbey of Monte Cassino. It didn't become effectively a papal fief until it was purchased in the sixteenth century. In between, it was the current allegiance of the conti d'Aquino that really mattered. I've added some translation from Italian Wikipedia to offer a history sub-section. --Wetman (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kemal and 1914 war

did Kemal Pasha think it good that Turkey join war? Enver M (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Kinross's biography, pp. 65 - 67, he opposed it, especially joining on the German side. He thought the outcome uncertain, foreseeing a future as a German satellite in victory and catastrophe in defeat. He preferred neutrality and waiting to see what happened in the war, and "lobbied his friends in Constantinople insistently" for that.John Z (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are his precise thoughts in his very own words, Enver;

Looking at Germany's position from a military point of view, I am by no means certain that it shall win this war. True, the Germans have overrun strong fortifications at lightning speed and are advancing towards Paris. But the Russians are pushing to the Carpathians and are pressing hard the Germans' Austrian allies. The Germans will this have to set aside part of their forces to aid the Austrians. Seeing this the French will counter-attack and put pressure on the Germans. The Germans will then have to recall their troops from the Austrian front. It is because an army which zigzags to and fro must come to a sad end that I do not feel certain about the outcome of this war. (Atatürk, by Andrew Mango, 1999, pp. 136-7) Clio the Muse (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

CSA a one-party state?

Since the secessionists were uniformly Democrats, and the states which seceded had previously been dominated by the Democratic Party to the point of one-party rule, was the resulting Confederacy therefore a one-party state? I've never heard of any formal partisan structure in Confederate politics, i.e. a "Democratic Party of the Confederate States of America" distinct from the U.S. party. Was there one? If not, would it be more accurate to describe CSA politics as non-partisan? Furthermore, were there any well-defined political cliques or currents which operated as de facto parties and which might have developed into parties had the Confederacy persisted? I'm not looking for anything definitive, I'm just curious. Lantzy ^talk 22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Factions or parties never developed within the CSA, although there were those for and in opposition to the administration. As to what could have been, I recommend Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 series. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Or for a more traditional history, see this source: [18]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

With 'friends' like Governor Joe Brown I imagine that Jefferson Davis might have welcomed some honest partisan politics! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Where parties do not exist, criticism of the administration is likely to remain purely an individual matter; therefore the tone of the criticism is likely to be negative, carping, and petty, as it certainly was in the Confederacy. But where there are parties, the opposition group is strongly impelled to formulater real alternative policies and to press for the adoption of these policies on a constructive basis. ... But the absence of a two-party system meant the absence of any available alternative leadership, and the protest votes which were cast in the [1863 Confederate mid-term] election became more expressions of futile and frustrated dissatisfaction rather than implements of a decision to adopt new and different policies for the Confederacy." -- David M. Potter

AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses, everyone. Lantzy ^talk 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Queen Christina's sexuality

Is it true that Christina Augusta of Sweden was a hemaphrodite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Hacket (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

From the article on Kristina of Sweden: "Her unusual attire caused her to later become an icon of the transgendered community, even though Christina herself was not transgendered. During the 20th century, her grave was opened so that her death mask could be examined, and her bones were examined to see if sex abnormalities could be identified, but none identified."

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the article. It has almost no references. I think you would be ill-advised to draw any conclusions from this specific text, however fascinating the statements may appear to be. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Buckley touches on this topic in her book Christina Queen of Sweden: the Restless Life of a European Eccentric (Fourth Estate, 2004) Apparently Christina's gender could not be immediately determined at birth. Even after she was declared to be a girl there were all sorts of ambiguities attached to her later career. She later announced her aversion to having sexual relations with a man, and was fond of bawdy jokes and course language. There was also some suggestion of lesbianism. Even those trying to arrange a marriage eventually conceded that this was never going to happen. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Think of the temptation for an intellectual and energetic C17 woman to take on a masculine personality, with the freedoms and privileges that went with maleness, in the way of Julie d'Aubigny, and the prurient fascination of men: witness Théophile Gautier's highly colored version of Julie d'Aubigny's career in Mademoiselle Maupin. --Wetman (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell, Torture, and Ambien

Colin Powell who has been implicated foreign-departmental approval of the torture memo.[19] It seems that he was also given a prescription for Ambien at about the same time[20][21]. I would like to know whether Powell was regularly using Ambien while the torture memo was being discussed?

If so, I would like to know the name of the M.D. who prescribed it.Dream Academy (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why Colin Powell would broadcast the name of his prescribing physician, but then I can't think why he might have told a journalist that he sometimes took (takes) the drug to ensure his sleep when travelling through multiple time zones. I am curious, however, as to why the name of the physician is of any significance at all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder why the M.D. matters—it's a standard drug. But it's interesting to think about how many government officials are taking medication which is now known to have quite a list of side-effects. I know of at least one person who apparently resumed a previously fractured relationship while on Ambien and had no memory of it at the time. Gives one the chills! --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you be seeking or trying to avoid the same physician or asking in regard to ascertaining possible abuse, i.e., as in the case of Anna Nicole Smith? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

April 13

Obama as "post-racial"

I've just come across a statement in my readings that posits Barack Obama as the "post-racial candidate" in an "apparently still racial" America. What on earth can "post-racial" possibly mean?? I'm pretty sure Obama has a race at present, and that he openly talks about it. Or is this phrase intended to mean "post-racism"? Because that's not true either. I am very confused and would appreciate elucidation. --Masamage ♫ 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us a link to the source of the statement? It is difficult to comment on something like this without a context. Thanks ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was only mentioned in passing, but you can just google "post-racial" to see what I mean. There are tons of examples, which suggests it's an idea that's entered the mainstream, but I can't find an original source or what it's intended to communicate. --Masamage ♫ 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Obama is neither white nor truly black (in that he is not of African American origin and both has a white parent and was raised in a white family), he defies and confounds traditional U.S. racial categories. By defying categorization, he exposes the arbitrariness of the categories. Also, he is not culturally black, although his wife is black and he attends (or used to attend) a mostly black church. He has striven to keep race out of his presidential campaign and asserted that he is neither a candidate for black people nor for white people but for all Americans. He suggests, and many of his followers hope, that by winning the presidency, Obama, who has bridged the gap between white and black in his own life, will bring white and blacks together and heal racial wounds. Hence the idea that an Obama presidency would be postracial by moving beyond racial divides. (Note that I am trying to present the point of view of those who consider Obama postracial, even though I myself doubt that his presidency would be so transformative.) Marco polo (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Clumsy expression: post-racialist was doubtless intended. So few of us truly are post-racialist. It's a start to be aware of our own in-built "race"-thinking. --Wetman (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama has intentionally tried to avoid becoming involved in the politics of race. An earlier black candidates in the US, Jesse Jackson, used "racial equality" as part of his campaign. However, this disenchanted whites, who saw him as pitting blacks against whites, so he lost. Obama has tried to avoid this happening to him, and has thus had very little to say about racial discrimination. Hillary has actually said more about racial inequality than him. StuRat (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the term "post-racialist" used in North America? Once upon a time, "racialist" was a word used by South Africans, Australians and the English (I don't know about the Scots, the Irish or the Welsh,) where Canadians and Americans would use "racist". I don't think I have ever heard "racialist" in any other context in North America. Perhaps there are those in Wiki RefDeskLand who can enlighten me. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The word is very uncommon in the United States. Whenever I have heard it used among Americans, it has generally been intended and interpreted as a synonym or perhaps a euphemism of "racist". Lantzy ^talk 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea of "post-racial" to many Blacks is something that any mulatto has physically achieved by "...putting a little cream in their coffee," whereas to many Whites all mulattoes represent in the context of Western heritage, only a Trojan Horse. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misreading the above, but, it seems to say that "post-racial" refers to people of mixed heritage (black-white, which is not a useful distinction, I think). I have not yet seen such a meaning attached to the phrase. I feel this may be a not very thinly disguised presentation of original, racist research, and, as such, may be trolling. There is something distasteful about the wording, this opinion being, of course, my own, original conclusion. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is shared and supported by some other contributors to the WP:RD. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But not all, necessarily. Maybe the term was used to refer to the knowledge, now scientifically proven, that all humans are of the same "race" and thus any distinction drawn between people of supposedly different "races" is a false distinction. We know better than that now, so we're "post-racial". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

General European situation of plays/operas around 13th to 16th century

Around the 13th to 16th century, were women alowed to cast plays/operas? Or, were female roles also performed by men like in ancient China? Was it common in that period for men to cast female roles? If yes, is sexual discrimination the reason? And lastly, would you be so kind to give me links of articles that can futher answer my questions? Thanks! -- Felipe Aira 07:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a little early, 10th and 11th centuries, but Hrosvit of Gandersheim and Hildegard of Bingen wrote plays and possibly an opera. I think there must have been female roles for them, since they wrote in nunneries. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In Britain until the restoration of Charles II in 1660 all female roles had to be played by men (usually young boys). Opera was invented in the late 16th Century in Italy and became increasingly popular throughout Europe in the 18th Century (which by that time most countries allowed women to act in them). In Italy the 16th Century Commedia dell'arte included 3 women in its troupe. I'm not sure about the sexual discrimination part of your question; there is evidence that women enjoyed acting (Elizabeth I included) but professional female actors were unheard of and probably scorned, perhaps because of the link between acting and prostitution (i.e. doing something entertaining with your body for money). Even in the 18th century when female acting was recognised and enjoyed, it still wasn't seen as a fashionable or respected profession. See: History of theatre, Origins of Opera, English Renaissance theatre, Medieval theatre. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a History of women in theatre article could be created? Perhaps another exciting adventure for the Ref Desk Task Force? Lord Foppington (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a clarification about your use of the verb "cast", Felipe. The person who decides which actors/singers will play/sing which roles is the one who casts the play/opera. This is often the director. The players themselves do not "cast" a play or opera, they appear in it. Is this what you meant? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you start it, my Lord, I will try to help you along, as the female director! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pitcairners?

In the German Wikipedia, there is an article de:Pitcairner about the people of Pitcairn Island and their Norfolk Island offspring. There is no other article like that in any other Wikipedia. Do you think that they are relevant in their own right? --KnightMove (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How interesting. On a basic look it appears to be notable enough, so I'll write a stub when I've gathered some sources. PeterSymonds | talk 12:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Demographics of the Pitcairn Islands? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, didn't see that one. I've redirected Pitcairner there. PeterSymonds | talk 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article is *not* about the specific inhabitants of Pitcairn, but about all offspring of the Bounty mutineers, including those on Norfolk Island. They are regarded as an ethnic group of mixed ancestry in their own right. The question is whether this point of view and this article are legitimate. --KnightMove (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. But I'll need time to work on it because sources are not readily available. The redirect can stay for now until I (or someone else who beats me to it) can write a half-decent article about it. PeterSymonds | talk 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who was invited to this Investiture?

Who was invited (via Royal Invitation) to attend the Investiture Ceremony of Prince Edward of England (later became King Edward VIII)which was held in Wales on July !3,1911? Mtdeluna (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtdeluna (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Full lists aren't published on the web. I suggest getting in touch with the Public Information Office at Buckingham Palace (by phone or post; they don't respond to e-mails). The address is here. PeterSymonds | talk 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

6% of the population

What affects only six percent of the population of, say, the Western world but is considered perfectly normal and acceptable? Preferably more or less even distribution (i.e. 6% are of German decent (made that up) is not useful) ----Seans Potato Business 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanity? 172.142.17.75 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I like. But seriously, what sort of thing were you thinking of? I don't understand the question. PeterSymonds | talk 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Left-handedness is a bit above 6%, but would fit otherwise. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Western World is a grouping that it's hard to search for statistics for. Worldwide, about 6 per cent are Buddhist. in the UK, married couples have a 6 per cent risk of breakup in the three years following the birth of a child, 6 per cent of (non-disabled) women are self-employed and 6 per cent of children attend independent fee-paying schools. In Canada, 6 per cent of adults over 40 have diabetes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJedits (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a riddle? Any hidden agenda concerning homosexuality? --KnightMove (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

lol; it's a riddle (i.e. I've a hidden agenda re: homosexuality) and I think left-handedness is useful while the percentage of non-disabled self-employed women is workable and offbeat. Thanks everyone. --Seans Potato Business 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Price of Hummer H2

How much does a new Hummer H2 cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.53.15 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

$56,690-$56,735 (£28,765-£28,787). [22] PeterSymonds | talk 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.53.15 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Elder von Mildenstein

Who, please, is Elder von Mildenstein? Lewis Cifer (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can find, he was the person in charge of the Jewish section of the Sicherheitsdienst, a Nazi secret service branch. He was there in 1934 and 1935, but that's all I can find. PeterSymonds | talk 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As per http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/gestapo-rsha-nazi-secret-police.php: Nazi intelligence Sicherheitsdienst in Palestine.


In early 1933, Baron Leopold Itz Edler von Mildenstein, a man who a few years later was to become chief of the Jewish section of the SD (the Sicherheitsdienst, the SS intelligence branch headed by Reinhard Heydrich), was invited to tour Palestine and to write a series of articles for Goebbels´s Der Angriff. And so it was that the Mildensteins accompanied by Kurt Tuchler, a leading member of the Berlin Zionist Organisation, visited settlements in Eretz Israel. The highly positive articles, 'A Nazi Visits Palestine,' were duly published, and a special medallion cast, with a swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other.

The original idea of the Nazi politicians seems to have been to "merely" expell German Jews and resettle them in what is now Israel. I think there is a reference by Clio.t.M (answer to Mussolini) above on the Wannsee Conference which changed this original concept. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: The reference is in the answer to your question about Adolf Eichmann. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Sorry, I guess you are reading Adolf Eichmann: The Mind of a War Criminal / David Cesarani, so you know about this anyway. 
--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, slightly adapted, is an answer I gave last June to a question on this very individual. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised that the career of Mildenstein is being used as political ammunition because he was involved in attempting to construct a working political 'partnership' between the Nazi state and Zionist movement. Now, could any subject be more loaded than that?! I have to move carefully here, and will try to be as objective as I can. The chief point to hold in mind is that the aim of Nazi policy for much of the pre-war period was to encourage as much Jewish migration from Germany as possible. Inevitably, whatever political and ideological differences existed, this aim overlapped, to a significant degree, with similar aims by the Zionists, anxious to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

One has to remember that when the Nazis came to power in January 1933 they had no agreed solution on how the perceived 'Jewish problem' was to be tackled. There were those, of course, like Julius Streicher, who advocated an immediate expulsion of all Jewish people from German territory, though more moderate influences were quick to point out the implications of such a move for the German economy, still in deep depression. Beyond approving limited gestures, like the one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in April 1933, Hitler gave no clear lead in the matter, which left the way open to initiatives by agencies within the state; agencies like the SS, which began to research possible policy options. And from the midst of the SS came Baron Leopold Itz von Mildenstein, a self-appointed 'expert' on the Jewish question.

Mildenstein, who was born in Prague in 1902, had taken an early interest in Zionism, even going so far as to attend Zionist conferences to help deepen his understanding of the movement. He actively promoted Zionism as a way out of the official impasse on the Jewish question; as a way, in other words, of making Germany Judenrein (free of Jews). The Zionists, whose movement had grown tremendously in popularity among German Jews since Hitler came to power, were keen to co-operate. On April 7 1933 the Juedische Rundschau, the bi-weekly paper of the movement, declared that of all Jewish groups only the Zionist Federation of Germany were capable of approaching the Nazis in good faith as 'honest partners.' The Federation then commissioned one Kurt Tuchler to make contact with possible Zionist sympathisers within the Nazi Party, with the aim of easing emigration to Palestine. Tuchler approached Mildenstein, who was asked to write something positive about Jewish Palestine in the Nazi press. Mildenstein agreed, on condition that he be allowed to visit the country in person, with Tuchler as his guide. So, in the spring of 1933 an odd little party of four set out from Berlin, consisting of Mildenstein and Tuchler with their respective wives. Mildenstein's experiences were later reported in twelve instalments in Der Angriff, Goebbels' own paper, beginning on 26 September 1934, under the title Ein Nazi faehrt nach Palestina ( A Nazi travels to Palestine). Perhaps the most curious aspect of this whole bizarre affair is that Der Angriff even commissioned a medal to celebrate this journey, with a Swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other.

On his return, Mildenstein's suggestion that the solution to the Jewish problem lay in mass migration to Palestine was accepted by his superiors within the SS. In 1935 he was put in charge of the Jewish Desk in the RSHA-Section 11/112-, under the overall control of Reinhardt Heydrich. SS officials were even instructed to encourage the activities of the Zionists within the Jewish community, who were to be favoured over the 'assimilationists', said to be the real danger to National Socialism. Even the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws of September 1935 had a special Zionist 'provision', allowing the Jews to fly their own flag.

In the end Mildenstein fell out of favour, because migration to Palestine was not proceeding at a fast enough rate. His departure from the RSHA after ten months in office also saw a shift in SS policy, marked by the publication of a pamphlet warning of the dangers of a strong Jewish state in the Middle East. It was written by another 'expert', who had been invited to join Section 11/112 by Mildenstein himself. His name was Adolf Eichmann.

If anyone would like to follow my footsteps here I would recommend the following;

• The Jews in Germany by H. G. Adler, 1969.
• Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, 1970.
• The War Against the Jews by Lucy Dawidowicz, 1975
• German and Jew by G. L. Mosse, 1970
• Baron von Mildenstein and the SS support of Zionism in Germany, 1934-1936 by Jacob Boas, in History Today, January 1980.

And, of course, the relevant editions of Der Angriff. Clio the Muse 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethical System

What ethical system would the idea of allowing anything that is done with the participants' consent come under? I tried reading the articles, but they're not particularly optimised for searching by concepts.

Thanks, Daniel (‽) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is basically a form of liberalism, more specifically, its extreme incarnation, libertarianism. Some libertarians, and perhaps some who would identify themselves as liberals, would go so far as to allow even the use of hard drugs in private, though this is relatively uncommon, I believe, and not voiced often in politics. Typically libertarians believe in a "nightwatchman state" that exerts a fair amount of control over matters of individual liberty that could still have a decaying influence on society, but this is still where the system you refer to would belong. 203.221.127.95 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like to think of myself as a libertarian, but even libertarians have ethics, understanding ethics as a boundary, beyond which one should not go. To allow literally anything to happen simply on the basis of mutual consent surely defies all ethical categorisation; it is not immoral but amoral. How could any normal code of ethics explain the actions, freely entered into, of Armin Meiwes-the eater-and Bernd Jürgen Brandes-the eaten? Clio the Muse (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Interpret my question.

<moved to miscellaneous desk for VIVID's crosspost, is why Julia Rossi (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)>