Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

If you make use of special offers, Munich-Paris will cost you €29 [1], Vienna-Munich €29 [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cherry tree and Washington

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Heraldic question

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean "genealogy.com". Online genealogy sites should really only be used as guides to further research. Genealogy.com can be trusted as much as you trust its sources. If none are provided, you can't say how much to trust it. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm really not well-versed on the topic, interesting 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 interesting conclusions. Hope that helps. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think that he may have been genuinely interested. I seem to remember reading that he applied to his superiors for permission to learn Hebrew (how very German!) but they turned him down on the grounds that that was a bit too far. A lot of the Nazis were very well-educated and cultured; it may suit to paint Eichmann as a mediocrity, but that is a belittling judgment of his enemies and which, perhaps, his trial was intended to promote. I'm afraid that he wouldn't have got as far as he did had he been a nonentity. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that the Hebrew language story was invented by the makers of the TV drama Conspiracy. At least I can find no mention of it in Eichmann's biography. Yes, a lot of Nazis were well-educated (though not Eichmann), just as a lot of Nazis were mediocrities, including Heinrich Himmler, Wilhelm Frick and Walther Funk, much more senior than Eichmann. Eichmann's progress up the ranks of the SD, for all his acquired expertise, was surprisingly slow; he was still only an Untersturmführer (2nd lieutenant) at the outbreak of the war.

It did not suit anyone to paint Eichmann as a mediocrity; he was a mediocrity, which was the very thing that frustrated Wiesel and others, who expected something altogether grander. I'm not at all sure why it would be in the interest of the Israeli prosecutors to create a false impression of the man. It might aid your understanding somewhat, Major, if you read his plodding, machine-like replies to the questions put to him in during the trial. Or, if you have not the time for that, you might care to have a look over Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. It serves no purpose, as I have made clear in discussions with others (see my talk page for some thoughts on Magda Goebbels), to belittle the things and the people we do not like. But Eichmann is impossible to magnify; a little man with all the imagination of a lower-grade civil servant. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to cover my fundament here, I want to make it quite clear that I thoroughly disapprove of Nazi-ism and that I've no particular knowledge of Eichmann. Having said that, I can quite see that people such as Hans Frank and Hermann Goering, in a social context, were probably both very good company and no fools. Regarding Eichmann's trial, it must have been obvious to him that he was heading for an inevitable death sentence; taking a transcript of his cross-examination under those circumstances and drawing conclusions as to his character seems a bit dubious to me. Anyone who has undergone a hostile cross-examination will recognise it as a highly stressful and artifical environment; it's an example of extrapolating from the specific to the general. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

Some of the assumptions need looking at. Regarding Iran's desire to "wipe Israel off the globe" - this may be coming from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements, the most famous of which was officially translated similarly, but about which there was a translation controversy, see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. There is no doubt that he has said many idiotic and reprehensible things. On the other hand, Iran has endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative toward Israel, which is arguably more important. I think few neutral observers (opposed to propgandists) think that Iran has much if anything to do with fighting in Iraq. The effect of the American invasion was to create a friendly Shi'ite state, why would Iran have a problem with that? The very respected Israeli military theorist Martin van Creveld's remark that "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy" is worth noting.John Z (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I for one, believe that if Iran is foolish enough to be behind bombings in Iraq that after a certain while Iraqis will catch on and you will begin to see bombing inside Iran. Although teh Golden rule is not Islamic it is still a very valid rule. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Catholic Encyclopedia names the place "The Kingdom of Naples" [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks everyone! That leaves me with two questions regarding the article on Thomas Aquinas:

The current text says that Aquinas was born "at his father Count Landulph's castle of Roccasecca in the Kingdom of Sicily, in the present-day Regione Lazio." What should replace the Kingdom of Sicily? I can't think of an adequate way of putting it, please help.
Bielle makes a good point. The article's lead sentence says Aquinas was born "c. 1225", the biography section's first sentence says he was "born in 1224", the box on the left says "Birth c. 28 January 1225". He is a member of Category:1225 births, and his birth is also featured in the articles on 1225 and January 28. The TA article also says "The Roman Catholic Church today celebrates his feast on January 28, the date of publication of the Summa." Would it be right to remove all references to Jan 28 as his DOB? And would it be best to set all year-of-birth references to "c. 1225", or can something be said for 1227 or another year? Bielle's reference states: "From Tolomeo of Lucca . . . we learn that at the time of the saint's death there was a doubt about his exact age (Prümmer, op. cit., 45). The end of 1225 is usually assigned as the time of his birth. Father Prümmer, on the authority of Calo, thinks 1227 is the more probable date (op. cit., 28). All agree that he died in 1274." If there is doubt, should both years be mentioned? Should TA still remain a member of the 1225 article and category?

I realize these questions might belong on the articles' and categories' talk pages. Well, I asked here and very soon saw informed, and referenced answers, and the encyclopedia saw an expansion of another article! (I will post this thread on the talk page eventually.) ---Sluzzelin talk 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the birthdate, January 25 was (probably) still 1224 at the time, since the new year (probably) didn't start until March or Easter or some other date, but we retroactively say it was 1225. (But if the date is disputed between 1225 and 1227 then this explanation doesn't work!) I would say that if Roccasecca was part of the territory of Monte Cassino, then it is more likely in the Papal States than in Sicily, even if Monte Cassino was effectively independent. Or perhaps we can just say it was in "Italy" and link to Italy in the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal and 1914 war

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Or for a more traditional history, see this source: [4]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Colin Powell, Torture, and Ambien

Colin Powell who has been implicated foreign-departmental approval of the torture memo.[5] It seems that he was also given a prescription for Ambien at about the same time[6][7]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the title posted by the OP: Obama as "post-racial" unless of course Obama is not of mixed race. But your further comment reminds me of a trend since the beginning of the civil right movement called the "race card" which has long since made "post-racial" a meaningless term. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The point above is that even if "post-racial" is based on recognition of insignificant genetic deferences able to erase the genetic basis for defining separate races it is still not a magic bullet which can erase cultural differences that may be one second, one decade or 4,000 to 10,000 years old. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than debate about who read what and who means what, when the very words seem to twist before my eyes, I'll stay with Jack's explanation. My race card is thus full -or was that "dance" card? ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's explanation of the correct meaning of the phrase is most likely correct, however, that does not mean that the phrase is not a pipe dream since race is not based entirely upon genetics. Such thinking is atypical wishful thinking of newcomers to Western Civilization but in error nonetheless. Recently I saw a poster that showed a retarded kid participating in the Special Olympics. The caption said, "If he wins is he still retarded?" IMHO it does not matter unless he is competing outside his peer group, which is the Special Olympics. You may desire that race not be an unspoken criteria for members of a group to which you want to belong but I prefer to stay within my own peer group where the invitation and welcome are genuine with far less risk of not being universal or fake. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

How sad for you. Oh, and atypical means the opposite of typical...

Not sad in the least except for misplaced sympathy for such newcomers, and yes, not typical wishful thinking since wishful thinking is typically positive. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The reason Obama is seen as a "post-racial" candidate, at least her in the UK, is that he is the first black person to campaign for the presidency who is not campaigning largely on the fact that he is black. The fact that he is black is rarely addressed by Obama, and as such he is seen as representing a step forward for American politics, as he is symbolic of an America that is actually considering electing a black man to office. He is post-racial insofar as race is not relevant to his campaign, or at least never explicitly mentioned by the man himself, although the media seems to have quite a fixation on the fact. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be foolish for a Irish Catholic to run for office in the UK even though his official political platform was not Irish Catholicism? 71.100.171.178 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Not at all, and I don't understand how that applies. This article in the Telegraph states that there are at least three Catholic MPs in the Cabinet, and the only reason the issue has been brought up there is because of their specifically religious beliefs. They were not elected on solely Catholic platforms, although that analogy would apply much more in Northern Ireland, where there are deep religious divisions. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And although not stated what would you assume the unspoken but underlying platform of a candidate with an Irish Protestant mother and a Irish Catholic father to be if religion was an issue across the land? 71.100.171.178 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you all for the response--that makes a lot more sense now, especially the notion that he's not basing his campaign on his race. It is kind of a sloppy phrase, but at least it means something. X) (I was trying to figure out who post racial, in what it sounds like it means, could apply to. Michael Jackson?) --Masamage ♫ 17:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My Lady Muse, I would be most honoured! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you build it, they will come. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

$56,690-$56,735 (£28,765-£28,787). [8] PeterSymonds | talk 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elder von Mildenstein

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Silly me, when I first read the phrase "Jewish section of the Sicherheitsdienst" I imagined that there were a whole section of Jews who were working for the Sicherheitsdienst - leading me to wonder how it was that a Jewish family had been raised to the German nobility (as Edler) and then granted the title of Baron. In fact, this was a Catholic family of Bohemia ennobled in Austria on 4 October 1788. I haven't found the date they were made Freiherren. - Nunh-huh 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, D aniel (‽) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Daniel, although its presentation of the topic leaves much to be desired from an encyclopaedia entry, you may be interested in our article on voluntarism. With regard to specific philosophies, Objectivism, anarchism and – as noted above – the classical liberalism of philosophers such as John Locke incorporate an ethical stance opposing anything but voluntary co-operation.

Related concepts include affinity group (an incarnation of consensus decision-making), consent of the governed, heterarchy and horizontalidad, negative liberty and value pluralism. If you have any further questions I would be happy to attempt to answer them. Skomorokh 03:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I must respectfully disagree with Clio that a moral spectrum delineated solely by mutual consent defies ethical categorization and is amoral. I think this begs the question of what constitutes moral philosophy, but it is a vice shared by many moral philosophers. Voluntarist moral philosophy qualifies as an ethical position because it coherently defines for the moral agent what is good conduct and what is bad. Amoralism declines to make this distinction, or may seek to move beyond good and evil. Skomorokh 03:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be respectful, Skmorokh-disagree away! I am not saying that a moral system cannot be constructed on the basis of mutual consent; I am saying that the example I have given is beyond even the wildest frontiers of moral relativism. It's not just beyond good and evil, it’s beyond comprehension; beyond Socrates, beyond Epicurus, beyond Locke. Or perhaps this is just me revealing all of my conventional and bourgeoisie preconceptions? Anyway, I shall now return to Henri Bergson to refresh my understanding of the nature of moral obligations! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of what consenting behaviour is allowed by systems (in this case political rather than ethical, but most law is based heavily on a version of ethics), it might be worth having a look at Operation Spanner and Armin Meiwes, as the two cases involve the ability of people to consent to actual bodily harm or murder. The first one seems to be much more of a grey area, but I think I'd agree that if you're consenting to be being branded and severely injured it's probable your ability to consent could be diminished. Very murky ethical waters, these. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Meiwes case is the one I am referring to, Michael, as you will note if you read my opening remarks above. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think going back to my original assessment of "libertarianism" that I may have confused a political ideology with an ethical one. Libertarianism, like liberalism, definitely relates, primarily, to views of the state. I think the same applies to some of the other suggested terms, namely anarchism and voluntarism. On the other hand, I looked up objectivism, and frankly couldn't see how this connected with the question, though it is related to the same general subject matter of ethics. Perhaps I read it wrongly, which does happen, unfortunately. I disagree with Clio that there is no ethics in the position stated. She gives herself away a little, by referring to normal codes of ethics, whereas I would completely accept that the suggestion is so extreme as to be untenable, hence highly abnormal, yet still a possible basis for a (flawed but actual) system of ethics. I would still, caveats aside, use the term libertarianism to describe it. Whatever justifications it has belong to the same body of thought, and indeed, political libertarianism in any extreme form could reasonably attacked using this association. This would involve an appeal to consistency: political libertarianism, defended properly, might lead the proponent quickly into a position of "ethical libertarianism" - it may be difficult to escape. But I think Clio would be able to find a way out :) 203.221.127.124 (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpret my question.

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

April 14

Sovereignty definitions

My political science professor was teaching a first-year intro course for the first time, and basically everything he said was way over our heads, even when we ask for clarification. He gave us the following definitions for sovereignty (which were just one group of definitions among many! --he's not much for pinning things down):

International/legal- mutual recognition, more form than content
Westphalian- establishing law, religion, taxation, etc. within own territory
Domestic- something about political authority, and something about others stepping in, and I also have something written down about Rwanda and the Congo????
Interdependent- political regulation of flow of goods, capital, information, etc. across borders

So as you can probably see, it's the third one (domestic) that makes no sense to me (I included the others for context--all paraphrased and simplified from my prof's long and rambling musings). Anyone have an idea of what he's trying to get at there? Thank you so much! (P.S. My final exam is in about eight hours so if I could get an answer before then please? Thanks, you ref desk people rock!) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rushed answer: from http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Krasner/krasner-con3.html, domestic sovererignty means that a (1) a country has infrastructure (government, police, courts, etc.) that enforces its authority over the population, and (2) the infrastructure is effective. I suspect the reference to Congo and Rwanda was because these countries' presidents, due to wars, have little control over the areas affected (see http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/11/12/edmvemba_ed3_.php). The comment on others "stepping in" is related to this; governments don't have sovererignty over an area that rebel groups constantly capture, lose, retake, etc. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have left it till 8 hours before an exam to learn a key concept then you dont deserve any help. I presume your university has a library. Go to it and find out yourself! Willy turner (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-amalgamation Ottawa

Does anyone know what the boundaries were (what streets/rivers/lines) of pre-2001 Ottawa? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This description is based on city maps in three pre-2001 road atlases (Rand McNally Ontario RoadMaster, and AAA and National Geographic atlases of North America) and is somewhat simplified in order to keep it reasonably short. Distances are approximate; directions like "south" and "east" follow the street grid (and therefore are not at right angles to each other!) except as noted; and I don't clarify whether the boundary follows a street exactly or only roughly.

0.2 km south from the Ottawa River ending at the corner of Carling Av. and Bayshore Dr. (Where "south" means parallel to the streets, not true south, and similarly for the rest of this description.)
0.2 km east along Carling.
2 km south roughly along Roseview Av. and other minor streets to Base Line Rd.
7 km east along Base Line to Fisher Av.
2 km south along Fisher to the corner of Viewmount Dr.
0.2 km east to the Rideau River.
3.5 km upstream along the Rideau River.
2 km mostly east, but with some small zigzags, cutting across the airport, to near the corner of Royal Route and Breadner Blvd. in the military base.
zigzagging about 1.5 km north and east, cutting across the base, to Hunt Club Rd. near the corner of Paul Anka Dr.
7 km east along Hunt Club to Hawthorne Rd.
1.5 km north along Hawthorne to the corner of Ages Rd.
1 km east to the railway tracks just west of where they cross highway 417.
2.5 km mostly north, first following the curve railway and then angling off to the east of it, roughly true north, as if following a railway not shown on my map and perhaps no longer existing. This bit crosses the highway.
1.3 km mostly west, on a curve, recrossing the highway and coming back to the railway, again as if following a disused railway line.
0.2 km north along Star Top Rd.
1.5 km northwest (parallel to Cyrville Rd.) to near the corner of St. Laurent Blvd. and Tremblay Rd.
1.7 km north along St. Laurent to just before MacArthur Av.
2.5 km east, cutting across the National Research Council property, to Blair Rd.
2.5 km north along Blair Rd. back to the Ottawa River.

But that is not the complete boundary, because it did not just return to the starting point along the Ottawa River. Rockcliffe Park and Vanier were not part of Ottawa; they fitted in between Ottawa and the river. Their boundaries are not shown clearly on my maps and are too irregular to be well suited to the above style of description. But Vanier was roughly 2 km across, extending east from the Rideau River and centered around Montreal Rd.; and Rockcliffe Park was a bit smaller, between Vanier and the Ottawa River.

--Anonymous, 07:44 UTC, April 14, 2008.

Thanks! I had no idea the lines were that squiggly. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most city limits are, especially where the city has grown by many amalgamations and annexations of towns and villages over time. Simple cases like the present Toronto limits are the exception. (For Toronto it's because of the reuse of old township boundaries originally drawn in rural areas.) For Ottawa at least most of the segments were parallel to the street grid, making them easier to describe. --Anon, 23:10 UTC, April 15, 2008.

Translations of Dream of the Red Chamber

Are there any translations to English of Red Inkstone Study (脂硯齋)'s commentaries on Dream of the Red Chamber? 130.85.251.16 (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Court Hierarchy

Hi,
I've had a look through [9] but I couldn't find the answer to my question. Which is to what extent are state level courts in the Australian legal system bound by federal courts? For example is the Victorian Magistrates Court bound by the Federal Magistrates Court? If so what about the County Court? The Supreme Court? Also which state courts are bound by the Federal Court? Thanks! --58.175.34.222 (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found this[10] and this one from the second par[11]. Hope it helps, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting expression

Hi, If a company has written-down an asset (such as a lease-hold improvement) they would usually take it off the books. But if they want to keep it on their books for administrative purposes, they may keep it there for e.g. $1. What is that amount called under US GAAP or IFRS. A "symbolic value", "memory value" or ??? I tried googleing it, but without the correct expression, that's pretty futile. Hope s.o. here can help. Lisa4edit--Lisa4edit (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find more in our article Peppercorn (legal) which refers to the minimum legal amount to keep something contractual. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I really need the accounting term. Peppercorn only worked with "rent". I also found "nominal value" but that turned out to be something else. A colleague suggested "reminder value" but that doesn't seem to be it either. --Lisa4edit (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notional value. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case s.o. else needs to know "notional value" is what it was. --Lisa4edit (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I said. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richardr, I think that Lisa4edit was just confirming that, of all the suggestions, yours was the correct one. That's a thoughtful thing to do. Often, the readers are left unsure as to which, if any, of a series of proposed answers is the right one. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was "nominal value", the same as how a transaction where money has to change hands is often $1 and is called a "nominal fee". But this is in the UK, so it the US it couldbe different. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-modern revolution

So the article on the EZLN says

Some consider the Zapatista movement the first "post-modern" revolution: an armed revolutionary group that has abstained from using their weapons since their 1994 uprising was countered by the overpowering military might of the Mexican Army.

And after reading the article on postmodernism, I'm still a little confused about how it supposedly applies to the Zapatistas. Non-violence existed before postmodernism, as did the idea of abandoning tactics that don't work. So what's so postmodern about the Zapatistas? --superioridad ^(discusión) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It went underground (addn: using the internet). In the article Metanarrative Lyotard explains: "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives." So it seems that the Zapatista movement no longer believed in the master-narrative, or the old heroic real-world, real bloodshed way of carrying out a revolt. By turning to the internet, they entered a post-modern strategy best explained (for me anyway) by taking a lateral action as given in the writings of postmodern philosopher Gilles Deleuze and his ideas about the progression of a rhizome with its unpredictable growth; he also describes lateral solutions as a "line of flight" away from the linear arboreal model of hierarchies and historic progressions. Compared with these old models of action and reaction, the rhizome is a model of an underground way of life or action, " that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation" which the internet provides. Deleuze develops this in A Thousand Plateaus and his book Rhizome. In a way, it's postmodern to enter into your quest/question not through the main article Postmodernism but through the links in this answer. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the civil war in the Solomon Islands, see History of Bougainville. Surprisingly, we don't have an article on the war itself, but it started with a group of local landowners turning guerrilla and shutting down the environmentally damaging Rio Tinto mine. They then fought off various private and state security forces with home-made guns. It does help that Bougainville is an island. Their power came from coconuts, which makes it a surreal if not pomo war in my book. They made coconut oil into biofuel and used that in looted jeeps, and scavenged the deserted mine for equipment they could remake. Fascinating stuff. I read up on it after the recent Radio 4 serialisation of Mister Pip, a novel with the war as its backdrop. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congress and Amritsar Massacre

how did congress party respond to the massacre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Godberly (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre article, specifically the "Reaction" and "Monument and legacy" sections, may help, likewise Non-cooperation movement and History of the Indian National Congress. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congress organised its own inquiry into the massacre, headed by Chittaranjan Das, and Swami Shraddhanand, supported by Pandit Nehru, which began work on 16 October. Ghandi joined the following day after the order prohibiting him from entering the Punjab was lifted. Unlike the official inquiry, Congress allowed the victims of General Dyer's actions to give witness. Ghandi, true to his legal training, kept matters as precise as possible, admitting only that which could be proved, frustrating some of his colleagues, who were looking for something altogether more lurid. This inquiry was particular importance for the future political direction of Congress; for it turned Ghandi from an imperial loyalist into an unremitting opponent of British rule. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio's answer is as sharp as ever. I'd also like to draw your attention to an extraordinary libel case which lasted for a remarkable five weeks in the High Court in London in 1924, called O'Dwyer - v. - Nair. Sir Michael O’Dwyer, Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab until 1919, successfully sued Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair. You'll find it worth reading up. Xn4 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations looking forward to human dieback

Dieback is the phenomenon where a species with excessive numbers dies back to a level more supportable by its environment. Human dieback has been predicted by all sorts of doomsayers, though is now looking more and more likely -what with climate change, peak oil, resource depletion, emerging avian flu and other possible pandemics. I'm just wondering if there are any organisations or groups out there planning for this and actually looking forward to it, any links or details you can give would be welcome. Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VHEMT... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excessive example. There are various organisations that are acting to reduce the human birthrate though better access to contraception, family planning, abortion, and so on. The history of the movement can be traced through to eugenics, which is a dirty word, as often it is assumed eugenics=negative eugenics, whereas negative eugenics is merely a subset, and this should rather be considered under liberal eugenics. I am not a dog (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From misanthropy: The Finnish eco-philosopher Pentti Linkola is considered as the most influential misanthrope currently living. He has openly advocated genocide as means of population control, Social Darwinism to promote euthanasia campaigns for extermination of life unworthy of living,[...]

Not exactly an organisation but I guess he's got some followers so he could be considered as being part of a group of people. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not meaning organisations trying to reduce human birthrate or human population, rather organisations that believe its inevitable it'll happen through natural (or unnatural man-made) events or as an inevitable consequence of overpopulation and are looking forwards to it and preparing for it (either with a view to being part of those who survive or just looking forwards to it as a general good thing). Though VHMET is interesting to hear about. AllanHainey (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a less extreme group, see Population Connection though they, too, are actively encouraging smaller rates of reproduction. I don't know if anything satisfies all your requirements? Any group that sees a smaller human population as a good thing would almost certainly be actively working towards that goal, no? --D. Monack | talk 02:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to necessarily see it as a good thing, just something that's inevitable & if inevitable therefore better sooner than later. But it doesn't look like there is anyone. AllanHainey (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

François Mitterrand

I vaguely remember reading somewhere (don't remember the quality of the source), something to the effect that Mitterand said, on his deathbed, that "50 families" control the world. Now, ths sounds really conspiracy theory, but does anyone know whehre this might stem from? Is it a recurring theme in political CTs? Or maybe this is a question rather for WP:RD/E than here? Dorftrottel (troll) 15:51, April 14, 2008

I can't find any reference to such a quote from Mitterand, even when I search in French. The idea seems to me highly implausible. Conspiracy theorists often point to the Bilderberg Group, an exclusive and secretive organization, as the vehicle by which a small elite controls the world, but even the Bilderberg Group involves more than 50 families. This kind of conspiracy theory is certainly a recurring theme in fringe discourse, but I have never come across the "50 families" claim before. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks very much. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 02:15, April 15, 2008

Engelism

To what extent was it Engels who really invented Marxism? Is there any truth to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.245 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks quite interesting: [12]. PeterSymonds | talk 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is to Friedrich Engels that we owe the materialist interpretation of history. Not only did he invent the term, but he refined and, more important, interpreted the work of Karl Marx, handing it down like Moses in tablets of stone to the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the leading left-wing movement of the day. The problem is that Engels, while he tried to be true to the thinking of his mentor, began to act as if it was sacred canon, introducing a degree of rigidity that was not in the original; turning fluid observations into concrete precepts, what he called 'the great law of motion in history.' Marx’s sociology was thus transformed into a kind of deterministic science, comparable, in Engel's view, with the laws of energy.

It was Engels, not Marx, who saw economics as the ultimate foundations of all social and historical structures. He attempted, towards the end of his life, to correct some of the damage done in turning Marxism into a materialist pseudo-science, though by this time it was altogether too late. His earlier interpretations conveyed a simplicity readily understood by those with less subtle intellects, those looking for straightforward dogmatics; people for whom notions of base and superstructure offered a short-cut to understanding. Yes, he might very well be said to have 'invented' Marxism; and, yes, he might also claim the right to be its earliest gravedigger. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger and language

How does language fit in to Heidegger's general concept of being? F Hebert (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This probably does not answer your question, but, I went to the Heidegger article, pressed Ctrl F (something you may want to learn), typed in language, and scanned, and copy/pasted select sentences. Here are my results.

For Heidegger, unlike for Husserl, philosophical terminology could not be divorced from the history of the use of that terminology, and thus genuine philosophy could not avoid confronting questions of language and meaning.

The existential analytic of Being and Time was thus always only a first step in Heidegger’s philosophy, to be followed by the “destruction” of the history of philosophy, that is, a transformation of its language and meaning, that would have made of the existential analytic only a kind of “limit case” (in the sense in which special relativity is a limit case of general relativity).

(About Die Kehre) In his later work, Heidegger largely abandons the account of Dasein as a pragmatic, engaged, worldly agent, and instead discusses other elements necessary to an understanding of being, notably language, the earth (as the almost ineffable foundation of world) and the presence of the gods.

He wrote a book called: On the Way To Language, published without the essay "Die Sprache" ("Language") by arrangement with Heidegger. Neal (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It was one of his central preoccupations. In A Dialogue on Language he wrote "Language is the house of being. Man dwells in this house...In language there occurs the revelation of beings...In the power of language man becomes the witness of Being." Being or Dasein-the central concept in his ontology-is revealed through language.

He also spends time discussing the vacuity of ever-day language, where words lose meaning through overuse. One only has to consider here the use of 'love' in relation to all kinds of experience and tastes, so much so that the original intensity of meaning has been sucked dry. Heidegger says that the key to self-understand is to rediscover the original link between the word and the experience, when, as he puts it, 'Being first spoke' in words like 'peace', 'love', 'truth' and 'compassion'.

It is in the area of the Language of Being, in Heidegger’s own philosophical vocabulary, that his thinking tends to become particularly opaque. His use of all sorts of obsolete and compound expressions makes the English translation of his work problematic, particularly that which he wrote after Being and Time. It's only for the most determined of Beings in the world! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language and monstrous sentences in Sein und Zeit inspired German comedians Thomas Pigor and Benedikt Eichhorn to perform Heidegger's lyrics over a soft reggae beat. It works surprisingly well, and everything makes more sense, all of a sudden! Here are the lyrics, his website has the leadsheet, piano score, and a mp3 recording as well, if you want to learn it in order to impress the philosophy undergrads at the next dorm party. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin, those guys must have spent hours on that! They really know the work of the boozy begger [13]! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pigor is a perfectionist (and physicist by training). here is the more relevant link, by the way (piano score, leadsheet, and short sound sample). I just noticed that the lyrics aren't quite accurate, as often. Instead of "Mamma" the song actually has nasty little chorus interjections going "Hannah, Hannah". The leadsheet has the right lyrics though. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents and recessions

When was the last time a U.S. president presided over two recessions? Any recession agreed on by consensus will do--the two-quarters-of-GDP-declines-in-a-row definition is too strict. Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your definition of recession if you are refusing to use the proper definition. Otherwise, you are actually just trying to spark a debate about what an alternate definition of a recession could possibly be. -- kainaw ™ 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really the "proper" definition? The last recession I think saw only one quarter of negative GDP growth. I don't think the NBER, to whose opinion I'll defer whatever it is, thinks it is the primary determinant. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See recession. There is only one case where the NEBR felt it necessary to rule a contraction as a recession when it didn't fit the normal definition. I don't consider one exception to the rule to be reason to toss the rule out all together and start making up our own rules. -- kainaw ™ 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in List of recessions in the United States. -- kainaw ™ 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kainaw, I didn't know that. Ok. So now, why does the above list differ from http://www.nber.org/cycles/ ? Which do you prefer? Imagine Reason (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing a list of recessions to a list of contractions. Contractions are normal and happen all the time. The economy goes up and down over and over. The proper term for going down is a contraction. A recession is a specific type of severe contraction. While contractions are considered normal and no cause for concern, a recession is cause for concern. If nothing is done, a recession may not naturally rebound into an expansion. Similarly, expansion is normal. However, severe expansion is cause for concern. That is commonly called a "bubble" and it wasn't too long ago that we learned what happens when the bubble pops. -- kainaw ™ 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks a lot! Imagine Reason (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

Why does the sun make people happy?

Moved to the Science desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's so bad about pandemics?

Yes, yes, I know there's the pain and suffering of the infected. But I'm talking about a more dispassionate and logical approach. Let's say that a disease spreads throughout a continent or maybe even farther. The ones who are most affected will likely be the poor (due to limited access to health care), the elderly, and the very young. So you're basically taking out those who are taking money and resources from welfare systems, those who are no longer adding significantly to the production of goods/services, and in general those who are on the receiving end of the balance sheet. There will be the initial cost of keeping the people outside of those demographics healthy but after the disease has subsided, won't society be "healthier" in some respect? So is there a "harm" that I'm missing here? Dismas|^(talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The typical party line is that suffering is never justified or acceptable, but I for one am with you. I think the real problem is that we read the news about far-off places that we have no business knowing about, when we should really just be concerned with what's in front of our noses. Vranak (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the harm that you're missing is what you've passed over with your dispassionate and logical approach. Djk3 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biologically, Dismas is correct. Pandemics either wipes out an organism or make them fitter for survival.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same dispassionate logic might next take you to the next step. Why waste money on any health care, for any one, rich or poor? It is the weak (and the unlucky) who get sick. Let them all die and humanity will be the stronger for it. It is not a strength I would admire, and not a place I would care to be. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Setting to one side the repugnant sentiment expressed by Dismas and Vranak, if we consider a pandemic such as Spanish flu in 1918/19 "another unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults, with 99% of pandemic influenza deaths occurring in people under 65, and more than half in young adults 20 to 40 years old." In our own time, AIDS is doing much the same, notably in Africa (one of Vranak's far off places that we should not concern ourselves with, as if that makes it all go away). I'm going to doubt that the orphaned child of an AIDS victim agrees that it was the economically unproductive who died. Dismas and Vranak might want to reflect on what sort of society they want to live in: one which does not give a shit, I'm guessing. One which conveniently selects out evidence that does not support their world view. Lovely. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compelling argument, Tagishsimon, but I ask you this: if someone is suffering in Africa that I am unable to help, is it better for me to know or not know about them? If I know about them, the suffering is compounded, if not, it is limited. If suffering in the first place is objectionable then why is it acceptable in my case?

Perhaps if I were a more typical Westerner living a decadent lifestyle (SUVs, ski trips, winter in Hawaii, a closet full of shoes) then it would be good for me to know about the less fortunate in Africa, Iraq, or at my nearest homeless shelter. But I cannot even support myself, so learning about those even more pitiful than me doesn't help anyone. Vranak (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the relevant answers, I find the assumption that I endorse such a situation fascinating to say the least. I don't recall saying that we should throw the poor and elderly to the wolves. I was just posing a question about a hypothetical situation and asking for relevant issues that I might be ignorant of. Dismas|^(talk) 10:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the "harm" you might be missing... I guess what's also missing is the idea of personal, cultural and social capital which is not measureable in economic, goods and services, balance sheet terms. These are invisible largely because they're not going to appear on the books. See Pierre Bourdieu for an expansion on that. Sometimes people are simply worth supporting because they're part of society and contribute in ways economists and accountants overlook, but are important in ways known only to their families, carers, and others whose jobs depend on having the poor, elderly and ill to cater to. My bet is that society wouldn't feel so well off if the vulnerable disappeared for, among other reasons, that they are binaries, offering a dialectic such as in the existence of the Other. (and a ps, the "other" continues to encroach as those who are "us" take our turn to be "them" given time and chance events which as I see it, respect no-one in reality. I'm smiling at the idea of you imagining a selective pandemic. Hmmm, the Black Plague took out the educated and well-off, opening up previously privileged fields of employment to people from the lower classes. Howzat for an unpredictable pandemic!) Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I also didn't completely understand what you were asking, Dismas. Was the "harm" that you might be missing to be viewed entirely from a species point of view? If so, it is theoretically conceivable that a sufficiently virulent pandemic could wipe out the entire human species either directly or by affecting its ability to reproduce.

If not, even for a seemingly "unaffected" and "healthy" individual, and even from a "dispassionate and logical" point of view, and as pointed out by Julia Rossi, a pandemic will not only make the victims suffer and die, but also lead to great suffering among the survivors in their families and communities, with far-reaching global effects, especially if there is the impression that too little was attempted in terms of fighting the virus or protecting human beings. Entire societies could collapse with unpredictable costs and consequences regarding their peace and stability, as well as that of neighbouring regions. Even without compassion and only applying selfish logic, this isn't desirable anywhere in a globalized world, unless you happen to profit from instability. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the world's poor were wiped out, who would do the jobs that poor people tend to do? I hate to sound this arrogant, but I'm rather happy having a desk job.

Besides, since most forms of poverty aren't genetic, the evolutionary gains would be slight. What would probably happen is that there would be a serious shakeup in the economy when the poor-people-in-large-numbers suddenly stop buying stuff and at the same time suddenly stop showing up for their minimum wage service jobs. After a (hopefully brief) period of chaos many of us currently enjoying life in the middle class would find ourselves filling the role previously held by the plague victims.

That's how it's always happened in the past. A society would have to take a deliberate effort to avoid that. But then we're talking about Communism or something, and that's not easy to get right.

That's not to say a giant population decrease wouldn't be good for the species or its longterm survival, of course, but you asked about society.APL (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemics also herald political and economic instability. We look back on the social and economic effects of the Black Plague today and see a net gain, since it moved Europe a bit closer to what we have today (a less strong Church, increased social mobility), but that's just the pride of the victor (and omits the peasant uprisings, persecutions of minorities, etc.). Who knows what would happen in a similar situation today—it's a dice roll, and could most easily end up in awful situations. Additionally, I think you underestimate the long-term effects of getting rid of the elderly, the poor, and the young. The poor contribute a huge amount to the functioning of an economy; the elderly are major investors; the young are, well, the next generation of laborers, thinkers, workers, etc. A nation with no elderly and no young and no poor would be in sad shape indeed; and any benefits to state coffers from a lack of welfare checks would be quickly offset by a lack of tax income, a lack of manpower, general economic downturns, etc., much less the expenses of disaster mitigation, healthcare, insurance, etc. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider the fact that a pandemic will take out more than just the elderly and children. It would take millions oflives, regardless of fitness, age etc. If it was fast-acting enough it is likely that no amount of wealth and thus medical treatment could cure it before it does huge damage. It would destabilise society, taking out key workers all over the map, and to look at it from your point of view, taxpayers. If it was severe enough it could do much more than just this: as Ms Rossi mentioned, the Plague was pretty severe. To look at it from your point of view, you might consider the possibility that humans could expend billions or even trillions attempting to cure it, to no avail. Your way of looking at it is short-sighted to say the least. I would say society would be much "healthier" place if we actually gave a crap about people suffering from deadly diseases, and attempted to show some compassion and empathy towards them. Let's assume that people on benefits/welfare contribute nothing to society, and are then all killed off in a huge pandemic. Sure, the governments of the world would be paying out less in benefits, but you'd the have no old people, who are often the most involved in politics, no young people, who are indeed the future, no struggling musicains to get you throught the hard times as you deal with the death of your student cousin, virtually no real economic hardship for some of the greatest art to be created from etc etc. It may feel to you that many people are on the "receiving side of the balance sheet", but that is to ignore all the advances of the last 150 years in Western civilisation. One of those victims could have gone to university on welfare and developed the cure for cancer. One could have become the next Shakespeare. One could have done anything, for that is what we often recognise now: although many traits are genetic, human potential is enormous, and clever parents do not a clever child make, and the same is true for poor or struggling parents. Your point of view seems to be encroaching upon eugenics or social Darwinism, and yours, Vranak, is either objectivist or just plain selfish. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, Dismas, if I gave the impression that I thought you were supportive of a society that throws people "to the wolves". My comment was meant merely to remind us that, once we start thinking that way as a society, we are headed to places that may well be even worse. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you owe anyone an apology, Bielle. Anyone asking questions about "what's the harm" in millions of people dying horribly ought to have a thick skin, I should think. Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t it curious, Bielle, that when an argument like this is presented that it is always the 'others' who are affected, those removed by distance, or by poverty, or by culture; those in 'far-off places' and with 'far off lives', never oneself. My father has a very extensive collection of Bob Dylan recordings, and I am reminded of one song in particular, World War III Talkin' Blues, where the narrator keeps having a recurring dream that he is the only person to survive a nuclear holocaust. Troubled by this he goes to the doctor;

Well, the doctor interrupted me just about then,

Sayin, "Hey I've been havin' the same old dreams,

But mine was a little different you see.

I dreamt that the only person left after the war was me.

I didn't see you around."

The typical 'party line' in the nineteenth century was that the suffering caused by cholera was 'justified and acceptable' for as long as it only affected poor people. But, unfortunately, disease, being rather blind, tended to walk, all unannounced, into nice middle-class neighborhoods, then it was a different matter altogether! Death is fine just so long as they are the deaths of other people, and then one can be dispassionate and logical; then one can discuss healthy demographics and healthy organisms in all liberty, in the full conceit of Olympian 'logic'.

But it occurs to me, Bielle, that we have reached such a stage of development that there is no need to wait for the necessary pandemic to 'winnow out' those far away and worthless people. Why not begin the process ourselves? We would, of course, have to prioritise those suitable for some measure of social hygiene. You may have your own views on this. Jonathan Swift suggests in his wonderful A Modest Proposal that the problem of hunger could be solved by the consumption of babies. But I personally think it better if the terminally stupid start dining on one another! And, please, everyone, never seek to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. People with a thick skin deserve less courtesy than those who are more easily offended. I'll have to remember that, Matt. Bielle, thank you for your apology. As Matt assumed, I do have a thick skin and was not offended by your comment, though you did jump to an incorrect conclusion. I don't advocate pandemics. I am simply looking for more than a "we should save the poor because they're human beings just like you and me" argument. I was looking for the soceital effects as well as the financial and political. So far, the responses have been most enlightening! Thank you, everyone! Dismas|^(talk) 09:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of good points have already been made, and to expand on one issue regardless of whether it is harmless that the eldery and children die, let's remember that for the children and parents of these children and elderly respectively, they're not going to see it from this dispationate POV. They're very likely to spend as much time and money as possible trying to keep their children/parents alive. And once their children/parents do die, this could easily have a strongly negative effect on their mental health (let's not forget that the wealthy of delay childbearing to an age where they can't just have more children) and on their personal development. So putting aside the potential contributions of the children and elderly you've just said you think don't matter, even those whose physicial health isn't affected by the pandemic may still not contribute as much as they could have or would have because of the pandemic's effect on those around them Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What your missing is Morality. Willy turner (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majahapit civilisation

Disclaimer: not a school project.

What are the features that caused the civilisation to flourish/decline? (In terms of geogarphical location, allocation of occupations, government and leadership, form of writing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean Majapahit?--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, soory for the speeling error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the disclaimer? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colette and religion

Exactly when, and exactly why, did the French writer Colette, who often proclaimed her agnosticism, start to take an interest in matters of religion? Did she undergo some kind of personal or spiritual crisis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.98.146 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to this, but if Colette did meet such a crisis I guess it was near the end. As she wrote in La Maison de Claudine (1922), "Tu comprendras plus tard que jusqu’à la tombe on oublie, à tout instant, la vieillesse". (You will understand later that we keep on forgetting old age, until we get to the grave.) Xn4 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on this topic, 217.42, in The Secrets of the Flesh: A Life of Colette by Judith Thurman (Bloomsbury, 1999). It was in the spring of 1943 when Colette turned towards religion, urged on by Francois Mauriac, who decided that it was his personal mission to 'lead Colette to God.' It was on his urging that she began reading the Bible, particularly the epistles of Saint Paul. She was highly vulnerable at the time, old and ill, increasingly convinced that she may not survive the war. However, Maurice Goudeket, Colette’s husband, took a more sceptical view of her motives, that her 'spiritual flirtation with Mauriac', as he put it, might give her some kind of immunity 'in a moment of great danger'. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death

How does one mentally prepare ones self for the eventual death, assuming all practical matters, like wills, financial affairs ect. are taken care of?--Artjo (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent study it was proven that people with some type of religion usually cope better with death/dying. --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. If you are disinclined to religion you might like to contemplate impermanence as well as rebirth, and perhaps consider voluntary work in a hospice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of interesting books on the subject. I found Sherwin Nuland's How We Die to be quite interesting. But anyway, there's no obviously generalizable answer for the individual person; any reasonable response will have to be personalized to their situation. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these answers, I am not religious by any standards, so will try to find the Nuland book. Thanks again.--Artjo (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many non religious people (including myself) find it helpful to realize that we have all actually been “dead” for eternity. As Schopenhauer saw it, for instance, life is merely a short and rather unpleasant episode in an expanse of glorious nothingness. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second the Captain's recommendation. There's something about Nuland's clinical detachment that I found strangely comforting. That kind of writing could easily come across as cold or inhumane, but done correctly it serves to bring the horrors down to our scale, where we can more easily confront them. It's been several years since I last read the book, but I seem to recall that the chapter on murder was one of the most enlightening. Matt Deres (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going with personal experience, after a gradual loss of faith I found a realistic dream in which I actually died oddly helpful. Terrifying, but left me strangely comfortable with the notion after the initial response wore off. S. dedalus's approach was precisely the sort of thought which made me uncomfortable (When you have been dead 1000 years, you have only begun to be dead), so these things vary widely from person to person. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People living deeply have no fear of death. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I'm very surprised that no one had yet mentioned the Kübler-Ross model or its author Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. If I were in the position you describe, this would likely be where I started. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.36.216 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should clarify--I'm not sure that her model would be the only thing that allowed me to deal with the process. But I think understanding why we feel the emotions we do as we approach death, and how we transition between them, would be one of the best ways of making that transition more smoothly and with more self-awareness. 71.112.36.216 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the throwaway lines in Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces is that the ultimate purpose off all religions is to prepare its adherents for, and provide comfort at the time of, death. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin and bureaucratic decay

Thank you for answering my question about Engels. I am turning now to Lenin. Beyond the warnings in his testament about Stalin did he see a danger to the revolution in the rise of the new bureaucratic class?Yermelov (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was, Yermelov, effectively 'hoist by his own petard.' "We are convinced", he wrote, “that our machinery of state...is inflated to twice the size we need", but offered no solution to the problem beyond the rather lame suggestion that 'further study' was required. Effectively the situation was impossible, because he had created the problem of over-centralisation himself. In his recommendations on the recruitment of 'irreproachable communists' to the Central Control Commission he says, with absolutely no sense of irony, that "...a great deal has yet to be done to teach them the methods and objects of their work." In other words, the supervisors of the supervisors need supervising! For Lenin the Party had to play the leading role in all spheres of Soviet life. From this all else followed; from Stalin to the final collapse of the whole impossible structure, crushed by a dead-weight of empty dreams. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Bin Laden

Shortly after the September 11th disaster, the US government identified Osama Bin Laden as its lead terrorist target. I saw a follow-up national TV news story reporting that Osama was totally dependent on dislysis machine treatment...it seemed credible. I have not seen a similar report since. If he does require/required such treatment he should have had major difficulty surviving in the Afghan/Pakistan caves, as our government reported as his hiding places. He would also have had diffulty surviving to this date. If this is true, maybe government searches should have traced a dialysis machine trail.

Could you verify whether Osama Bin Laden did require/requires regular dialysis machine treatments? If he does, what ailment is being treated?

TyRonne de DuPonte' —Preceding unsigned comment added by TyRonne de DuPonte' (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try here it's a complete medical history, including information inferred or discovered by intelligence services that has been revealed to the media. I can't vouch for the reliability of the site, but the article seems very well referenced. Evidently Osama does not require dialysis, but does suffer from kidney stones. There used to be a wikipedia page about the CIA's analysis of his gait, which I believe they use to verify his identity in the videos as it is very difficult to imitate, but I can't find it. Essentially I think the CIA determined from the way he walked that he had something wrong with him, possibly bone problems, but that it was not renal failure. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlborough coat of arms

Are there more informations on the coat of arms of the Marlboroughs? Why a double-ehaded eagle, the spanish motto and the Shell of Saint James?--Tresckow (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the bit about the spanish moto is explained on the page the image resides on, Duke of Marlborough, which states "The meaning of the motto, Fiel pero desdichado (Faithful but unfortunate), can be related to the fact that as a consequence of his loyalty to the king, the first duke lost his home and lands. It is original having the motto in Spanish and not in Latin. That could be related to the fact that the first duke become honored after the battle of Blenheim, decisive in the Spanish succession war." There's no reference but it seems plausible.

However, despite my best efforts on Google I can't find anything that explains the origins of the various parts of the coat of arms. I wouldn't be too shocked if Clio knows, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I read this explanation. But I wondered if there was more to it. Considering the eagles that are rather odd for British heraldry. At least in my opinion. sadly Google has nothing to offer.--Tresckow (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial Eagle and princely coronet are to do with the first Duke holding the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (an honour granted by the Emperor in 1705). With regard to the shells, the part of the arms the OP is interested in is the quarters representing Spencer. They weren't part of the arms until added by the 3rd Duke, whose father was a Spencer, his mother Lady Anne Churchill. The 14th century arms of Hugh le Despencer were Quarterly argent and gules, in the second and third quarters a fret or, over all a bend sable. It isn't certain that these Spencers were descended from him, except through female lines. When we come to Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland (1674-1722), father of the 3rd Duke, the bend sable is differenced by three escallops argent, distinguishing him from other Spencers, who bore on that bend five mullets argent or three fleurs-de-lys. Xn4 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German eagle has its head turned to our left hand, and the Roman eagle to our right hand. When Charlemagne was made "Kaiser of the Holy Roman Empire," he joined the two heads together, one looking east and the other west...

Benét, W. R. (1948). "two-headed eagle." The reader's encyclopedia p. 327.—eric 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I always thought the Double-headed eagle was the symbol of the Byzantine Empire. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it was, but adopted also by a miscellany of empires. One of the most surprising uses is on the arms and flag of little Albania. Xn4 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope's Airplane

This morning on the radio a newscaster stated the Shepard 1 was in the air, the Vadican reports that the Pope is on his way to America. Was this a joke? or Does the Pope fly in a plane called Shepard1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raszone (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article: [14] will answer your questions. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he does. CNN mention the Shepherd 1, as to many other news sources. It's not as strange as the Popemobile, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resourceful Tips to be a Qualified Cartoonist?

I was asking how to be a cartoonist without a acquainted edge on illustration or drawing characters before.

I had a interest by watching cartoon shows these days namely Stephen Hilling's (or whatever his name was) brainchild of the American program, Spongebob Squarepants. I envied the genius of making a sponge speak and have typical human characteristics and so I thought it wouldn't be so bad if I made characters of my own to entertain. --Writer Cartoonist (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be only me but I don't really understand your question. What is 'to be a qualified cartoonist'? Do you mean with a diploma? By cartoonist you seem to mean character designer or did you mean something else (someone that writes and draws newspaper cartoons, animation ,comic books)? Making up goofy things might cover most of it? Practice and looking at 'cartoons' are the two basic ingredients it would seem to me. Maybe you could rephrase your question (for me anyway). Using google queries such as 'cartoon blogs', 'illustration blogs', 'drawing ressource', 'character design', etc, will show you how broad the field is. All the best. Keria (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are how-to cartoon books, and illustration courses from community college to degree level and cartoon workshops, so googling is the way to go. If a person has ideas they can get a cartoonist to collaborate with them which is what Harvey Pekar did. He had ideas but not the cartooning ability. I guess you've thought of training yourself by copying, developing stylistic bits that you like and putting them into your characters. I saw a little book that played on the stick man theme because the guy had ideas but could only draw stick men. It worked. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could practice by yourself, attempting to draw the human body in motion in various poses. try buying a small mannequin withadjustable joints and just sketch its body shape accurately and try to add features. The human body is really complex and difficult to make look realistic, so it'll improve your ability endlessly. Try and give your drawings character, or even better attempt to create characters, like a storyboard or something. I've no idea how to do cartoons in flash but I'd imagine you'd still need to be able to draw pretty well, depending on what style you're doing. Practice is the best way to get good, and I find that when you sketch out a character, the ideas normally turn up pretty quickly. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JeffreyLotusSan

Mister San was born on October 4th, 1993 and has made many accomplishments. He has been through many struggles in life, and yet is living it to the fullest. He is loved by the most awesomest people on earth, like Tho Nguyen.

Jeffrey San became the queen of [name here] kingdom, ruled by his one and only king, Tho Nguyen. Misz Nguyen has hired a noble servant who has been there for both her& her queen through many troubles. Vuong Tran, would be this handsome [gag] gentleman's name.

Vuong Tran, was born February 3rd, 1993 and is currently still walking. He likes to be himself& day dream about [fill it in]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misz thoquin (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some sort of wiki Mad Libs? Dismas|^(talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized Prison Cells

I remember seeing pictures, several years ago, of a private and highly secure room that was to hold a very high-profile criminal for his life-time sentence. My memory seems to suggest that it was built in Britain for an Islamic terrorist, but this could be false. I also feel like I saw it on the http://news.bbc.co.uk website, but this could also be wrong. I've tried searching that site, along with general google searches, but I can't seem to turn anything up. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a very strange idea. Does anyone remember ever hearing about a special prison room, designed with one criminal in mind? It's one of those things that has been pinging around the back of my head for a long time, and I'd love to have it cleared up. Thanks in advance for anything you think up! -Vannav (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Noriega#Trial? --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vannav, forgive me, I skipped your question earlier because I assumed it was a matter of no interest to me. But on further reflection, and now having read the detail of your submission, I wonder if you have Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the convicted Libyan terrorist, in mind? I believe he has a specially designed cell in some Scottish prison. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loveable characters from literature

What male characters or heroes of literature would you fall in love with? Keria (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I´d be a girl most likely with Jean Valjean, Javert or Colonel Brandon (that is if he´s like Allan Rickman in the movie).--Tresckow (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcliff! I hated you; I loved you.[15]. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the chicks dig Mike Hammer. ;-) —Kevin Myers 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, some of us are handicapped in this! But judging by the women I can't resist, I'll say Lord Peter Wimsey. Xn4 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not limit it to males here! Wrad (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were a chick or gay, I'd probably go for Lazarus Long. Since I'm not a chick or gay, I'd go for pretty much any Heinlein heroine especially Laz Long's twin "daughters", Lapis Lazuli and Lorelei Lee. "'What would you do if you had a million dollars?', 'Two chicks at the same time'" - Not Heinlein but it gets the point across... Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common ones I hear are Mr Darcy (handsome and smouldering) and Mr Knightley (sensible, good-natured and handsome) from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and Emma, Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights (why? I have no idea, whatsoever), Jean Valjean (older, honourable, gentlemanly), Marius (sensitive, romantic) and Enjolras (strong, leader type) from Les Miserables. Steewi (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - I'd be interested to know JackofOz's opinion here. Steewi (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steewi, thanks for the interest in my opinions, but this is actually quite a tough call for me. I've been so immersed in non-fiction reading for so long that fictional characters do not readily suggest themselves to me. I'll have a memory search and get back to you. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I realise - probably for the very first time, actually - that as I matured to the point where I was able to fall in love with anyone, I unconsciously decided that fictional characters, interesting as they can be, are just not available to fall in love with in a real sense, and so I switched my attention to real people. Hence my interest in biography and non-fiction in general when it comes to reading. I can certainly fall in love with characters from movies, but I suspect that's strongly influenced by the actor/tress playing the part. For example, I love Alec from E.M. Forster's Maurice, but if an actor other than the delectable Rupert Graves had played the role in the movie, I suspect I couldn't give a fig for Alec. In my strange mind, the actor and the role are often merged into one. Maybe I need more boundaries in my life. Thanks for the opportunity to continue on my steady and unremitting path to self-actualisation. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I need to justify my dreams to you, Steewi, but I see in Heathcliff all of the uncontrolled and elemental passions; dark, brooding and impossibly romantic. You are quite obviously male...or most awfully tame! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Wrad (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True on both accounts, Clio, but you assume that my maleness would completely remove my opinion... Steewi (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I? How clever of me! I have to say, though, that my assumption appears to have been based on a false premise, does it not?! Anyway, I rather thought I was directing my remarks at your professed ignorance over the possible attractions of Heathcliff. You now do have an idea what these might be. You may not like the idea, but you have it, notwithstanding. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of an odd question for a predominantly male website. I'll have to say anyone but Lovecraft's Cthulhu. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions assumptions. I have yet to see an unflawed study or survey that indicated the editors of Wikipedia in general, or even of the reference desk, were significantly predominantly male. Of course, I may be experiencing a slight True Scotsman here :). To the question, I'd have to agree with Mr Darcy. Heathcliff I found deeply irritating and unpleasant, but then I felt that way about the whole book. If we're stretching the 'literature' label, possibly The Stainless Steel Rat or Lupin from the Harry Potter series. Oh Lupin, how glad I am never to have watched the movie version of you. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I can include pop-culture literature, there's replicant Roy Batty; (segueing to the movie: especially his monologue at the end summarising his short, harsh life). He was weird, but admire-able. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to go with Rhett Butler. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Pimpernel, perhaps? · AndonicO ^Engage. 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old Salon thread [16]] that kept coming back around to vacillate between Darcy and Jamie from Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series. Catrionak (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Carton. --LarryMac | Talk 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. John Dolittle [17]!--Eriastrum (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¡Wow! I don't know any of these characters. Thank you very much. Keria (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I have strange tastes in men (read Byronic and/or tragic and/or Anti-Hero), but Mr. Rochester, Mr. Thornton, Edmond Dantes/Count of Monte Cristo, Eugene Onegin, Roland Deschain, Dexter Morgan, Richard Rahl, and Rand al'Thor are some of my favorites. (If we were to delve out of literature, I'd mention The Doctor, Dream, Batman, and The Punisher among others....) My roommate recommends Horatio Hornblower, and seconds the Scarlett Pimpernel. Zidel333 (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, John Carter of Mars? Tarzan (the one in the books, not the movies - he was, after all, a British lord). Corvus cornix_talk 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts came to mind when I read this enjoyable thread. Clio, you surprise me. If you like dark and brooding, why not Mr Rochester? At least he has intelligence and wit. Heathcliff, well, if you aren't disgusted by his wife-beating, violence, necrophilia, adulterous and incestuous obsessions, ill-natured manipulation of others, brow-beating and temper tantrums, you'd still be bored by him within a week. Hardly a mind to excite anyone (I tried to imagine him contributing to the Ref desk; Mr Rochester would be amusing and insightful; Heathcliff could bring WP to its knees).

Xn4: you're in good company. Dorothy L. Sayers fell in love with Lord Peter as well.

JackofOz: I recommend falling in love with fictional characters. Existing entirely in the imagination, you can conjure and manipulate them at will, and create a hybrid!

I take all your recommendations very seriously, Gwinva, naturally, but I can't promise to do this. I don't wake up in the morning and say to myself "Hmm, what will I do today? I know, I think I'll find someone to fall in love with". It comes upon us, usually when we least expect it - and sometimes when we least want it. That's my experience. Anyway, while I love all humanity, I'm only ever in love with one person at a time, and I'm fully spoken for at the moment, and intend to stay that way forever. Sorry, but I'm just not made to fall in love with people I can't actually touch. The best I can do with fictional characters is to admire them. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking more generally, I have noticed the standard interest in Darcy. Yet, how many are like Elizabeth, and date their affection to seeing Pemberley for the first time? If Darcy were poor, would he be as interesting? For loveable Austen heroes, Henry Tilney is unfairly overlooked by most: he is amusing, intelligent, kind, loyal, steady, accepting, although probably not exciting. I suspect there is a difference between those women want to marry and settle down with – the Darcys, Tilneys and Lord Peters – (see following question) and those they want a love affair with. Hornblower, the Doctor, Sharpe (and so forth) are exciting, but would make poor husbands. The Byronic types may be romantic, but they offer little but misery long term.

On a related topic, I've heard Elizabeth Bennett described as "the most shaggable Austen heroine". Gwinva (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Rochester is tiresome and altogether too bourgeoisie for my taste!. Alas, nobody-apart from me, that is-seems to understand the elemental force that is Heathcliff. Cathy is his anchor; without her he is lost, blowing through the novel with all the unrestrained energy of a great tempest. Their's is a mutual passion, with echoes of an ancient tragedy, that goes well beyond the cosy domesticity that Jane brings to Rochester. Charlotte did not understand the force of Emily's great novel, a work of unsurpassed genius, going far beyond anything she ever achieved; going well beyond the limits of the Victorian imagination itself. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Clio, about Emily Bronte's genius: her writing is extraordinary. It drags one into a dark and claustrophobic world, and portrays the depths of wild tempestuous passion. But it's not a world I'm tempted to stay in; it is a relief to emerge from it. Gwinva (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We buried him, to the scandal of the whole neighbourhood, as he wished. Earnshaw and I, the sexton, and six men to carry the coffin, comprehended the whole attendance. The six men departed when they had let it down into the grave: we stayed to see it covered. Hareton, with a streaming face, dug green sods, and laid them over the brown mould himself: at present it is as smooth and verdant as its companion mounds - and I hope its tenant sleeps as soundly. But the country folks, if you ask them, would swear on the Bible that he WALKS: there are those who speak to having met him near the church, and on the moor, and even within this house. Idle tales, you'll say, and so say I. Yet that old man by the kitchen fire affirms he has seen two on 'em looking out of his chamber window on every rainy night since his death:- and an odd thing happened to me about a month ago. I was going to the Grange one evening - a dark evening, threatening thunder - and, just at the turn of the Heights, I encountered a little boy with a sheep and two lambs before him; he was crying terribly; and I supposed the lambs were skittish, and would not be guided.

'What is the matter, my little man?' I asked.

'There's Heathcliff and a woman yonder, under t' nab,' he blubbered, 'un' I darnut pass 'em.

For me Heathcliff and Cathy will walk those moors, hand-in-hand, forever. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, your comments regarding Heathcliff seem to border on hyperbole. As for Charlotte’s tale, Mr. Rochester and Jane have a smoldering passion throughout nearly the entire novel; but it was due to morality and Victorian modesty that they could not simply just out and express their love as melodramatically as Emily’s character’s did. Also, Jane gives Mr. Rochester far more than plain domesticity as you put it, she gives him true love, a happy and mutual beneficial marriage among equals, children, and above all else the hope and desire to repent his sins to save his soul. These are all things that are not shared by Heathcliff’s and Cathy’s story. And lest we not forget, Mr. Rochester was so desperate to join his true love Jane he was on the brink of suicide, an act of terrible finality that not even Heathcliff acted upon. While readers may poo poo the “happy ending” of Jane Eyre in comparison to the more brutal tragic love affair between Heathcliff and Cathy; but this response is too simple an answer as both Jane and Mr. Rochester have had to suffer by the Hand of God, both bodily and emotionally, before they could be reunited. Their pain makes the ending that much more satisfactory. Zidel333 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply love drama and hyperbole, Zidel! Yes, Jane Eyre is a nice Victorian morality tale, with a comfortable and acceptable ending; a kind of secular Pilgrim's Progress. Wuthering Heights is altogether greater, a story of love that transcends the mundane. To imagine Cathy and Heathcliff in cosy domesticity, like Jane and Rochester, is to imagine the impossible. Emily's great novel was misunderstood by Charlotte and most contemporary opinion. It touched on aspects of love and tragedy that they simply could not comprehend. Heathcliff is part of my romantic vision. Thus it is, and thus it remains. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but the realist Jane, refusing to accept a relationship with the one she loves until she can be sure they will be on an equal footing. It's not really a morality tale, more a story of power and love. It's not so much the immorality of bigamy that stops her sticking with him, more the uncertainty of the position she would find herself in. She knows he's liable to stray and that, without a legal marriage, she will have no recourse if he loses interest in her as he has done in others before. I'm not so keen on Rochester myself, but the book is certainly not cosy. (As to the comfort of the ending, I recommend reading The Eyre Affair) Darcy though; smart, funny, sensible, charitable, actually thinks about things and caught off guard by his love! 130.88.140.121 (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a morality tale alright, a progress through trial and tribulation to the calm waters of matrimony. It's all there; the Slough of Despond, Hill Difficulty, the Valley of Humiliation, Vanity Fair, even Giant Despair himself. Resolution comes as Jane and Rochester enter through the gates of matrimony, their own celestial paradise. The book may not be cosy; the end certainly is, which is precisely the point I am making. It is for this, and other reasons, that I consider Jane Eyre, for all its worth, a lesser achievement than Wuthering Heights.

Honestly, I’m not sure why I've been drawn so far into this. I admire all of the Brontë books, though Wuthering Heights has a special place for me as one of the greatest, no, let me be more precise, the greatest English novel of the nineteenth century. I return to Keria's question. Yes, Heathcliff, mad, bad and dangerous to know, is my romantic ideal; the one figure in literature that Clio, in the shape of Cathy, could fall madly in love with! …he shall never know how I love him; and that, not because he's handsome, Nelly, but because he's more myself than I am. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

Woman and money

Do woman care more about the financial situation of their partner than men do? 217.168.0.112 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose they do. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it too. However, it is no surprise at all, since most men don't care at all about the financial situation of woman. Anyway, in our modern times woman are able to structure their life independently of men - what means that they earn their own money and don't have to think about the income of their partners if they don't want to. 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltnVinegar (talk • contribs)

Lots of men work to support their wife and children so that they will be in a good financial situation. In these situations, I'd say the "care" is mutual. (Always that problem with lumping the sexes in a group and making general statements!) Wrad (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's surely to do with men, all over the world, having the lion's share of the income. Most women understand poverty and dependency better than men do, though perhaps in the developed world this is at last becoming less true than in all past ages. Xn4 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, of course, I meant only the part of the world where I am. Woman in some countries have to fight against considerable social discrimination.SaltnVinegar (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that they are more concerned about money, so much as security. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself! The second question I invariably ask a man is 'How much do you earn?' I am not prepared to reveal the first! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally asking private questions like this is just considered ill-breeding, specially direct questions. SaltnVinegar (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to be so literal-minded. Normally having a sense of humour is a sign of intelligence. Ha-ha! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my fault. SaltnVinegar (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? My grade school teachers seemed to think my sense of humor was a sign of me latter failing high school. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, primary school teachers-what can one expect?. No imagination, no insight and definitely no understanding of the finer minds! I can still hear those words echo down the years, "Young lady, your mother shall be told of your impertinence." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot let that description go entirely unchallenged, Clio. I know and have known some exceptional primary-school teachers, full of imagination and enthusiasm, and always appreciative of "finer minds". I am sorry you did not have that experience. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did, and still retain fond memories of one much-loved individual in particular. I did not really intend my remarks to be taken too seriously, though my quotation is an exact recollection! I was never the easiest of pupils, Bielle, I freely confess! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions as to Clio's first question:

'Did you know that I enjoy eating beaver sausages?' --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'is that an original pristine copy of A Modest Proposal in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me and perhaps debate the works of Joyce over a nice chablis and a plate of trotters. Nanonic (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meat on Fridays

Is it a sin to eat meat on Fridays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what religion? Wrad (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what meat? SaltnVinegar (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it's pretty clear we're talking about Roman Catholicism and animal flesh other than fish - as far as I know it's the only religion which restricts meat ingestion (vs complete fasting) on Fridays (if I'm wrong on this I'd love to hear more about the others which others seem to have in mind). With regard to this restriction, the Code of Canon Law revised in 1983 says this: "Canon 1251: Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday." However, most Episcopal Conferences (i.e., the local bishops) have determined that an act of penance other than abstinence from meat can substitute - so the answer to your question is that for Catholics, some form of penance on Fridays is required, that this form of penance can take the form of abstention from meat, and can take other forms based on the determination of the local bishops. - Nunh-huh 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstinence would include smoking tobacco and that other stuff. --Wetman (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are all kinds of abstinence, and the canon above is not discussing tobacco or "stuff". - Nunh-huh 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Polish father-in-law tells me that the reason that the beaver became extinct in Poland was because it was classed by the Church in medieval times as a fish and so was eaten to extinction. Knowing the Poles, they probably made them into sausages. The Poles, in my experience at least, and just like everyone else, are not too keen on abstaining from other stuff. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capybera too. APL (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What - do you eat them or have other stuff with them? --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1993 book Case Closed Gerald Posner interviewed Dr. Pepper Jenkins, a doctor who had treated John F. Kennedy in Dallas. Dr. Jenkins told Posner the doctors were stuck with fish lunches as the Catholic church had given JFK permission to eat meat on Nov 22. Neither man went into detail as to why this permission was obtained or why the event mattered. If you have access to a good bookstore or library, the story is on p. 286 in the first paragraph.- Thanks, Hoshie 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fasting rules are different if you're ill, very young, elderly, a manual labourer, pregnant, etc. So all these things are subject to variation. Skittle (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of 'fish' in the Middle Ages was highly elastic, including not just beaver but such culinary delights as whale, porpoise and barnacle geese, yes, geese! Medieval cuisine has some information on this. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of a church can't tell an otter or a rodent from fish? (Rhetorical question/not starting a debate here.) Julia Rossi (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (I just noticed the title of the next question. That's that, then.)[reply]

Musk rat is a traditional "fish" still sometimes served during Lent here in the Detroit area. Never had it myself but I am sure it "tastes like chicken". Rmhermen (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the theory that if it's under the water, it must be a fish. It rather puts me in mind of learned disquisition in Monty Python and the Holy Grail on determining who's a witch and who's a duck. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that these rules were never supposed to be anything to do with scientific taxonomy, just abstainance and fasting. After all, we'll happily talk about eating our vegetables when they include tomatoes, cucumber, etc, and about eating fruit when not all of it contains seeds. That these definitions do not match scientific definitions doesn't matter, because they are not intended to. They are culinary. They no more thought the otter was a fish than you think the tomato is not a fruit, and yet I don't see you putting it in a fruit salad :) Or you can just continue to think 'stupid people, I'm so smart...' 130.88.140.116 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practitioners of Magic

I was writing a paper for school about the history of magic and it's various beliefs up until the modern times. Although the paper is completed, I still haven't been able to find why there are so many titles for a practitioner of magic (Witch, Wizard, Sorcerer, Magician, Shaman, etch). I've search the web quite thoroughly (for more than a week now) and was still unable to come up with any information pertaining to the historical significants, only the basic definitions. So my question is: why are there so many titles and what is the difference between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.124.231 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take different languages and different cultural beliefs and you get the word list; add demonising by the powers of the time, and you get negative or positive reputations/meanings. Maybe you've been there already, but I've made links to our articles of the terms in your question that you might like to click through. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you included Miracle, or is yours a parochial school? --Wetman (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find answers by consulting a very good ictionary, such as a complete version of the Oxford English Dictionary, which will provide the etymology of the word (i.e. where it came from; from which language, when). e.g

Witch - from old English Wicca, dating from c890 AD
Wizard - from Middle English wysar, connoting wise, 1440
Sorcerer - from Old French sorcier - one who sorts, from the 1300s
Magician - Middle French magicien 1370-80, and/or from magix, which goes back through the French to Latin and Greek
Shaman - I'll just quote - a. G. schamane, Russian sha{sm}man, a. Tungusian samân (Castren Tung. Sprachl.). Cf. F. chaman. 1698.

So, as stated above, different language origins, and different original meanings. You could make an interesting enough table ot such terms, showing date from, language of root word, definition, &c, but, as I say, only with access to a complete enough dictionary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman's suggestion should more properly have been "miracle worker". Others include witch doctor, warlock, mystic, mage, magus, voodoo, conjuror, invocator, enchanter, thaumaturge, lamia, sortileger, kahuna, etc. Quite a long list indeed. Rmhermen (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Witch (etymology) as well. Wrad (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

homestead exemption

my grandfather wants to put two more homes on his 5 acres but i will be living in one and my uncle in the other we will pay all bills our selves so basically 3 homes on 5 acres. My question is does this cause him to l0se his exemption and is that even allowed or do we have to sepperate the land? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.210.152 (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this has something to do with a Homestead exemption in the US? Does that article help? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may require a change in zoning to establish a subdivision. Where my parents live 5 acres is the minimum for a house on a rural-zoned lot. Smaller than that requires setting up a subdivision and petitioning the zoning board for a variance (and publishing a notice in the newspaper, etc.) Rmhermen (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous quotes

Who said 'In victory we must prepare for defeat' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrie buck (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the firewalking Anthony Robbins that's for sure. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Pyrrus? This is not, I think, an observation anyone would wish to be remembered for! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds vaguely like Lincoln or Churchill to me. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

english boarding schools for girls

did any of you english chicks here go to boarding school and was it anything like st trinains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo McGoogle III (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and no. But "anything like St Trinians" is awfully vague you know. If you are really interested, take a look at boarding school and list of boarding schools. Those in the UK all have jolly good websites. By the way, I am now a hen.--Mrs Wibble-Wobble (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo, dear, I am neither a 'chick' nor a 'hen', but I did attend a very good boarding school in England. I rather suspect that you have this St Trinian’s rather than that St Trinian’s in mind. Was my school anything like the movie? No, it was far worse! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio knows more than most of us about the peregrinations of the Wycombe Abbey girls to London, Oxford, and all points east and west, and what they get up to there. When I was an innocent young fresher, they were said to be very advanced... goodness knows how shocked we should be if we knew the whole truth now. Xn4 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the stories one could tell, Xn4! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lohr and the Greek Resistance

I was looking for information on the German response to the growth of the Greek Resistance movement in World War 2, specifically the response of Alexander Lohr, the Commander of the South East area, but there is not much, either in his biography page or the more general articles on the Axis in Greece and the Greek resistance. How, then, did Lohr react, and what were the consequences? How did the resistance war change German attitudes towards the Greeks? Thank you for giving this your time. Vasilis Tsironikis (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Löhr, commander of Army Group E from 1943 onwards, was in many ways quite a tragic figure. A soldier of the old school, and Russian Orthodox by birth, he was far from being a committed Nazi. He had in fact, served in the army of the Habsburg Empire during the First World War, as did many of his senior officers, and thus brought to his command many of the old imperial prejudices many older Austrians felt towards the Balkan peoples. Though tied by the stupid and ultimately self-defeating counter-terrorism guidelines issued to the German Army, he implemented them without a great deal of latitude or imagination. His task in Greece, Vasilis, was to eliminate the andartes, and that is what he attempted to do with all thoroughness. I suppose it did not help matters much that most of his troops, Wehrmacht and SS, had been brutalised by service on the Eastern Front. Indeed, one formation, the 117 Jaeger Division, was specifically told that eine gewisse Brutalität ( a certain brutality) was absolutely necessary. The usual measures were adopted against the insurgents, including hostage-taking, wholesale executions and casual atrocities. The consequences of this were exactly the same as elsewhere in Europe; the resistance movement grew steadily in both strength and confidence.

On your wider question, the guerilla war changed the preconceptions with which the Germans had first arrived in Greece. Philhellenism gave way to notions of the wild 'Balkan fanatic', with the Greeks being seen as little different from the Serbs. As a consequence the Greeks slipped steadily down the racial ladder in the Nazi scheme of things, with the connection between the ancient peoples and 'this land of neo-Greeks' being openly doubted. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deaf in the ancient world

How were the deaf perceived in the ancient world? Your page on the History of the deaf is no help at all because it's only about sign language.217.43.9.32 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[18] [19] I found these quite a good source on the subject (You need Powerpoint for the second). PeterSymonds | talk 09:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The general assessment was not terribly positive, with most doubtless sharing the sentiments expressed by Aristotle in De Sensu-"Language is the cause of the education which we receive...blind people are more intelligent than deaf and mute." St Augustine of Hippo was later to add to this assessment by saying that "This impairment prevents faith...a man born deaf is incapable of learning to read which would lead him to the faith." For St Paul to be deaf meant to be stupid. It was partly owing to these attitudes that deaf people were not allowed to own property under Roman law.

But there were exceptions to this common prejudice. Ferdinand Berthier, founder of the first social organisation for the deaf, pointed out that among both the ancient Egyptians and Persians deafness was regarded as a sign of the favour of heaven. In Plato's Cratylus Socrates says that "If we had neither voice nor tongue, and yet wished to manifest things to one another, should we not, like those who are present mute, endeavour to signify our meanings by our hands." So, not stupid after all. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hell is an empty desk

Can anyone please tell me who said this first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardieparrot (talk • contribs) 09:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could anyone possibly know who said anything first? It's not as though it's a profound insight or anything.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you said it first, at least according to Google. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant in the context that we go around always complaining about how much we've got to do and how little time....., and that we actually like this status quo. The most hellish scenario would be having nothing to do=an empty desk. So slightly profound, imo! I just don't know and just can't find out any more, who said it.

Sorry, I cannot find it either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor me. Sartre may be the early starter of Hell is... sayings, though. Can be found in No Exit. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-kilter here; could it be a reference back to Dante's Inferno? In one of the circles of Hell I believe that there is a group of people doomed to labour without ever receiving any praise or condemnation, or any feedback at all; just unceasing labour, accepted ungratefully. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smersh

In a James Bond book, "Live and let die", an organisation is mentioned who name sounds foreign, an I think is something to do with communism. The name rhymes with sm-er-sh, pronounced according to the general trends of British English enunciation. What is the name of the organisation? --145.29.23.38 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMERSH (James Bond) :D Wikipedia has an article on everything. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read that article, 145.29, you will now know that SMERSH-Death to Spies-was a real organisation, once headed by the notorious Viktor Abakumov. It only had a short three-year existence, from 1943 to 1946, though it clearly left an abiding impression on the mind of Ian Fleming. Anyone who comes away from a reading of From Russia with Love without pleasant and cosy feelings towards General Franco's Fascists clearly has not understood the latent message! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page on Norwest Venture Partners

Hi Dear Wiki Volunteers: I have found very good material on several VC firms on the Wikipedia. May I request that a page on Norwest Venture Partners be done as well ? If this is not the right forum, or not an appropriate request, please discard the question :). Thanks for all your efforts, Regards, Anil 59.163.46.162 (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can request that at Wikipedia:Requested articles, --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schlecht und Reu

I was in a choir many years ago that sung, among other things, a German song that I think was called 'Schlecht und Reu' or at least featured that phrase prominently, and translated as 'Woe and Rue'. It may have been part of a greater work. I'm unable to find anything via Google and thus throw it to the Humanities wolves. Ring any bells for anyone? After managing to identify a coin as a Pakistani Rupee yesterday using Wikipedia (in an epic but inspired search full of mini ironies that almost make me want to write a short story) I had hoped I could do the same with this, but have failed. The tune was along the lines of:

Schle-	echt	und	Reu-	eu
C	B	A	A	G#
minim	crochet	crochet	crochet (leant on)	crochet

Obviously I don't know the key, this is just the intervals (I hope). Thanks for any help. Skittle (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's "Buß und Reu" from Bach's St Matthew Passion. (schlecht is an adjective meaning bad. Buß' (or Buße) means penitence in this context) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I wonder where I got 'Schlecht' from? That fits perfectly, as we did the St Matthew Passion with that choir. Thanks so much. To iTunes, ho! Skittle (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Looking on Youtube, to confirm, while it's familiar it doesn't contain the musical phrase I'm thinking of. Various things online suggest this movement involves the chorus as well, although the excerpts I find on Youtube do not, and these could potentially contain something closer to the phrase I recall. (I'm realistic enough to assume it won't match perfectly, as I have a tendency to 'clean' gaps in music I half-remember) Could you shed any light on this? Skittle (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while I'm still interesting in knowing if the chorus is involved in this movement, I think I've found the bit I probably 'cleaned' :) Skittle (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Human Trafficking/Anti Slavery Groups in S. America

Does anyone know of any South American anti human-trafficking/anti slavery groups I could contact to potentially work at/volunteer this summer? I have been searching extensively and am coming up empty-handed. --Yoyoceramic (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the UN GIFT partner list? Or the International Organization for Migration? Also, the Coalition Against Trafficking of Women works in Mexico. And GAATW has member groups in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Suriname and the Caribbean – click the link for the contact email address. Good for you, I hope you find what you are looking for. WikiJedits (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's gold

Did Caesar in any way attempt to use the profits he had gained from the war in Gaul to influence political opinion in Rome in his favour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.162.148 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duh-Yes. Check out Suetonius for some good information about Caesar (Gaius Julius Caesar) and his lavish spending to improve his standing in the public opinion of Romans. Also see Michael Grant's book "The History Of Rome". Plundering provinces & then bribing people at home to get gain were common practices in the Roman world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He used the money, 86.153, to buy friends among the city magistrates. When the question of depriving Caesar of his command was raised in March 50BC by Marcellus, his political enemy, he was not supported by his colleagues. Caesar's position was made even more secure by the intervention of Curio the Younger, the Tribune, who argued that, for the sake of fairness, and for safety of the Republic, consideration would also have to be given to Pompey's command in Spain. There was, of course, no legal basis for this, because Pompey's office had been renewed in 52BC and still had several years to run. But it served as an effective reminder just how much power he had accumulated. It placed Caesar on the same level as Pompey, a more senior figure, linking their fates in the Roman mind. It also served as a subtle reminder to Pompey that it was in his best interests to preserve his alliance with Caesar. The whole tactic was highly effective. Caesar's enemies were neutralised for some time, with Curio continuing to black any moves against him in the Senate. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

diplomatic immunity

does diplomatic immunity violates the rights of a person? is diplomatic immunity an injustice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.29 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more specific, keeping in mind that we do not offer legal advice. Diplomatic immunity is practically a necessity, to prevent one nation using another's diplomats as effective hostages by arresting them for some (possibly imagined) violation of local law. -- Kesh (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, if you are speaking philosphically, 192.30, it might well be considered unjust where a diplomat does commit a crime, sometimes even a serious one (murder, rape) in another country, and appears to be merely sent home as persona non grata. What recourse does a victim have? None really, and that may not be just. Some countries will enact their own punishment and others have, though I can't immediately find an example, permitted the host nation to try their national under the host's laws. Kesh is right, however; there would be too much potential for abuse if such immunity were not permitted. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a section on abuses and I like: In fiction and reality[20] followed by a nice table on US conditions as they apply. Then there's International law information, best prepped by getting the Straightdope[21]. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of magna opera (magnum opusses)

magnum opus does not have list of magna opera, with authors and their works, e.g.

why not? I am not a dog (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess either because it's such a subjective topic, or because the purpose of the article is to descripe the topic, not to provide such a list. One option, of course, is to add or at least start such a list by yourself and see what happens. Or there could well be a list of important books somewhere else around. Actually, I know there is, I read it a few days ago, I just forget what the article was called. 172.188.37.102 (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

172.188... perhaps you were thinking of Western canon which links to the main canons: Harvard Classics, Great Books of the Western World. I'm a personal fan of Harold Bloom's Western Canon but, as you say, it is all subjective and down to individual's or groups of individual's choices. Melvyn Bragg's book Twelve Books That Changed the World is also worth a read on this issue. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Americans get Harold Bloom and we get the pommaded boulevardier and pretend intellectual Barg. Just look at his embarrassingly parochial and politically correct list: all English, bar one Scot; all male, bar one woman. 'The Rules of Association Football'? God give me strength! Bad luck Americans, Ancient Greeks, and Romans! Hard cheese, Orientals and Europeans! When the history of the debasement of British public and intellectual life comes to be written, Barg will stand for everything that's cheap and tawdry; a fitting codicil to the Blair years.

PS: There used to be an old WP policy, now more-or-less abandoned, of not having lists. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche and learning to love

I'm working my way through Nietzsche's "The Gay Science" (no jokes, please) and there is a passage-one among many I have to confess-that I do not fully understand. It begins with "One must learn to love" and touches on music before proceeding to a more general assessment of the nature of love. It concludes "Love, too, has to be learned". What does he mean exactly? Please, I'm not looking for speculations but some insight as to how this statement fits more generally into his thinking. Thanks. Mark of Cornwall (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you with a copy to hand the reference of this section is Book Four (Santus Januarius), part 334. (I have the Vintage edition translated by Kaufmann). Nietzsche is here comparing love to music - first it must be recognised as an original entity, then it must be tolerated and its 'oddity' accepted and only then are we used to it, almost dependent on it. It's a beautiful passage, only when we recognise love and its strangeness does it transform into something beautiful and endearing. Love, for Nietzsche, is a process of learning which must be worked at to be rewarded. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is beautiful. It is also part of his general critique of knowledge, a tribute to the great Spinoza, who said that the act of knowing is an act of laughing, an act of mourning and an act of cursing. Nietzsche took this one stage further, saying that the act of knowing was an act of love. Love here has to be understood in a transcendent sense, a seeking after the unknown, the true Science of Joy, with knowledge itself as desire. It's Zarathustra's ecstasy in the bedding of the night. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nina gladnitz

biographical information please. specifically if it is possible to view her film Zeit des Schweigens und der Dunkelheit (Time of Silence and Darkness)? is there any transcripts of the court case when Leni Riefenstahl attempted stopping Gladnitz' film from being shown because of Gladnitz' accusations in the film regarding Leni Riefenstahl's disregard for gypsy extras used in her film Tiefland. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.33.57 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Gladitz (no "n") is mentioned in our article Tiefland:

"In 1982 Nina Gladitz produced a documentary Zeit des Schweigens und der Dunkelheit (Time of Darkness and Silence) and examined the use of these Sinti in the making of Tiefland. Riefenstahl sued Gladitz subsequently for defamation and while it was shown that she visited camps and selected Sinti for extras, Gladitz’ claim that Riefenstahl knew that they would be sent to Auschwitz had to be stricken from the documentary. Gladitz, however, refused to do so, and thus her film has not been shown anymore.

"The issue surfaced again in 2002, when Riefenstahl was one hundred years old. She was taken to court by a Roma group for denial of the extermination of the gypsies. But because of her age and illness the trial did not proceed."

I doubt there would be any court or trial documents related to the second attempt as it would appear that there was no trial. A German speaker might be more successful googling for the various names. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Eliot

How do you account for the downs and ups in George Eliot's posthemus reputation?Val El Rie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot's reputation declined after her death mainly due to the publication of her biography written by her husband in 1885. This autobiography, inelegantly written, portrayed her as a humourless and boring woman (he omitted much, including her relationship with John Chapman). As a result Eliot's books became little read. Leslie Stephen helped improve her literary standing in his article for the Dictionary of National Biography. His daughter, Virginia Woolf, agreed with him and wrote an article for the Times Literary Supplement where she remarked that Middlemarch was remarkable in that it was 'written for grown-up people' unlike, in Woolf's opinion, most Victorian literature! In 1948 F. R. Leavis praised Eliot's writings, which sparked an interest which continues today. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, Lord Foppington, if there are not other considerations here, going beyond Cross's tiresome biography? George Eliot's fiction might be said to be the high water of a certain kind of Victorian sensibility. At the time of her death things were moving on, the rot setting-in, so to speak, with new ways of seeing. The certain world of Adam Bede, Daniel Deronda and Middlemarch was giving way to that of Thomas Hardy and Oscar Wilde, pointing ever beyond, to the worlds of D H Lawrence and Virginia Woolf. It's true that Leavis rescued her from complete neglect, but only as a new occupant of an entirely bogus Pantheon. It's really not until the 1970s that people began to see her with fresh eyes, as part of a vital, and living, tradition. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Embassy in Israel

Why is the embassy in Tel Aviv, rather than the capital, Jerusalem? It's bizarre - aren't embassies always in the capital/seat of government? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Israel was established in 1948, its territory did not then include Jerusalem (see the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine). After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War established the de facto Israeli control of Jerusalem, most countries opted to retain embassies in Tel Aviv in deference to the territorial dispute. — Lomn 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Israel within the 1949 armistice boundaries did in fact include West Jerusalem, where the Knesset and most Israeli government ministries (other than the defense ministry) are located.... AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on East Jerusalem details more of the area's controversy. — Lomn 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embassies are not always in a country's capital. Our article on Tel Aviv#After Israeli independence states: 'Because of the international dispute over the status of Jerusalem, most foreign embassies stayed in or near Tel Aviv. In the early 1980s, 13 more returned there as part of the UN's punitive measures responding to Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law. Today, all but two of the international embassies to Israel are in Tel Aviv or the surrounding district.' and this site: [22] confirms this. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including the U.S. embassy, for that matter. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation on the British position is at [23]. It basically does not recognise that Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all embassies are located in a nations' capital, for instance, nations like Bolivia and the Netherlands have more than one capitals. On the other hand, I would suggest that the reason diplomats chose to focus themselves out of Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem is because, objectively, the former is many, many times nicer. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are all kinds of oddities in the world of diplomacy, and one of them is the situation regarding Israel's capital. Arab countries flip out whenever Jerusalem is mentioned as Israel's capital, even though Israel's possession of West Jerusalem is not seriously disputed. While it's true that West Jerusalem was not part of the proposed Jewish state approved by the UN in 1947, neither was Jaffa, which is now an undisputed part of Tel-Aviv! Secondly, even if one refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, there is no reason to recognize Tel-Aviv, which has no more of a claim to being Israel's capital than does Haifa, Beer-Sheba or Lod. In some parts of the world, maps of the Middle East still show Tel-Aviv as Israel's capital, which makes no sense -- if you're not going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city, you might as well not recognize any city at all. Might as well put the embassy in Eilat and spend your days on the beach. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean is, it makes no logical sense. But international diplomacy rarely has anything to do with making logical sense; it's all about forging mutually acceptable compromises.

For another "nonsensical" example, go to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/countrylisting.html. Scroll down to the bottom of the page. Now, what is Taiwan doing down in that separate section underneath Zambia and Zimbabwe? Why isn't it up in the T's instead, as would make sense? Is this some kind of editing error? No, it is not some kind of editing error. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratification and signing of treaties

After reading several protocols in the European Convention on Human Rights, I was wondering about the difference between signing and ratification (e.g. Russia signed the total abolition of the death penalty, but did not ratify it). Apologies if this has already been covered! Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a country is said to have signed a treaty, this means that its negotiators, perhaps with the approval of its head of government, have agreed to a version of the treaty. However, this initial agreement may not be binding until or unless the country ratifies the treaty. Typically, ratification involves approval by a given country's parliament or other legislative body according to that country's constitution. Marco polo (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that clarifies things a fair bit! :) Thank you, CycloneNimrod (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, with Council of Europe conventions it does happen that a member state signs such an instrument but twenty years later hasn't ratified it, so isn't a party to it. Xn4 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Marco Polo's answer, treaty making, culminating in Ratification, the act by which a state proclaims its intent to be legally bound by the treaty is or can be a three stage process, especially in a non-parliamentary democracy, e.g. the USA. For treaty to become US law, (1) the US president signs a treaty, (2) then the Senate votes on it - this is advice and consent, not ratification, although it is frequently called ratification, and then (3) the president proclaims or ratifies the treaty. It can and has failed at any of these stages - the president in #3 can be different from the one in #1.John Z (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existentialism and Fascism

How did the French existentialists perceive fascism? F Hebert (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camus didn't agree he was an existentialist, so perhaps this comes down largely to Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir and their followers. Beauvoir, as a feminist, saw very clearly the sexism in Fascism. Sartre was politically engaged as a Communist, both during the Second World War (he belonged to a Resistance group called 'Socialism and Freedom') and in the bitter aftermath of the war in France, and Fascism wasn't merely his great political enemy but also the enemy which made him an activist and the fighter he was. Alas, as a political figure Sartre was dangerous. He famously defended the perpetrators of the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli athletes, claiming that for the oppressed poor there is no weapon but terrorism. Xn4 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sartre's understanding of politics was not just dangerous, it was dangerously incoherent! He simply could never make up his mind over which direction he wished to travel. I think he saw in politics a way of seeking confirmation of himself, a classic example of existential bad-faith! On Fascism itself we have the words that de Beauvoir gave to a resistance leader "...if Fascism were to triumph, that's just what would happen. There would be no more human beings..." In other words there can be no human beings in the total absence of freedom, understanding humanity as a fluid rather than a static concept. But this statement is just as valid in relation to Communism, not as it existed as a theory, in the minds of the likes of de Beauvoir and Sartre, but as a living practice. On Fascism there is also the observation in Existentialism is a Humanism that if the doctrine prevailed "Fascism will then be the human realty, so much the worse for us." It didn't seem to stop the master publishing in occupied France, though! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penises and Presidents

Which president is documented as having the largest penis? Is the penis size of a president or any other head of state ever been documented?

See Dick Cheney. :-) . I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been any sort of formal chart of presidential penis sizes, as of now. Try looking it up on Google. Ilikefood (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question reminds me of Feynman's parable of the Emperor of China's nose. -- BenRG (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a five foot eleven inch Dick in the White House from 1969 to 1974 [24]. Edison (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But surely all you American guys have huge penises?! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, Edison. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Madison looked like he had the biggest. But you had to stand him on the dresser and close one eye and peer at him from across the room through a toiletpaper roll...--Wetman (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio it's not necessarily about size but who has the biggest that is important. Richard Avery (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Richard, you've lost me. Is the difference between bigness and size some kind of male thing? Perhaps it's best if you don't answer that! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Market

What is a good website for a person wanting to begin in the stock market? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howstuffworks.com probably has an article on the stock market. Ilikefood (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility that you end up in the wrong place with someone trying to sell you something bad is quite large. I would always, regardless of whether you want to buy any products from them, go to your current bank's office first. User:Krator (t c) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morningstar was quite helpful to me when I began investing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are thinking of investing real money in the stock market, then I think that you should consider investing a few dollars/pounds in an introductory guide to stock investing that offers more information for the beginner than any website is likely to offer. I have been impressed by Stock Investing for Dummies, published by the For Dummies imprint, which should be available at nearly any bookstore, online or on the ground. It explains the basics and offers tips for avoiding beginners' errors. Marco polo (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't go to the bank that Ken Done is suing for (whoops) allegedly losing his millions through start-up speculation. Which bank? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

Does anybody know where i can get the piano sheet music for tubular bells???

I need to find this sheet music. I would prefer if i could just get it off a website for free. But i have looked on google and i can't find it anywhere.Please help me!!!Tubular Bells on piano. Thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryPie12 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Tubular Bells, the album by Mike Oldfield, not Tubular bells, the musical instrument. Pfly (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever used Guitar Pro software? I'm a big fan. Many people use it to create sheet music transcriptions of all kinds of popular songs including the one you're looking for (I searched for the song on a Guitar Pro online community and found several versions). But you need the software first (also, don't be put off by the word "Guitar" in its title--the application can be used to score all sorts of instruments).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statz

What is good site that has statistics on prices for key items (e.g. bread, cars, houses, milk, and gas [especially gas]) for past years? Thanks, schyler (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

world's wealthiest ethnicities?

Is there a breakdown of the wealth of the world's ethnicities/religions? Also, a correlation of their worldwide population percentage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.35.234 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not be possible to make a calculation. Most countries do not collect or publish data on the wealth of their citizens by ethnic group or religion.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in reading our article The Bell Curve which discusses the relationship between race and intelligence, and intelligence and financial success. However, be aware that many of the authors' conclusions are controversial. GreatManTheory (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the conclusions are controversial, but also the assumptions and the sources. Mr.K. (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

guam history perspectives ed by carter lee d

Dear Editors: How about including volume two (2005) of Guam History: Perspectives? Most of the citation info is the same -- title, editors, Univ of Guam as publisher. Date and number of pages are different. Please check it out and bring it in along with volume one from l997. Thank you. leeleehag@aol.com 4-17-08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.243.221 (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could, I suppose, do this yourself, so long as the page references remain consistent. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptor sought

Does anyone know who the sculptor/medailleur of the medallion of Christabel Pankhurst displayed on the right side of the Pankhurst memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, London, right next to the Parliament Building in Westminster, was? It was not A.G. Walker! Walker did the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst, but he died in 1939 while the medallion was made 1958/59. See Image:Westminster emmeline pankhurst statue 1.jpg for the information I have already found. The medaillon itself is shown e.g. here and here. A possible source might be the Memorial Appeal Fund brochure from about 1958... Lupo 07:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some information about this memorial on page 513 of Elizabeth Crawford's The Women's Suffrage Movement: a reference guide 1866-1928 (1999). For instance, the plinth is by Sir Herbert Baker, Baldwin unveiled the memorial in 1930 using a purple, white and green flag, and it was moved into a more prominent position in 1955... but alas! no mention of the medallion. Xn4 21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I already knew that ;-) See Image:Westminster emmeline pankhurst statue 1.jpg... the image description also has some links to mentions of the medaillon, but so far I have not found the medailleur. BTW, according to [25], the statue was moved in 1956. In November 1955, the House of Lords was still debating about the move: [26]. Lupo 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact

Hi. Is there any evidence of Russian collaboration with German anti-Semitic measures during the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact?217.43.13.34 (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wannsee Conference, which is generally accepted as sealing the 'Final solution', took place in January 1942, whereas Operation Barbarossa had already taken place in June 1941. QED, there cannot have been liason with the Russians regarding death camps; Russian prisoners, too, were amongst the first guinea pigs in respect of both mass-gassing and cremation (see: Auschwitz I).

The time-frame that you are talking about is, therefore, between the German invasion of Poland (August 1939) and the subsequent invasion of Russia (June 1941). There was liason and co-ordination between Germans and Russians (see: Gestapo-NKVD Conferences) during this time, but it appears to have been aimed at wiping out any possible locus of opposition to either of the new overlords. When the Germans invaded Poland, they generally herded the Jews into ghettos and organised mass-arrests of those classes of individual - priests, trade unionists, political activists, professionals - around whom they thought opposition might form (Aushwitz actually began as a prison for these individuals); at this early stage of the war, the Jews were actually slightly better off. Only when Hitler attacked Russia were there ad hoc massacres such as at Bialystock.

At the risk of political incorrectness, it is worth pointing out that Communism was seen as very much a Jewish movement, and at this time Hitler did not want to antagonise Stalin or, to a lesser extent, Roosevelt.

The History of Poland#Occupation and dismemberment of Poland has more. You might, as an aside, be interested in the Jedwabne massacre. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this question a little bit more widely there is, indeed, evidence of degrees of Soviet complicity in German anti-Semitic actions during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Really it's not at all surprising when one takes into consideration the political history of the Soviet Union in the years leading up the accommodation with the Nazis.

Yes, the Nazi's were forever talking about 'Jewish Bolshevism' as they were about 'Jewish Capitalism', but most of what remained of the Jewish leadership of the CPSU had been eliminated during the Great Purge. Of course the execution of people like Grigory Zinoviev or Lev Kamenev was for reasons of politics, not of background or race. However, in 1939, following the sacking of Maxim Litvinov, the last major Jewish figure to hold office, the purge of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs acquired very strong anti-Semitic overtones. The NKVD even made preparations for a new show trial-the 'trial of the ambassadors'-in which all of the accused were Jewish, and where the charges included alleged contacts with 'Zionist circles'. Though this was never held there was to be a later echo of the actions taken at this time, which also included the wholesale removal of Jews from the state security apparatus, in the post-war Doctors' Plot.

So, given this background of hostility, the Soviets were drawn forms of collaboration, without any illusions over the consequences of their actions. After the outbreak of war in September thousands of German and Polish Jews attempted to cross the new Soviet-German border. Many were simply turned back, even when the Germans fired upon them in no-man's land. What is worse, German Jews, including some senior members of the KPD, who had taken refuge in Russia in the early 1930s, were rounded up and sent back to Germany.

In the Polish areas under their occupation the Soviets also adopted a specifically anti-Jewish policy. Jewish leaders were arrested and deported; Jewish organisations and youth movements were closed, as were most of the synagogues. Almost all aspects of Jewish religious and cultural life were under attack, including circumcision and bar mitzvahs. All Jewish holidays, including the Sabbath, were abolished. This persecution only ended in August 1941, after the German invasion. Stalin may not have shared the same kind of visceral anti-Semitism as Hitler; but he had all of the classic Russian prejudices against the Jews. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X years to life

I'm watching a documentary series on Discovery Channel at the moment called Forensic Detectives, and one of the criminals in there was given "25 years to life in prison", and I'm wondering what the "to life" part implies. Is this guy out after 25 years or is he in prison for a lifetime? Does anybody know what it means? DarkPhoenix (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on life imprisonment states that in some countries a "life term" is equivalent to 25 years. Assuming that Discovery Channel is referring to the USA, the quotation is:

For example, sentences of "15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given; this is called an "indeterminate life sentence", while a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" is called a "determinate life sentence".

There is also some information on Norway and other Scandinavian jurisdictions.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To further illuminate the US interpretation, "25 years to life" means a life sentence, but with parole eligibility after 25 years. — Lomn 20:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Heirens, a convicted serial killer in the U.S., will complete his 62nd year of imprisonment June 26, 2008. He seems to hold the world's record. Sometimes life means life. Edison (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you Forgive Her

Please explain how Trollope's novel Can You Forgive Her? fits within the political themes of the Palliser series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.86.120 (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some starting points here which make this question more difficult than it needs to be. Can You Forgive Her? is the first of the Palliser books, introducing Plantagenet Palliser, so it shouldn't really be expected to 'fit within' the themes of the rest of the series. Trollope's world grew in all directions. In any event, Trollope's interest (like Balzac's) is in the whole of the society which centres on the metropolis, of which politics is an important aspect, but only one. To Trollope, as to most gentlemen of his day, politics was only part of life. As time goes by, Palliser himself, awkward and high minded as he is, sees that there's much more to life than ambition. Xn4 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In essence it really only serves as an introduction, though I suppose it also has a strong focus on the question posed by Alice Vavasor, namely 'What should a woman do with her life?' To that degree Can You Forgive Her? shares at least some of the preoccupations of the characters in Dostoevsky's The Idiot over the 'damned woman question'! In other words, it's about sexual politics; about woman who look for paths in life beyond matrimony and family, to the obvious disapproval of the author. Can you forgive her? Well, perhaps the best answer to Trollope's question is that given by Henry James, "Of course we can, and forget her, too, for that matter." Anyway, the novel is best read as a guide to mid-Victorian attitudes towards feminism. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonies that went independent

How many former colonies went independent after WW II and recent years?
How many of them enjoy more freedom and prosperity?
How many of them outperform the majority of today's remaining colonies?
How many of them actually declined substantially?
How many of them are still functional? -- Toytoy (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many straightforward answers here, but I wonder if you have Africa on your mind? We have quite a lot of articles which might begin to answer your questions, such as Freedom in the World (report), Decolonisation of Africa, Human rights in Africa and List of human rights articles by country (which has links to articles on human rights in many individual countries), African Union member economies (links to dozens of articles on individual countries), Decolonization of the Americas, French colonial empires, Decolonization, Postcolonialism, Neocolonialism, History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991), History of post-Soviet Russia, List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of African countries by GDP, List of Asian countries by GDP, Third World debt, List of revolutions and rebellions, and List of coups d'état and coup attempts. I don't think comparisons with 'today's remaining colonies' will achieve very much, as such territories are mostly (by definition) ones which aren't politically and economically viable on their own, needing outside resources. "How many of them are still functional?" depends on the odd idea that a country is either 'functional' or not: but all countries have a kaleidoscope of functionality, it's nothing like a light bulb being switched on or not. Xn4 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may ask the question from another direction: Are there any successful examples of decolonization? In alphabetical order:

African countries:
- Liberia: Established by former slaves shipped from the U.S. in the 19th century. They controlled local peoples. They did not like each other. They fight all the time.
- Countries established shortly after WW II (formerly British, French, Belgian, and German). I am not familiar with this complex history. Generally these countries are not functioning well.
- South Africa: Seems to be in struggle after the end of apartheid.
- Zimbabwe: In a very bad leadership.
America (North): Mostly controlled by British immmigrants because French and Spanish lost the wars. European immigrants went independent (the U.S. and, much later, Canada) and became very successful. Natives are still relatively poor or driven to extinction.
America (Central and South): Mostly former Spanish/Portuguese colonies. Generally good. Natives are generally assimilated.
Austrilia/New Zealand: Former British colonies. Aboriginal peoples never gained any power. Rich thanks to the low population density and abundant natural resources.
East European countries: Too complex.
Guam, Hawaii (a U.S. state), Purto Rico, Virgin Islands, BVI, ...: Still owned and controlled by the 1st World. Mostly good and well-organized.
Hong Kong/Macau: British/Portuguese colonies returned to China. Populated by Chinese people. Mostly rich.
India: An old empire colonized by the British before independence. Today's India is quickly catching up. Except for occassional conflicts, peoples of different races and religions may peacefully co-exist.
- Pakistan: I know very little about its history.
- Bangladesh: A country established between India and Pakistan. Generally very poor.
North Ireland, Scotland, Wales: They used to have their own countries, don't they?
Okinawa: Protected by China before Japanese invasion in the 18th century. Controlled by the U.S. from 1945 to 1970. Now a prefecture of Japan with U.S. troops stationed almost everywhere. There may be discriminations but the Uchinas live relatively well. Their traditional cultures and languages declined.
The Philippines: Spain and U.S. (after the 1896 war). Not very well organized. Many poor people.
Singapore: Colonized by the British Empire and then Japan. Now ruled by mostly Chinese-origined people (have been there for hundreds of years). Malays are majority. Generally, rich and well-organized.
Taiwan: Aboriginal peoples were invaded and mostly replaced by Chinese immigrants. Colonized by Netherlands, Spain (before 17th century) and Japan before and during WW II. Ruled by another wave of Chinese immigrants after WW II. Generally, rich and well-organized.
East Timor: I know very little about this recently established poor country. Did it get any better?
Vietnam: Protected by China before French colonization. Established after the bloody Vietnam War. Catching up quickly after the introduction of capitalism.

It seems like the most recent trends of decolonization are failures. Colonization may be positive in certain aspects. At least a colonizer enslaves most local peoples equally. Some areas are populated by unorganized tribes. To me, unless they evolve a way to organize themselves, independence may cause more damage than good. -- Toytoy (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're starting to answer your own question. In terms of colonialism, here are some curious comparisons there. India and Pakistan have much the same colonial history, but (broadly speaking) we consider India to be free and developing, Pakistan much less so. Liberia, theoretically not a colony since the 1850s, is just about the poorest country in Africa, whereas South Africa is much, much richer. Zimbabwe is still, on the face of it, less poor than Zambia. Of course, there are huge discrepancies between all these in natural resources, a factor which seems unconnected with colonialism, except that we Europeans were most enthusiastic about controlling territories with riches to be exploited. Nothing here is simple. Xn4 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with newly established countries is that people do not self-organize easily. Without the attack of Pearl Harbor, there may be a million voices in the U.S. regarding the wars around the world. But without a conceptual framework that Hawaii is a part of the U.S., people in Oklahoma may not give a damn to the attack. In some "countries," even such a frontal attack may not bring up the idea that we must work together.

To me, there may be two major attractors: (1) self-organization; (2) hatre and conflicts. If a group of peoples have not have any valid record of self-organization in history, there may be very little external factors that force them to evolve such desirable behavior. Independence may cause much harm than good.

Egypt and today's Iraq developed advanced civilations thousands years ago. Then, what are the environmental factors that drive people to cooperate? Why do once formidable peoples become disorganized? -- Toytoy (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this: [27]. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a snapshot of which former colonies have succeeded in terms of individual freedom and the local economy, our most helpful articles may be Freedom in the World (report) and the series which includes List of African countries by GDP, giving GDP per capita. It's a rough and ready measure, but a real one. (Separate articles for the other continents are linked at the bottom of that Africa list.) The reasons for success and failure are much more complicated, but political instability and corruption nearly always drive out capital, brains, and everything else a country needs, whether it starts from a strong position or a weak one. Xn4 18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cote D'Ivoire was one of the most successful post-colonial African nations, at first. Later developments changed that outcome, but the article explains some of the alleged reasons for its prosperity compared to its neighbours in the immediate postcolonial years. Steewi (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaji's letters

Hi!

Could someone tell me whether Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ever wrote any letter to Mirza Raja Jaisingh? if so, have they been preserved? Are they available in English translation?

Polarization

I'm a bit on the side of the California hot tub crowd who indulge in random esoteric thought as a pass time. What occurred to me is that religions like Judaism and Islam seem to be polarized like physical magnets having the same pole. While they tend to remain separate without chance of coming together they do attract the same metal objects. My question is whether there are other fields besides religion where the concept of magnetic repulsion and attraction have been applied, where polarization is a key point in explaining the high falootin' concept, be it legal or otherwise? (My hot tub buddies have left for the day.) 71.100.164.179 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The most genteel response in my vocabulary is:

Fuck off. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your speculative postulation may be better taken to an Internet forum or chat room rather than the Humanities Reference Desk of this online encyclopedia, where the participating editors are likely to refer you to factual information found in Wikipedia articles or other resources. May I suggest a combination of reading/relaxing/resting till your tub buds return? -- Hope that helps, Deborahjay (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we don't like a question or don't think that it belongs here, I think that we owe the questioner a politer response than Cockatoo has offered. Our initial attitude should be WP:AGF unless a questioner has a clear abusive or disrespectful intent. While some Muslims or Jews could possibly take offense, there is no reason to think that the questioner intended to be offensive.

Now, to respond to the question, based on my somewhat cursory knowledge of religious studies (i.e., the social science of religion), the "concept of magnetic repulsion" is not part of that field's toolkit, nor is it an important theoretical concept in any field other than physics. While it is a metaphor that you may want to use—inappropriately, I think—it is not part of any of the many social theories that I encountered in my academic career. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you look through their edit history you'll see that this same IP (and variants of it) have been posting various vaguely racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim questions and comments on the RD for some time now (the same IP signs for User:Multimillionaire as well). I think we're beyond AGF with this one, personally; I've seen no evidence that they are really interested in learning anything beyond their own pre-held beliefs. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the question header announces the name of the aim of the game. The hot tub California furphy it is. Beyond AGF, yes. Go away. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been on call since originally posting this question or I would have responded sooner.

First, I am not racist in the sense that I do not accept people of a different race or feel they have no right to exist or that they are inferior to my race. In fact, quite the opposite. What I do think is that certain other races do not have the 4,000 to 10,000 year heritage that my race has (for the most part) and although desirous of having it, simply do not. I believe that it is this discrepancy in heritage which is the reason behind any apparent difference upon which all claims of racism are based.

Second, I notice Captain Ref Desk failed to list anti-Christian. As far as anti-Semitism goes I think Jesus Christ was a Semite and I am most certainly not against Him. In fact, I think He is Devine as He claimed, that He came to save other Semites who believed in Him… lets see that would be Peter and John, and Mathew and Luke and a whole bunch of other Semites.

Third, I am not anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic either since I do not know enough about Islam to form an opinion, although 9/11 appears to be a wake up call.

Forth, I believe in innocence until proven guilty rather than guilty until proven innocent. This difference in belief separates me as an American from the State of Mexico.

Although I think Captain Ref Desk is an idiot, despite his rather very good response to the question on development of nuks by Iran, Pakistan and Cuba, I think he is also a truant instigator who may be on the same side but not yet quite up to par with Ayers.

Now as far as this question and your (some) responses to it so far are concerned... the concept of polarization is a good one and I'm going to keep it despite your lack of references to examples within your own or the Wikipedia's knowledge of the humanities which I have now come to view as limited.

Thanks for revealing yet once again your (at least some of you) allegiance to your own pre-held beliefs that defy any hope of your reaching a state of true comprehension and have a great day. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I admire your 4,000 to 10,000 year heritage. I infer from that remark that you must be Chinese or Indian - or perhaps Egyptian ? I must admit that my own Western European ancestors were really quite barbaric until as recently as 1,000 BCE or so. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he is Khoikhoi. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Blume's Chaos Theory

Much thanks to Clio the Muse (a country woman of mine I think) for the answer to my question on Alexander Lohr. I am doing some work on the Greek resistance and am coming across lots of things, in German sources mainly, that I simply do not understand. Do you have any idea what Sandartenfuhrer Dr Walter Blume's 'chaos theory' was? With respect. Vasilis Tsironikis (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not talking about the mathematical/scientific Chaos Theory are you? If so, you may want to consider asking the Math Reference Desk or the Science Reference Desk as it falls more into their area of expertise then Humanities. The theory is truly quite fascinating, discussing how the unordered is in fact order, that nature is really just repeating figures, the nature of randomness etc. etc. Rather philosophical in its beauty. Zidel333 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Colonel Walter Blume, commander of Sonderkommando 7a, Einsatzgruppe B. Tried for war crimes in the "Einsatzgruppen Case" and sentenced to death 10 April, 1948, latter commuted to life in prison. From 1943-4 he served as head of SiPO/SD in Greece.

In the summer of 1944 Blume proposed what he called the "Chaos Thesis". As the German armies began to withdraw from Greece they would follow a scorched-earth policy, destroying factories and infrastructure, and also arresting and executing the entire political leadership.

At his trial, when asked whether or not he knew that the killing of civilians was contrary to the laws of war he replied: "...for me the directive was the Fuehrer Order. That was my war law."

Tenenbaum, J. (1956). Race and Reich; the story of an epoch. New York: Twayne. pp. 353, 369. OCLC 497937
Mazower, M. (1993). Inside Hitler's Greece: the experience of occupation, 1941-44. New Haven: Yale University Press. OCLC 28023491.
Maguire, P. (2001). Law and war: an American story. New York: Columbia University Press. p 178. OCLC 43919698

Vasilis, Blume's Chaos proposal had a specific political purpose: to leave Greece in a state of complete anarchy. The proposal was so extravagant in nature that it led to a rift between him and Foreign Office, where Hermann Neubacher, the plenipotentiary for South-east Europe and Serbia, had formerly been a strong ally.

Blume evolved his 'Chaos Thesis' against the background of the anti-communist sweeps in the suburbs of Athens, a regular event in the spring summer of 1944, and intensely brutal in design. For Neubacher Blume's actions, increasingly indiscriminate in scope, were beyond all reason and purpose, undermining his attempts to interest the western Allies in a joint drive against the Soviet Union and the Communist National Liberation Front.

The implementation of the Chaos Thesis was stopped after the Wehrmacht declared all of Greece or be a combat zone in September 1944, which had the effect of transferring security duties from the Sicherheitsdienst to the military. Blume was ordered to leave Greece by Ernst Kaltenbrunner, head of the SD and Neubacher's friend. At a meeting held in Athens in September Löhr agreed to abandon the political Chaos Thesis. You will find the details here in Inside Hitler's Greece: the Experience of Occupation, 1941-44, an excellent study by Mark Mazower. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fridays

What are the main things people abstain from on Firdays for religious reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion. I also abstain from it, for religious reasons, on Saturdays, Sundays, Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesdays, and erm, Thursdays. Hope that helps ;) I am not a dog (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing conifers (Fir days)? Sorry, I couldn't resist. On to the main event . . . Abstaining from eating meat on Fridays is/was a Roman Catholic tenet. If you are Jewish, there is much from which you must refrain after sundown, depending on the degree of your orthodoxy, including: all work, driving cars, riding in elevators, turning lights on or off . . . See Jewish Sabbath for a list of the whats and the whys of prohibited activities. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thusly, if you are Jewish and move from Ontario towards the North Pole in winter / the South Pole in summer, you must abstain from work - like chopping down coniferous gnomons - in the middle of the night. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I met a Jew from Trondheim, Norway once. Trondheim is near the Arctic Circle. I asked about Shabbat, and she told me that the community simply sticks to a reasonable service time regardless of the sunrise and sunset. The Trondheim Jewish community is fairly liberal, apparently. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims go to mosque on Fridays. The Arabic word for Friday is actually based on their word for mosque, I believe. Wrad (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word for Friday and the word for mosque (well, one of the words) are from the same jim-mim-ayin root, which means to gather or collect or anything like that (it's an extremely productive root, used also for university for example, and I think it probably has a form in every verb pattern). Another word for mosque, the source of the English word, is masjid, "a place for kneeling", from sin-jim-dal, to kneel. Anyway, sorry for the long diversion, I was going to say that when I lived in a dorm in a Catholic university, the cafeteria always served fish on Fridays. They had meat too, for non-Catholics, but it tended to be something like meatloaf that was of dubious meat provenance... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk) [reply]

new mexico

what are nms resources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopity (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of resources are you looking for? Natural resources? New Mexico should be a start. Dismas|^(talk) 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Jews

If the Jewish Sabbath runs from sundown on Friday to the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday, how do Jews north of the Arctic Circle handle things? There's a shortage of both sundowns and stars for significant portions of the year. --Carnildo (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that they would just base it on the times Jews below the Arctic circle would use. (I'm not positive though). Anyways I doubt there are many Jews up there, so you shouldn't worry about it. Leave the arctic to the Eskimos and oil drillers.

See my comment above about Trondheim, Norway. My guess is the only Jewish community above the Arctic Circle is Murmansk, Russia. Here is a complicated document about current Jewish laws regarding Shabbat and latitude: [28]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

Oil

Are the oil prices expected to ever go back down again and when is the world's oil supply expected to run out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one can predict future price movements. Oil prices could fall if, for example, global recession leads to a sharp drop in demand. In that case, especially if they have risen to their present levels as a result of speculation, the price of oil could drop sharply. Earth's total reserves of oil are not known for certain. Their size is the subject of great controversy. Some believe that oil production will not reach its all-time maximum until the 2020s or later. Others believe that oil production has already peaked and will decline in the future, at first very gradually and then much more rapidly. (See Peak oil). If the latter view is correct, then current high prices would be one result of the oil supply having peaked while demand continues to grow. Oil will almost certainly never "run out". Rather, the most accessible oil and the oil that is most easily refined will run out. There will still be oil beneath the ground, but eventually we are likely to reach a point at which it will take more energy to remove the oil than the oil would yield in energy. Oil might still be mined at that point for uses other than energy supply, for example, to be used for lubrication. Oil might also be extracted for a time even though that extraction would take more energy than the oil would supply, because oil is such a dense energy source. But at that point, oil extraction would be a net drain on probably scarce supplies of energy. It is difficult to know when oil extraction will no longer yield net energy, but even in the most pessimistic scenarios, that date is several decades away. Marco polo (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be sure that oil will also be extracted for a time even past the point at which it will take more energy to remove the oil than the oil would yield in energy, simply because a corporate tax structure has been set up, with incentives etc. Does anyone imagine that Alaskan oil fields will be shut down as soon as extraction and refining costs, and the costs of maintaining and supplying the community, cost more in energy than the system produces? Has this point already been reached, if you factor in the energy required to build the pipelines, construct the equipment etc? See Boondoggle (project).--Wetman (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be a while yet before the oil supply runs out. People forget we still have the Athabasca Oil Sands, and with the price of crude rising, it will be finacially viable to extract oil from them. Then there are other, similar deposits accross the wrold that at present we are unable to extract from but I'd imagine we're capable of finding a way. By the time the oil actuaqlly runs out I wouldn't be too shocked if we've worked out how to synthesise an improved version... Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies of the Bedchamber

According to Patricia Nevill, Marchioness of Abergavenny, she died in 2005. But Lady of the Bedchamber lists her as being a LotB from 1987 - present. So, if she died in '05 then why does it say "- present"? Is this incorrect or just one of the many things I don't understand about English nobility? Dismas|^(talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burke's Peerage and Baronetage confirms your suspicions, and Lady Abergavenny's death was announced in The Daily Telegraph on 25 February 2005. This lady being no longer with us, I've corrected her Lady of the Bedchamber entry. Well spotted! Xn4 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Prices

Why are gasoline prices so high? Some people claim that the government is responsible for the high prices. Is there any validity to that claim?24.88.103.234 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Lauren[reply]

In most countries, a portion of the price of gasoline consists of taxes levied by the government. The government is responsible for that portion of the price of gasoline. However, few governments have raised their gasoline taxes in recent years. Instead, the increase in gasoline prices in recent years has been due to an increase in demand for oil, particularly from the rapidly industrializing nations of Asia, and a static or even gradually declining supply of oil. To a lesser extent, gasoline prices have also risen due to a lack of refining capacity for converting crude oil to gasoline. These prices are set on a global market, generally without government interference, through the forces of supply and demand. An argument could be made that governments have played a role in boosting demand by promoting economic growth. An argument could also be made that some governments have played a role in restricting supply, for example by invading and sparking civil war in Iraq, which has among the world's largest oil reserves. Marco polo (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, absolutely. If you buy £100 worth of petrol at the average cost in my area (107.1 pence/litre), £38.09 is the cost of the fuel, £47.01 is added duty, and £14.89 is VAT (which to add insult to injury is charged on both the cost of the petrol AND on the duty at a rate of 17.5%). So around 62% of the cost is tax & duty. For USA residents, 107.1 pence per litre equals $8.06 per US gallon - and you think you have problems with gas prices? Exxolon (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes are much lower in the United States. Gas now costs around $3.20 per gallon in Massachusetts, which works out to 43 pence per liter. Of the $3.20, about 44 cents is tax. Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline prices are as high as they are because gasoline is made from a commodity that is in tight supply, in the face of ever increasing demand. There are numerous other factors, but that's the gist. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., inflation has decreased the value of the US dollar by more than 1/3 over the last five years: in 2003, two US Dollars could buy three Canadian dollars. Today, One US Dollar buys one Canadian Dollar. Thus, a very large percentage of the increase in gasoline prices is due to internal U.S inflation, which is directly caused by U.S. (Bush) tax policies. -Arch dude (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation is widely recognized to be distinct from currency exchange rates. Inflation of over 1/3 in 5 years would be somewhere around 9% annual inflation, which has absolutely not occured. — Lomn 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the devaluing of the dollar in turn affects the price of oil (not so much of gasoline, directly) because investors fly to valuable commodities when the dollar loses value - commodities like gold, diamonds, oil. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the majority of the difference in gasoline/petrol costs among most countries is due to tax policies in those places. In many countries, gas is taxed at extremely high rates compared to other products. Of course, in some countries, like Venezuela, gas comes cheap naturally. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel memorial candle

While at my local Hannaford's (it's a fairly large chain of stores here in New England) grocery store, I saw that they had small candles for sale. The candles were in a open top aluminum can which was about 1.5" tall and maybe 1" in diameter. What I didn't understand about them was that the label on the can said "Israel Memorial Candle". I didn't see any sign by them saying that "X amount of the proceeds from the sale..." So what could these be for? Why would Israel need memorializing with candles in a supermarket? Oh, the name of the company that was printed on the side said something like "Rokesh Imports". I probably have the spelling wrong. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect those were Yahrtzeit candles. Jews light candles on the anniversary of the death of a loved one. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rokeach makes yellow soap that's even found in Episcopalian kitchens. --Wetman (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as "what would Israel need memorializing," there are the thousands of Israelis who have died in wars and terrorist attacks since 1948. And, if "Israel" is interpreted more broadly to mean the Jewish people as a whole, there is, of course, the Holocaust. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, is there a Jewish observance coming up? These were right up front, so I figure that either they were put up front because of something that's current or something that just past and they're clearing out their stock. Dismas|^(talk) 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day, is coming up. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm going to guess that must be the reason. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there Orthodox Islam?

I'm a Shia Muslim that don't follow traditional Islam. I'm not Orthodox. I pray five times a day. Is there Orthodox Islam? Jet (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnis would say that their version is orthodox and Shia (among others) is heterodox. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk) [reply]

Zhukov at Stalingrad

What strategic lessons did Zhukhov learn from the Russian offensive of 1941/42 and how did he apply them at Stalingrad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.148 (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and Stalingrad

Is it right to place all the blame on Hitler for the German disaster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.148 (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unternehmen Zitadelle

Why did the Germans not remain of the defensive in the summer of 1943? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.148 (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chhatrapati Sivaji Maharaj's letters to Mirza Rajah Jaisingh

Did Chhatrapati Sivaji Maharaj ever write to Mirza Rajah Jaisingh?Are the letters available in English translation?B.Krishnakumar (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OP, is there a reason to delete the repeated question that had a reply, please? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cup and reality

What does Sartre mean exactly by "The reality of that cup is that it is there and it is not me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by F Hebert (talk • contribs) 10:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault's methodology

I can find no methodological apparatus in Michael Foucault's "Histoire de la folie." was he working within any given intellectual tradition?F Hebert (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER POWER

i always wonder,the USA is so quick in pointing fingers and laying guidelines as to who should have and who shouldn't have nuclear power.Don't you think its so unfair,as USA itself has loads and loads of nuclear reactors,and yet they threaten countries like IRAN with military attacks for trying to build the same?Who monitors the USA?And since it's the super power how sure are we that its president wont wake up one day and decide to attack another country with nuclear weapons?I know they always have an excuse, TERRORISM!!!!!.......is libya,iraq,iran,cuba,north and south korea.......and many more full of terrorists?why will they allow countries like pakistan and india to make their own and prohibit others? ARE THEY TRULY JUSTIFIED?||||DAVIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked a lot of questions, but I'll just answer one: the reason the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons and Iran isn't is that the two countries agreed to that arrangement by signing the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. --Sean 12:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article "Nuclear proliferation" would be a good place to start, though your question touches on practically every aspect of international law and diplomacy. I'm no expert in these fields, but I'd say that you have a good grasp of the basic situation. The victors not only write the history, they order the world, and, as the Romans asked, "Who will guard the guards?" It is indeed scary that one country, however benevolent, can crush the rest of the world militarily. This is a novel state of affairs for the planet, one that we are just now waking up to, and I'd say that you are to be congratulated for noticing it. But I don't think it's the president you have to watch out for, it's the populace. The president does what the people will allow—the big moves, anyway. The world has to keep an eye on the US and help them be the "kinder, gentler nation" that the elder Bush spoke of. If only they'd get excited about soccer their insularity would break down.

As for the use of nuclear weapons, it was decided long ago that nuclear weapons have no military use because there is no conceivable scenario resulting from the exchange of nukes that could be called victory. And if the US were to vaporize a non-nuclear pest, the entire rest of the world would turn against them, including their staunchest allies. That, too, is not a victory scenario. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you're asking is essentially the core question which has vexed nuclear diplomacy since 1945. There's no simple answer to it—our current situation is a result of both an earnest desire to keep the number of nuclear powers in the world to a minimum mixed with the practical fact that those who are already nuclear powers have usually little to no interest in not being a nuclear power (South Africa being the one-time exception; I personally suspect North Korea will be in this category within a few years as well). Add to it that nuclear weapons seem to promise a good deal of both political power (no coincidence that the UN Security Council is made up of the original five nuclear powers) and military power (though in this case, nuclear states quickly realize that they are in fact fairly limiting, since the taboo of their use, and the threat of like retaliation, is so high, it ends up constraining quite a lot of activity), and you have an essential, long-running tension.

Is it "fair"? I'm not sure what the word means here. Do you mean to imply that it would be fair if everyone had nuclear weapons? That hardly sounds like a very safe and sound world. Why make things worse?

If you mean to imply the world would be better off without nuclear weapons, then I can agree with you on the most part, though it seems unlikely to be accomplished anytime soon. I would certainly be happy to see the world have LESS nuclear weapons—two hundred warheads or so per nuclear state at maximum, not thousands.

Anyway, I think it is clear that in any case it would not really help matters in the Middle East if Iran became a nuclear weapons state. Without worrying about the proverbial mushroom cloud in the near term, the region is historically extremely volatile, and adding more nuclear weapons to that mix would only raise the stakes even higher. :The Cold War was stable only from a very limited point of view (and mostly in retrospect)—it resulted in multiple proxy fights, multiple extremely tense situations, multiple junctures at which great amounts of death were very close at hand. I don't think we want or need that again. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in the idea of political realism, which accepts that "fairness" is not the overriding consideration in international relations. It might be more "fair" for a trainwreck like, say, Somalia to have thousands of hydrogen bombs, but it would inarguably make the world a worse and more dangerous place, even for the Somalians. --Sean 13:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem as I see it with nuclear weapons is that we cannot uninvent the technology. America has nuclear wapons because it invented them, and it is generally trusted with them because it is a free and fair democracy, and when the occassion where it used nuclear weapons helped prevent an unneccessary and prolonged period of war. America would face awful consequences were it to nuke any country, regardless of the reason, as it is part of a tightly knit global community. But countries like Iran would probably notfeel the consequences of doing so nearly as badly, do not have to take the likly reactions of their subjects into account and have a stated prerogative to destroy a particular nation. In Iran's case, it's Israel, but Somalia has a horrible war going on, Ethiopia would just blow up Eritrea and so on and so on. Although the US is involved in numerous wars, for the sake of public opinion it is committed to minimising civilain casualties, as evidenced by the smart bombs in Iraq. Further, to quote the Geneva Convention "It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment". Violation of these rules could mean severe consequences for the US, so overall I would say that sitting on a huge pile of nukes during a Cold war with another nucleaar superpower and not using them once in the last 50 years has earnt the US the right to keep nuclear weapons. Many of the other countires, frankly, can't be trusted. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Performance

Is there any reason why the British performance in the First World War was so much better than in the Second? John Spencer (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what respect do you consider their performance better in WWI? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive always thought the Britsh perfromed a hell of alot better during WWII. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 15:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By 'the British' do you mean the cannon fodder or the donkeys? 79.66.106.188 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any "official" biography of Osama Bin Laden?

Is there any "official" biography of Osama Bin Laden? One published by Al Queda or one of his organizations? --Gary123 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there may be. CNN says that Hamid Mir is writing one, or at least was in 2004. And this article in The Times of India mentions him writing it, too. It doesn't seem to have been released for sale, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Illustrators

who are the famous indian illustrators in india at present ?117.196.226.115 (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)29zz[reply]

Court clerk

What are the dialogues that a court clerk will say during a criminal trial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-examination

What is cross-examination and what are the questions that crown prosecutor will ask during his/her cross-examination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Cross-examination? I would think the questions would very much depend on the nature of the trial and the nature of the evidence given by the witness. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do people live? (coalesced similar questions)

Turkish-Canadians in Toronto

Which part of Toronto do Turkish-Canadians live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon

Which part of Lebanon do the Sunni Muslims live and which part of Lebanon do the Shi'a Muslims live?

Iraq

Which part of Iraq do the Shi'a Muslims live and which part of Iraq do the Sunni Muslims live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Shia Islam / Sunni Islam has a map showing the areas setlled by the two groups in the Iraq. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Syria

Which governates of Syria do Shi'a Muslims live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the above links. They also show the respective areas in the Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, etc. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups in afghanistan

Which provinces are inhabited by Pashtuns and which provinces are habited by tajiks and hazara? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Afghanistan has a map which indicates the various ethnic areas. May I suggest that you use the search box for queries which are fairly obvious. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book recommendation for someone who is grieving the loss of a parent

Hello! I hope the ref desk can be of some sort of help for me and for my friend (we'll call him TJ).

I have a close friend whose mother passed on after a brief battle with cancer. After her passing, my friends and I were amazed at how our friend TJ managed to keep it all together. Well, over a week ago, he finally broke down and has been having an very difficult time with everything. He feels lost, guilty, crazy, worthless... the whole 9 yards and needs constant reassurance. While we all try to keep him in good spirits by listening and giving him advice, but nothing really seems to be sinking in. I wanted to give him a book that can hopefully make better sense of everything that has been going on. Is there a book available at a local chain book store like Borders or Barnes and Noble that anyone could recommend? --Endless Dan 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - If possible, please post response on my talk page. Thank you and God bless.

PPS - The reason I am not researching this stuff on my own (like via Amazon.com) is because other then Wikipedia and the company's website, I cannot access the internet from my current location. I'm not just asking someone to do leg work for me. Thanks again.

Yogurt

Yogurt seems to be predominantly advertised towards women. Is there a reason for this? Dismas|^(talk) 17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[29] This article here suggests that yogurt is more of a "woman thing" (I eat yogurt... hmmm) so I guess that could be a reason why it's more geared towards women. Plus, going by the adverts I've seen (in the UK), yogurt is generally portrayed as method for helping with bloated feeling and weight loss, so that's probably another reason. PeterSymonds | talk 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because men like pizza and women like yogurt. [30] 132.206.22.23 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make yogurt pizza and get double the sales, then? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the question I ask every time I go shopping. PeterSymonds | talk 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of the Illiterate

Who described Diego Rivera's murals in these terms?

Anthony Blunt, according to the Spectator. I would spell that with a "K" because it refers to Das Kapital, but I wouldn't italicize to maintain parallelism with the Bible. The full quote seems to be something like "If medieval art was the Bible of the Illiterate, Rivera's frescoes are the Kapital of the Illiterate." --Milkbreath (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]