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.
Recently, I read a book in Bengali language that Maulana Bhasani went to Assam. Why did he go there? I read Bengali language but don't understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.110 (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Banglapedia, Maulana Bhasani "moved to Ghaghara in Assam in the late 1930s to defend the interests of Bangali settlers there. He made his debut as a leader at Bhasan Char on the Brahmaputra where he constructed an embankment with the co-operation of the Bangali settlers, thereby saving the peasants from the scourge of annual inundation." Dostioffski (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was the "travel-bureau" mentioned in Jack Kerouac's "On the Road"?
In "On the Road," Jack Kerouac mentions "travel-bureau cars." I've gathered it involves some sort of ride-sharing arrangement in the late 40s (when "On the Road" was set), but I haven't been able to locate any details about the program, either on Widipedia or elsewhere on the internet. What was it? Who ran it? How did it work? Thanks. --Aplnkr (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kerouac himself writes "The travel bureau is where you go for share-the-gas-rides, legal in the West." (quoted from this Hitchhiking site) We have articles on Carsharing, Carpool, and our article on Hitchhiking mentions similar services in Belgium and the Netherlands under Hitchhiking centres, but I found no article on this particular American institution of the late 1940s or early 1950s. ---Sluzzelintalk14:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same question; found some info in this post
Two questions about him. First, how did he see all the killings he is associated with in his own mind? Do you think he was conciously killing people to save his own skin from assassinaton or uprising, or did he genuinely believe he was doing the morally just thing?
Secondly, in the pact he had with Nazi germany to divide up Poland between him, might this have been a clever ploy to give time to build up the Soviet army, and also give some space btwen Russia and the Nazis so that a war with them would be fought off Russian soil?
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", as they say. And Stalin might not have so desperately needed time to rebuild the Soviet army if he hadn't previously disrupted and demoralized it with extensive purges.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of historians have written about the motives and psychology of Stalin, but I don't think there is a universally agreed upon conclusion. However, one of the more in-depth theories can be found in the following book: Robert Tucker (1992). Stalin In Power. WW Norton. ISBN 0393308693. --Delirium (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The treaty with Germany may have been a clever ploy (I doubt it), but the eventual war resulted in more than 20,000,000 Soviet deaths, more than half of them civilians. that's more than 20 times the combined total for the United Kingdom and the United States. Russians remember, as they should, the Great Patriotic War, but they also sometimes had blocking battalions such as NKVD troops to their rear to forcibly re-educate deserters. Here's a review of Montefiore's Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, which suggests in the reviewer's opinion "ample evidence of (Stalin's) unwillingness to believe a steady stream of intelligence, Soviet as well as Western, that his Nazi partner was about to attack him". — OtherDave (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a view that the feudal (?) sense absolute power over life and death held by a suzerain was a mindset in Russian history long before Stalin. Something that Solzhenitsin for example, didn't acknowledge but those on the receiving end, such as the Poles, did. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rite of Spring Groups
I've read that in the Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky that the 5 bassoons it is scored for represent what would be the five village elders. First off is this true. Secondly, if so, do otehr instrument groups symbolize other people in a pagan village setting? Thanks, schyler (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Stravinsky would have agreed that any instrument represents any character in that simple sense. For one thing, Le Sacre is a ballet; the characters are already dancing on stage - to assign them distinct instruments wasn't Stravinsky's style, which was always transparent, yet never obvious. It is true that the four bars titled Le sage ("the sage"), or Adoration de la terre ("Adoration of the Earth") in older scores, feature bassoons prominently (and tenderly and beautifully), but the fifth bassoon (the counterbassoon) is grouped with basses and timpani, and the bassoon plays a very different part in the Introduction for instance, where it can be heard as the first voice of a newborn spring, followed and accompanied by twittering flutes, clarinets bubbling up, and other wind creatures more. The Rite of Spring was first written as a piano score and orchestrated later; I doubt very much that Stravinsky consistently assigned instruments to characters throughout this composition. (But I have no negative reference saying "the bassoons don't represent the village elders" and I don't doubt that you read it). ---Sluzzelintalk00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do american politicians (eg Condoleeza Rice) hate russia so much? Is it the same for everybody. Is there anything that americans find pleasing in russia?77.86.119.155 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have heard of the Cold War? Most of the world has had rather strained relations with Russia over the course of the last 100 years. Things got a little better when the Cold War ended but with the rise of Putin many have seen it going back to its old ways—autocratic, aggressive, etc. And of course there are always pleasing aspects of any place, no matter how much one dislikes their government. Russian literature, for example, is particularly well-liked around the world, especially in America. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I could note, before some other nitpicker does, that strained relationships with Russia go back even before the Cold War for many countries. I just picked an aspect of that which is still in recent memory for many people. There's nobody alive currently who harbors direct resentment of Catherine the Great, for example.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some seem to hate, not dislike - is there a benefit for focusing on negative aspects. Is my appraisal of 'hate' past the mark?
(West) Germany and Japan were basically re-made by the US in the years after WWII, in the face of a shared Communist threat. Nothing like that happened in Russia. They stayed the threat, and the feeling that they were the thread did nothing but increase. As for resentment towards Germany and Japan, though—there was still plenty of it in the US through the 1960s or so, and there is no doubt still plenty of it in their nearer neighbors. But those governments have changed significantly since their time of terror. With Russia, things seemed to change... and then also stay the same. Putin isn't just some new kid on the block; he was the head of the KGB! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During the Cold War, Americans were taught to fear the Soviet Union, widely known as Russia, as a nation that might destroy us with nuclear bombs and that repressed both the Russian people and neighboring peoples under Russian domination. Villains in American films from the 1950s and 1960s often had Russian accents. Older Americans retain those fears, and they are probably passed on to some extent even to younger Americans. That said, I think that, while most Americans are fearful or wary of the Russian government, Americans are open to friendship with Russian individuals and the Russian people. In schools and universities, millions of Americans read and admire Russian literature (usually in translation), and there is a great respect and admiration for other Russian art, including music and dance. I think that some Americans may even feel a affinity for Russia as another nation of wide-open spaces and great possibilities. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question assumes as fact that Condoleezza Rice hates Russia, which is at least debatable. Rice is probably as well informed about Russia and the former Soviet Union as any American and for that reason is more likely to see a more nuanced picture. As for the mythical average American, a combination of cold-war myopia in the U.S., and the USSR's paranoid distrust of its own citizens, meant that most Americans have more chance of meeting someone from Singapore, New Zealand, or Korea than they do someone from Russia. Given how difficult it can be to understand the neighbors (the people next door, or in the case of the U.S., the mythical average Canadian),the barriers of culture, history, language, and political system post formidable obstacles.
I've always liked the analogy (might have been Robert Massie's) that the Russians are the Texans of Europe. (That's meant as both an explanation and a compliment. If it confuses you, send me an email.) — OtherDave (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"that most Americans have more chance of meeting someone from Singapore, New Zealand, or Korea than they do someone from Russia." With 750,000 to 1,000,000 Russians living in the U.S. and a total of 3 million claiming to be Russian Americans, I don't think it is all that hard to meet one. Rmhermen (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both above, I saw Ms Rice on TV and she disturbed me so much I had to ask this question. I'm used to politics and not particularily sensitive; for example I've seen many times George Bush saying 'russia must do this', or 'russia must do that', or 'were not very happy with russia' etc or even Reagen with his 'evil empire' speach - none of which bothered me - but today I what I saw really disturbed me. Perhaps I'm just scared of black women.? Thanks anyway...87.102.35.13 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to make your own judgments. I would point out the technicality that Rice has never been elected to (nor run for) any office, so she's not really a politician. And after her service in the Bush administration, I think I'd have an equal chance of getting elected. (Ain't nobody out campaigning for Henry Kissinger, either.) P.S.: I took the liberty of giving the question more than a question mark. OtherDave (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Americans who read history are fond of the partnership with the USSR fighting against fascists in World War 2, and we admire the Russian culture of music and literature (and vodka). Americans were amazed and delighted when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. I saw it coming, having read about the Amana Colonies getting rid of communism in the 1930's after 200 years of practicing it, because it led to too many drones who believed in "to each according to his wants" without contributing "from each according to his means." Gorbachev and Yeltsin moved Russia to democracy. Then Putin , of the KGB, clamped down on dissent and took control of the news media, and bullied former soviet republics which had become democracies. Americans become skeptical when Russia of 2008 acts in Georgia (country) like the Soviet Union of 1956 did in Hungary or the Soviet Union of 1968 did in Czechoslovakia, or the Soviet Union of 1979 did in Afghanistan. Edison (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union is the same country. I'm even less certain that these conflicts were started by an attack that took the lives of several thousand Russian/Soviet citizens (or "Russian passport holders in Ossetia" as the BBC calls them). A closer parallel would be Pearl Harbour. Even the British gov channel at last admitted today that "the US and UK at least have chosen to represent this as Russian aggression, yet it was Georgia that attacked with a rocket barrage which by its nature was indiscriminate".[1]
The CNN still shows the ruins of Tskhinval with a commentary that it's a Georgian town ruined by those bloody ruskies. In this particular conflict, some Russian media (e.g., Ekho Moskvy) presented both sides of the story more or less even-handedly, while the West stuck to the Cold War-type propaganda. For some reason there was not a single western journalist in Ossetia. They all went to Georgia, representing their opinions and airing interviews with the mad prez on an hourly basis.
"The scale of their cynicism causes surprise," Putin said. "It's the ability to cast white as black and black as white which is surprising, the ability to cast the aggressor as the victim and blame the victims for the consequences. Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed ten Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection."[2] --Ghirla-трёп-13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Federation and USSR are not the same country. But the fact that Russia has, in the last decade, been running on a course towards autocracy (and concertedly working to undermine Western power in a number of crucial arenas) has definitely influenced the feeling that Russia has been doing more "business as usual". And nobody much trusts Putin's take on things—for good reason. The man is clearly a snake. (Which isn't to say that the current leader of the US is any more trustworthy.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong. While obviously UK/Russia relations have been rather strained for a while now, and I don't think it has generally been the fault of the UK, the coverage of this Georgia thing has been almost beyond belief. Even newspapers that try to go out of their way to describe both sides end up talking about Georgia 'reining in unruly provinces' while Russia 'attacks'. The situation seems complicated, but if you just skimmed the UK media you'd think Russia randomly started attacking a peaceful country and arming their nukes. 217.42.157.143 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Redent) I will speak to American pop culture's view of Russians. Off the top of my head I can think of 5 stereotypes. Most Russians in American pop culture fit into these groups.
Terrorist Russian. Usually someone that has some gripe that started during the USSR. Sometimes ex-KGB. Totally has a hard-on for the Cold War. Usually they are in command of some breakaway part of the Russian military or selling old Russian arms/missiles/nukes to terrorists.
Evil Businessman Russian. A ruthless businessman that wears big fur coats indoors. Usually in the oil business.
Boozed Russian. Usually drunk 24 hours a day and LOVES Vodka. Will do anything for Vodka. All Russians are drunk ALL THE TIME and love vodka.
Slut Russians. All Russian women are sluts and even more dangerous than the men, according to movies.
Super-military Russian. Basically a compliment. Russians in movies and TV are often portrayed as burly and very competent fighters with nerves of friken steel. See Steven Segal movies.
Also, except for the Boozed Russian sterotype Americans don't REALLY think Russians are like this. They are just good characters in movies because of their access to any weapon the story would need from "old USSR weapons bunkers". Also, Americans think Putin sucks and that Russians are stupid for being duped by him. Beyond that most Americans don't know much about Russia in its current state. Russians are never actually IN Russia in movies. They are always in America or Europe. --mboverload@02:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget The Sopranos, where there were Russian gangsters [3]. One really tough and nearly indestructible guy had been in the "Interior Ministry" meaning paramilitary/secret police, and had "once killed 16 Chechens with his bare hands" [4] , but the American gangster misheard and thought he had been an Interior decorator, and could not figure out why his apartment was so poorly decorated. Edison (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you consult Russophobia for more information. Hollywood has certainly perpetuated the russophobic stereotypes mentioned above, although it has recently found it possible to make room for Hispanic and Chinese good guys (e.g., Antonio Banderas and Jackie Chan). In sharp contrast to these signals of increasing tolerance, you'll be hard pressed to find a good Russian in a Hollywood movie, even though the CIS box-office is increasingly important to studios' bottom lines. --Ghirla-трёп-12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caroline graduated from Columbia Law School and passed the NY Bar on her first try, which is impressive. I don't know the year. The NY State Bar Examiners may be able to supply it. I would think that it would be in Wikipedia's article.75Janice (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 14
The number of Americans that die due to denied Health care coverage
Is there any where I can find statistics on the number of Americans that die annually or in any given year because they were denied coverage for medicine or treatments they couldn't afford?
(I apologize if this wasn't the right place to ask - but Humanities includes society so I figured this would be a better place to ask than science)
What legally constitutes a parade?
Thanks to a city ordinance I just can't go around throwing a parade whenever I want one, because -(insert mocking whiny voice here) "I need a per-mit". Please tell me what the legal definition of a parade is so I can figure a way around this unjust draconian law. I figure it's something along the lines of "when 5 or more people moving in unison are playing a trumpet...". That being the case, as long as it's not nighttime, and as long as I'm not blocking traffic, then there's no reason why I (one person) can't legally walk down my street playing a bass drum! And what if I pick up a second person who walks in step directly behind me doing a wavelike motion? Will I get cited then? What is the line where "paradelike" becomes "parade"?--Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you are asking how not to get in trouble for breaking the law, this sounds a lot like legal advice. So we can't really help. - EronTalk00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in breaking the law, merely getting around it. I realize this skirts around legal advice, that's why I only asked for the definition. And once I know what that definition is, believe me, I'll have no trouble finding a loophole! Can't fight city hall, huh? You dont know me very well!... --Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all likelihood any such definiton will be specific to your municipality. Parades, noise parameters and the like are often controlled by way of city ordinances. Try the web site for your city hall. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My hunch is that your jurisdiction, like the county I live in and the nearby towns, has created its regulations, among other reasons, to manage traffic flow and moderate noise. Your jurisdiction, and some of your fellow citizens, may not find it all that draconian to keep people from walking in the middle of the street rather than on sidewalks, nor to keep people from banging on drums because they happen to have them lying around. Nearby Washington DC (which has a regulation or two on its books), the permit process has allowed everybody from the American Nazi Party to the United Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (not a group with many DC members) to the Million Man March to the annual March for Life to people who like wearing green on St. Patrick's Day to parade. They tend not to want folks tramping in the middle of Fourteenth Street NW at 5 p.m. on a work day, though. OtherDave (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You haven't even specified what country you live in so there is no chance we can help you. (Don't take this as in invitation to specify precisely where you live because even with that information, it is unlikely any contributor will know about your specific municipality so it is far better if you see a lawyer or look into the law yourself) Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it this way. There are good reasons not to let people block the street or create disruptions. But this obviously needs to be balanced with a right for free assembly. Permits are one approach to having an organized, systematic approach to negotiating these different pressures. They no doubt draw the line arbitrarily (which, in the end, is the only way it can be drawn). But the regulations are straightforward in the sense that anyone can look them up and know more or less what to expect. Draconian? Hardly. It's the same fundamental procedure that lies at the heart of any reasonable civic interaction of rights. That's the old inevitable problem: the more rights you have, the poorer things are going to run, because you're going to be negotiating the overlaps every five minutes. The less rights you have, the more Draconian your system, the more swiftly it dashes along a predetermined path, trains-run-on-time style. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also have to do with notability of your cause. People in San Francisco will kick the crap out of protestors in the street if they do a sit in. Blocking their Priuses is NOT ok. Unless they don't completely disagree with the message. If they agree with the cause they will use their Priuses to block “the man”. Prius = liberal swiss army knife. --mboverload@02:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, actually I don't think notability (in the general sense or the Wikipedia sense) has anything to do with it. And I doubt anyone will "kick the crap" out of protesters—they'll just get them arrested. At best. (In fact, I've seen many disruptive protests in the East Bay that weren't with permits. The police tolerated them because they "couldn't do anything about them", as they told me. It is not really in anyone's interest to start knocking in people's heads—especially if you disagree with the protesters. There's no better way to shoot yourself in the foot than to unambiguously cede moral authority.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The legal definition of a parade should be specified either in the "definitions" section of your city code or in the case law. Consult a lawyer or your local law library. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Name of Children's Picture Book
I'm trying to find out the name of a picture book I read as a child during the 1990s. The illustrations were realistic, reminiscent of Jan Brett's style in The Mitten (without any snow). What I recall of the storyline goes like this:
Some children are kidnapped by a troll (or other magical antagonist) away from their mother. The mother goes to find them and arrives at the troll's door to get them back. He insists that her feet are too dirty and that she cut them off before she may enter. She pretends to cut off her feet and walks on her knees (she's wearing a dress) to get in. But the troll has turned all of the children into food and she must guess which child is which food item before she can get them back.
I have a distant, distant ancestor, Joran Persson, who played a small but significant part in a power struggle in Sweden in the mid 1500s. According to records my mother received from a Swedish genealogist years ago, Joran's mother was killed right around the same time as Joran was--allegedly because she had been accused and convicted of witchcraft. I'm not sure this is true, but certainly there would have been political motivation to go after her, I suppose. Our article suggests that she was scheduled to be executed with him and killed herself...perhaps the witchcraft charge is invented history, but of course it may be the charge that would have warranted her execution. My question--were there witch trials in Sweden as early as the 1560s? If so, where would I find records of them? I know that, even if records exist, they're probably in Swedish and in archives not web-accessible, but I thought I'd see what I could get from the good folk at the RD first. Thanks for whatever you can provide! User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.40.194 (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like I never realized there was an article on her at Anna (d.1568). I'm still interested in the question about witch trials, but it looks like there are more answers available on the web than I'd thought. 71.112.40.194 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the distinct impression that witch trials are a popular myth that there has very little evidence to suggest they ever really occured. Still i'll defer to other's knowledge in this case 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given how potent a brew you can make with ignorance, gullibility, and fanaticism, I'd hesitate to dismiss the notion of witch hunts, though many probably lacked the dubious benefit of a trial. Any number of people have used Exodus 22:18 to justify jailing, abusing, and killing others, usually women. I suspect a few have been killed outside the Judeo-Christian world as well. — OtherDave (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to various Swedish sites, witch trials didn't occur in Sweden until the 17th century. Apparently, nearly 100 people (men and women) were convicted and killed between 1600 and 1650. In 1668 the real inquisitions began and during the next 8 years another 300 people were killed. The last time anyone was killed for witchcraft was in 1704. It therefore seems unlikely that your ancestor would have been killed for witchcraft as early as the mid 1500s. (Tigger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.116.230 (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am Swedish myself, and have read a lot about witch trials in Sweden. Of course, they are always a lot of rumors about everything. To summarize the subject of Swedish witch trials: The real witch hunt in Sweden took place in the 1670s, between 1668 and 1676, when around 280 (240 confirmed) people were executed convicted for having kidnapped children to Satan. Everyone exept one were decapitated before they were burned. Outside of the period of 1668-1676, witch trials were uncommon in Sweden; almost all of the witch trials that ever occurred in Sweden took place in the 1670s. They were, however, some isolated cases before 1668; the first woman was executed in 1550, some trials were held by the archbishop in 1597, and a series of them were held in Småland and Östergötland in the 1610s. The last person was executed in 1704. As for your question about Anna, not much seems to be known about her case. Tradition and legend has it, that she was convicted for sorcery, which is accepted by historians, but her case seems unclear. They were no other witch trials held in Sweden in the period 1550-1585. My guess is, that the sorcery charge were a quick excuse to get her out of the way; perhaps she was in fact never formally charged, merely killed, and the charge was added later, because of her reputation. Only a guess! --85.226.235.145 (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trading on an American exchange
What would be the best way for a foreigner to buy shares of stock on an American exchange, NYSE in particular? If through the same channels as an American would do, then what would those channels be? —Bromskloss (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so any recommendations on which one I should turn to? One that is cheap (I don't need consultation or any such extra services) and that can be easily dealt with over the Internet. —Bromskloss (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What country are you in? Barclays bank have a pretty decent service, compare many market makers and work to get the price for your trade. You should not look purely at charges - some places offer cheap order-charges but seem to offer much wider bid offer spreads. How many trades are you looking to do a month, what value of the trades? Answers to these questions will affect who represents good value and who does not. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for the answers so far. I'm in Sweden. For the moment, I do not intend to trade much, more like do a one-off transaction, buying into some company and holding it for a long time. —Bromskloss (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to project the concept that King Arthur was Welsh (Cambrian), and to suggest that accepted Dark Age History is a sham; Wikepedia has itself promulgated concepts that follow the orthodox view. Having spent over ten years researching the subject the conclusions counter much of that which Wikepedia has accepted as fact. As I am about to publish my book 'Arthur: A Dark Age Revisited' it is likely that entrenched opinion will take umbrage at such an upstart challenging entrenched concepts, does Wikepedia take a similar entreched standpoint? [email address redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.133.248 (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's "Wikipedia" not "Wikepedia"; second, we'll probably only be interested in your book if it receives serious scholarly reviews; third, I don't know who claimed that King Arthur was narrowly Welsh -- he was actually British (the speaker of a "P-Celtic" language, at a time when speakers of P-Celtic were established over a much larger area than Wales). AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I would say that if your book attains a sufficient degree of notability (either through support or controversy), this will most likely result in a description of that support for or controversy caused by your theory in the King Arthur article. You should understand that like many other publications of a comparable nature, Wikipedia is not so much concerned with what is true as it is with what can be proved to be true and/or has been accepted as true. (Which can be problematic at times, to be sure -- personally, I don't think it's one of the areas where Wikipedia is at its smoothest... but there's a reason for it to be like that.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The worm will turn
Where did the term, "the worm will turn", come from and why does it refer to bad people getting payback for dirty deeds.
I've removed your email, as a precaution against spam. I would guess that it's a reference to a worm gear, in the sense of gears turning, and "things moving along", possibly in the sense of "things coming back around". -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A google search on the phrase "worm will turn" plus the word "etymology" provides multiple sources saying that it refers to the creature. It may not be able to hurt you, but if you hurt it, it'll turn to face you. --Anonymous, 18:50 UTC, August 14, 2008.
“
Tread on a worm, it turns, sir! If I turn,
Your fault! 'Tis you'll have forced me!
Who's obliged
To give up life yet try no self-defense?
At all events, I'll run the risk, Eh?
”
Tread on a worm and it will turn is listed in Heywood's Proverbs (1546), meaning the lowest of the low, when ill-used, still feel it.—eric19:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Shakespeare, who, even if he didn't originate the phrase, surely helped popularize it. It appears in Clifford's first speech to the King in Act II, Scene ii of Henry VI, Part 3:
My gracious liege, this too much lenity
And harmful pity must be laid aside.
To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
Whose hand is that the forest bear doth lick?
Not his that spoils her young before her face.
Who scapes the lurking serpent's mortal sting?
Not he that sets his foot upon her back.
The smallest worm will turn, being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.
I'd suggest that a worm gear cannot be meant here, and that Browning was likely drawing on his memory of Shakespeare in his quotation. But of course Heywood would seem to suggest that the proverb predates the Bard by a generation or more. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Painter Identification
I believe I was in the national gallery of art in Washington DC when I saw a collection of landscape paintings that I liked. In the very center of each one was a very tiny man with a red shirt and blue pants. That is the only real identifying feature of these paintings. Is that enough for anyone to identify who the artist is? -- kainaw™18:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that isn't him (or her). I've been trying to search at the NGA website, but it appears to be impossible to select "show me pictures of your landscape paintings" there. -- kainaw™18:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not telephone the gallery and ask them? You can then talk about where in the building the paintings were, as well as what they looked like. --Anonymous, 18:52 UTC, August 14, 2008.
Absolutely! I use that sequence every year to teach my honors U.S. history students about the Hudson School -- very moving. If Cole isn't who you're looking for, kainaw, I'd suggest looking at some of his stuff anyhow, if you like American landscape painters. :-) User:Jwrosenzweig as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to track it down now by one of the rather unusual landscapes. It was all ice. I figure there aren't many popular landscape paintings of ice. -- kainaw™16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Age History
Gildas in his 'De Excidio et conquista Britannia' proclaimed the site from which Picts attacked as far as 'The Wall', he of course wrote in Latin, then scholars by translation and interpretation gave us the name of the site from which the Picts undertook their journey. The only record of that event is that of Gildas and the accepted location is the Cichican Valley, yet in my researches I have failed to find any author who has placed the Cichican Valley on a modern map. Can Wikepedia determine where Cichican was? Can any readers place the Cichican Valley?I know a man who can!
Brian Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.133.248 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Korean movie "Chunyang" , the father reminds his son to do the six
exercises of a scholar ,in addition to the preperation for the imperial exam.
What are the six exercises of av scholar and where are they referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.75.94 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For further context, the conversation begins with the father saying (English translation), "To master the poetry in a beautiful place is one of the scholar's ways, but then you might fail to balance your body and mind. Don't forget to follow the "six exercises of a scholar", such as archery and horseback riding. Don't forget to do these things." The father then concludes by handing his son a book, saying, "If you get sleepy reading old classics, read this book to stay awake." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cato.a.thompson (talk • contribs) 18:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
August 15
Wole Soyinka - Background and Friezes
Could anyone firstly find a complete version of Wole Soyinka's Background and Friezes? It's proving an impossible task. At the same time, if anyone could illuminate me as to the meaning of Jacques d'Odan and which politician this specifically refers to that would be immensely appreciated.
There is no free full text version available online (unless it contains typos regarding the lines I googled). Don't know how you can get around looking for A Shuttle in the Crypt in a library, bookstore, or ordering it online (here, for example). Sorry. ---Sluzzelintalk12:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to determine how close in content the US Series 7, or General Securities Representative Exam is to the Canadian securities course in terms of international recognition. I realize that they are both designed for their home markets, but I'm sure that many developing countries don't have equivalent examinations, and employers would therefore occasionally recognize these courses as useful.
I've been reading up on defence spendings here on Wikipedia and the UK is ranked 3rd in the World by defence spendings, after the United States and France. The US I can understand having a huge budget judging by the size of their armed forces. However, Britain and France's military in terms of vehicles, troops, ships and aircraft is significantly smaller than several of the lower-listed countries (such as Russia and China). I'd like to know where the money is actually spent to in the UK to require such a large budget for what seems like a relatively small armed forces. —CyclonenimT@lk?11:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's exactly huge, the budget for 2005-06 was on 32 billion pounds (~US$55 billion) compared to the USA's US$535 billion. You can find a brief breakdown of where this money went here and the official accounts for 2006-07 here. Nanonic (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in List of countries by military expenditures & [6]. Remember Russia and China's army are both still relatively low tech compared to the UK & France. And their soldiers wages/upkeep would be a lot less. Also, the figures coming from them might be less reliable given they have a less open style of government than countries like the UK & france Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Especially read the caveats to that list. There are substantial areas of spending (such as veterans' pensions) which the UK considers to be military and other countries (such as Russia) do not. Algebraist12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA Factbook aparently no longer includes actual calculated-out military spending, but they do give military spending as percent of GDP (In purchasing power) and GDP. It seems not too far a step in synthesis to multiply the figures and calculate the CIA's equivalent total military spending from the latest CIA Factbook. The figures for GDP*MIL spending % of GDP would be US: $561,904,000,000. China: $300,613,000,000. Russia: $81,432,000,000. France: $53,222,000,000. UK: $51,288,000,000. For China, the CIA gives a GDP (in purchasing power) of $6.991E+12, with 4.3% going for military spending. The Wikipedia article uses a report by the Chinese government, which the very newspaper article says it probably a gross underestimate. The actual figures vary somewhat by budget year, but the China figure is grossly low in the Wikipedia article, compared to the CIA estimate, which itself is of course could be questioned. The Jane's publications might also have figures. Edison (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disney aid
My fiance and her 5 year old daughter just got thier visa approved July 7th. I will go there Oct. 30 and bring them to the USA. We have a wedding planned for Feb. 21st, 2009. I want to take them to Disneyworld and then to the beach for a honeymoon Feb 22nd to ? I had to retire on disability 4 years ago, after working for 31 years. Is there any help available to assist me to afford to show my girls a good time and as far as I am concerned, is a MUST experience for thier arrival and happiness in our country, Disneyworld. Paul Streble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.56.150 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um it might help if you specify where you live... In any case, you could try approaching local charities, family and friends. Or even your local paper/TV to see if they're interested in doing a story on you Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope things work out for you, but the whole agenda sounds materialistic. My family got along ok without Disneyworld ever being a "MUST experience for happiness," and at someone else's expense no less. Of course, we could have used a bit more happiness. Please post the information if you find someone who will pay for Disneyworld vacations. Edison (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two Olympic Questions
Hello everyone,
I have been enjoying the 2008 Summer Olympics from Beijing, but I do have a few questions. First off, I was wondering if the Falkland Islands or Greenland ever had any athletes in any of the Olympic Games. I understand they do not have an IOC. Would they have to participate under Great Britain and Denmark, respectively? Another question I have is in regard to Handball. I know the United States did not send a delegation in Handball this year. What caused this, and are there plans to revive the team for the 2012 Summer Olympics? Thanks for the help!
Don't have an IOC? Don't you mean a NOC? As for handball, no idea, are you sure they even qualified? This suggests the women's team didn't even qualify for the Pan-American games[7] and although it says they still have a hope to qualify for the olympics given that the Americas AFAIK are hardly the world leaders in handball (I believe that honour goes to Europe or perhaps Asia) it doesn't bode well for their Olympics qualification hopes Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article mentions some of the problems US's handball governing body faces (evidentally it was decertified by the US NOC 2 years ago) [8] which may partially explain why they US performed so poorly despite winning the Pan American games in 1987. Then again, if you believe the blog post, it's also because Americans are too stupid to understand that sports have different names in different places (evidentally handball means something else in the US, see American handball), the author suggests the sport be renamed (um yeah, rename the sport likely recognised by most of the rest of the world for a country which couldn't even qualify in it for the olympics?). However I wouldn't give much credance to the author, he doesn't even seem to realise that the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with the name. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general comment that Americans don't know what handball is, is a bit unfair. Sports that are popular in one area of the US can be near unheard of in another (example neither field hockey nor lacrosse are school sports in the Midwest yet both are popular in New England). Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Americans, "handball" is a game like squash without rackets; "team handball" is what we call the other game. That's not stupid, that's just another US/British English difference. Until the last couple of Olympics, they didn't even show the team handball on TV, so you can understand that most Americans have never seen the sport. I'm sure that if it was as big as basketball in the U.S., the Americans would have a good team. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the info everyone. I wasn't sure if the Falklands ever competed in the Olympics, but I'll look at the stats on the Commonwealth Games, as you mentioned Grutness. I did not know that Greenland competed in the Games also. Were they their own country, or were the athletes represented under the Danish flag? The handball issue is a little clearer for me now as well. Thanks again!
Mike MAP91 (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third olympic question
Hi guys, this has been annoying me for a while now. I ask this question purely out of curiosity. Why does the United Kingdom compete in the olympics under the name "Great Britain"? It seem absurd. All other countries compete under state names not island names. Another thing I noticed is they actually use the United Kingdom flag. Why is this? Because Great Britain (as an island) never had a flag? Is it too difficult to register under the state's proper name? --Cameron*15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a guess, but I suspect it's because only the island competes in the Olympics. United Kingdom would include offshore islands. This would answer the above question too. As I said though, only a guess. —CyclonenimT@lk?16:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom would not include Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man. It would include Northern Ireland, the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And according to Ireland at the Olympics, "Athletes from Northern Ireland can choose to compete for either Ireland or Great Britain, per an agreement between the Olympic Council of Ireland and the British Olympic Association." DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some comments about this only yesterday at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Australian Olympic attire. I've also long wondered why they use "Great Britain" to refer to a political entity that includes more than Great Britain. (It's a little like calling the Bosnian and Herzegovinian team "Bosnia", the Trinidad and Tobago team "Trinidad", or indeed the Australian team "Tasmania"). The team was called "Great Britain" back in 1896, when the name of the country was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so it's always been a misnomer. Although sub-demonyms (English, Scottish ...) exist, the general demonym for these people is British. That may help to explain where the name originally came from, although "Britain" would have been a far better choice than "Great Britain". Many NOCs have changed their names, to accommodate mergers with and splits from other countries (Czechoslovakia > Czech Republic and Slovakia), or straight name changes (Ceylon > Sri Lanka). When the UK lost most of the island of Ireland in 1922, or even when they got around to changing the name of their country in 1927 to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that would have been a good time to change the NOC's name to "United Kingdom". It's still not too late. How about it, guys. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar thing about .gb vs. .uk as the Internet domain name -- if ISO-3166 was strictly followed, UK internet addresses would end in ".gb". And there was a flag of Great Britain (used before 1801), but it wouldn't be appropriate in the Olympic context... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the definitive answer to why it is 'Great Britain' and not United Kingdom for the Olympic team goes back to the 1908 London Olympics. Until the 1906 intercalated games, Olympic competitors had been individuals. In 1906 they competed for national teams, and that was also followed in 1908. However, the issue of whether Ireland should have home rule was a very live one in politics and many Irish athletes objected to competing for the United Kingdom. A boycott was threatened, which might also have led to Irish Americans withdrawing in sympathy and the games being rendered uncompetitive. To pacify the Irish and rescue the games, Lord Desborough agreed to call the team 'Great Britain and Ireland' which was accurate in geography. (Despite this, in some sports Ireland entered as a different team to Great Britain)
The same arrangement held at subsequent Olympics until the partition of Ireland, when it was presumably decided that 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' would be too long and that unionist Ulster athletes would not object to competing for Great Britain. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense, Sam, except for the last sentence. The choice of possible names was not limited to 'GB & NI' and 'GB'. Surely they would also have considered 'United Kingdom' as well. If Unionist athletes had no objections to competing for the inaccurate 'Great Britain', they would have been even happier with the accurate 'United Kingdom', which has only one more letter, and a whole 17 letters shorter than 'GB and NI'. OK, the Irish partition happened in 1922 and the country didn't change its name from the 'UK of GB and Ireland' to the 'UK of GB and Northern Ireland' until 1927. In those intervening 5 years, I can understand athletes being very touchy about this, and it was probably better to come up with a workable solution, however technically inaccurate it may have been, than risk jeopardising the 1924 and 1928 Olympics. But all that was a long time ago. The legacy of not correcting that temporary solution is that a huge chunk of the sporting world (or the entire world) thinks there's a country called "Great Britain", which there ain't. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Just did a brief survey of the interwiki links on the UK page. Of the names I can interpret, about a third seems to be Great Britain rather than UK or UK of GB and NI. The majority of languages using GB seems to be germanic and slavic. It is somewhat understandable since, as far as I know, the expression United Kingdom can be rather clumsy in some languages, and quite unsuitable for everyday use. That's no excuse for the IOC, though. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, here on the continent that is especially the case. Take Germany: If you say "Vereinigtes Königreich", people will ask you what you are talking about. Even politicians and newspapers use the word "Großbritannien", which mean Great Britain. But, as you said, that is not really and excuse. --Cameron*12:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're really only talking about super-official uses here. There are Olympic competitors from the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but that country is generally referred to, even in a lot of formal writing, as "Macedonia". Often in formal writing it's FYROM, but it only gets the full name where it's really crucial to use the full name. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a scot, i'm flattered and amazed that the world thinks they ever use Great Britain (or the UK for that matter) in any context ever (apart from when its dictated by the IOC)! 99.9% of the time the land mass stretching from Lands End to John O'Groats is called England. Whilst it may be (slightly) technically inaccurate, i love the fact that the Union Jack is linked to a country which i can say i belong to. (if you think i'm being over-sensitive, witness the supporters of the England cricket team, the so-called 'barmy army' who to this day, fly the union jack where ever they go...it makes me so angry!). For those of you who aren't aware, what makes it even more fun is that for the commonwealth games, we compete as seperate countries. Why, i have no idea.
p.s. two thumbs way up for cameron and his (almost) all-inclusive compatriots.. now if only we could get those pesky French to stop calling us Anglais we might me on to something..82.22.4.63 (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's something I never knew till now, 82.22.4.63. Thanks to the presence of the Union Jack, I always assumed that, despite the name, the England cricket team represented the entire UK. In fact, it also represents Wales (but not Scotland or Northern Ireland). I vote the UK government set up a Nomenclature Committee, which would regulate the use of these sorts of names to make them say what they actually mean, and any infringment (including the flying of the wrong flag) would be punishable by death. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, England and Scotland played their first ever official one-day international yesterday (it was held in Scotland and - guess what? - it was washed out). As to the French calling them Anglais, it may interest the Scottish patriots writing above to know that the official Chinese name in use for GB at the olympics is the transliterated "Ying-guo" (Guo is country, but guess what country the "Ying" sound represents!). Grutness...wha?01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so - they use the far superior "Land of hope and glory" at the Commonwealth Games, but perplexingly use GSTQ for other sports internationals where they compete separately, such as football. GSTQ's not much liked north of the border anyway, with it's (now avoided) verses about crushing the heathen Scots... Grutness...wha?01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you were using Land of Hope and Glory, while the music and first verse are fantastic, you'd have to make some subtle changes to the second verse. I propose "Nicer still and nicer/May your people be./God, who made thee pleasant,/Make thee lo-ve-ly." I do like the grassroots origin of GSTQ, and many other countries get by with unused or 'forbidden' verses of their anthems. When England needs its own anthem, the crowds normally seem to improvise Jerusalem anyway. What can you do? 217.42.157.143 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of verses overlooked by other nations, I particularly like the Aussie verses which claim "Brittania then shall surely know / Beyond wide ocean's roll / Her sons in fair Australia's land / Still keep a British soul." (As for Jerusalem, I've always wondered why that is considered patriotic, since it seems to condemn England, not praise it.) Gwinva (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Gwinva, you know that's not true, you naughty girl. Those verses were part of McCormick's original poem, and I'm sure that if British-to-the-bootstraps Bob Menzies had been the PM who declared Advance Australia Fair to be the National Anthem, he would have included all the verses. But the relevant PM was Bob Hawke, who arranged for the anthem to include only the first 2 verses, which make no mention of Britain. To his credit, he also changed the first line from "Australia's sons, let us rejoice", to "Australians all, let us rejoice". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patriotic doesn't have to mean saying or believing that your country is a perfect place. The first verse, depending on your interpretation, either says that England was chosen by God and is touched by the divine even in its present everyday grubbiness with wonderful things built in unpromising surroundings, or (if you think the answers to the questions are 'no') that England has had no advantages and was not marked out specially, making the second verse perhaps more effective. The second verse swears that the singer will fight endlessly and constantly, with a passion, to create paradise in England. And the two verses also contrast the urban, industrial side with the pastoral idyll, presenting a diverse and whole view of England. How is that not patriotic? It isn't rejoicing as many anthems are (such as Land of Hope and Glory), but it's passionate. Does have the downside of being explicitly Christian though, so will never be chosen as an 'official' national anthem.
I was slightly inaccurate. McCormick wrote his song in 1878; it contained 4 verses. For Federation on 1 January 1901, different words were substituted for the third verse. At both these times, Queen Victoria was on the throne (she died 3 weeks after Federation). In 1984, it was decided to make Advance Australia Fair the national anthem, but to include only the original first verse (with a slight wording change) and the 1901 version of the third verse. These make no mention of Britain. What you're talking about are words that were in McCormick's original lyrics, but have never been part of the national anthem. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Brown, I trust you're taking note of all this. Is there any other place on Earth that's as chronically unable to make up its mind whether it's a single country or a collection of different countries, and where the names used for those various entities and various sub-sets of them, and the symbols (flags, anthems etc) they use, are as utterly inconsistent and confusing? Terminology of the British Isles explains some of these issues, but it doesn't say much about flags and anthems. I know the solution: since the constituent countries of the UK compete separately at the Commonwealth Games despite the fact that none of them is a member of the Commonwealth in its own right, Australia should field 8 separate teams (for the 6 states and 2 territories), and Canada et al should do the same. Maybe that'll make a few people sit up and take notice. The only analogy I can think of (and it's not a very good one) is that when the USSR had a seat at the United Nations, 2 of its constituent republics, Ukraine and Byelorussia, also had seats (although in no other forum on Earth were these 2 republics accorded sovereign status); this gave the USSR 3 votes to every other country's 1; and Ukraine and Byelorussia effectively had 2 each. That was universally seen as an unfair arrangement, although it lasted for 45 years. Now Russia has 1 vote, and the now-independent former Soviet republics also have 1 vote each. I look forward to the day when the other Commonwealth countries can compete at the Commonwealth Games against the United Kingdom, not against England, Wales, Scotland and NI separately. What they do in internal domestic competitions is entirely a matter for them, and it makes sense to have county cricket and inter-country footy etc, just as we have the State of Origin and the Pura Cup; but for international competition, let's have a level playing field. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, until the matter is resolved, NZ can declare the North and South Islands to be separate countries for the purposes of international competition. That's fair, isn't it? :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion of England and Britain is everywhere. In supermarkets they describe Scottish food as Scottish and English food as British, there is now even a campaign against it. http://www.fairflags.org.uk/blog
I need help finding more references for this article. If anyone could track some down for me or give me some pointers of how I can alter my search terms, in addition to any sites that catalog old news articles, particularly the Oakland Tribune, Richmond Post, Richmond Globe, West County Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner or East Bay Express. I know for sure there will be something concerning the proposed airport and the community opposition to it in the 1970s and also history of the site and it's connection to the Breuner Family.MY♥INchile17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
technology and its impact on unemployment
Is there any consensus among economists about whether technology will, in the long run, lead to higher unemployment, by simply making people redudant? 202.89.166.179 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about a consensus but you would need to consider the knowledge economy. The most technologically advance nations in the world are not the ones with the highest unemployment, nor are they the nations with the lowest average-incomes/median incomes. Technology allows for increases in efficiency and in the short-term it will result in job-losses as machines replace people, but in the long-run it will move people into positions where technology isn't able to replace humans... Think about something as technologically advanced as the internet - how many people are employed solely with the purposes of designing, developing, reviewing, maintaining websites? It may be that the internet has eaten into some areas of employment (perhaps bricks and mortar retail - e.g. independent travel agents) but it has created others. Sorry this is 'original research' i'll try find something online about it to link to. ny156uk (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the greatest technological unemployers in our lifetimes was the automatic teller machine. Another was the mobile phone (not many public phones around anymore, few printed phone directory, etc). A third would be the personal computer (just think of all those typing pools fired and adding machines no longer needed.) A source for further reading would be Luddite. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that is short-term unemployment specific to sectors of work/specialisations of work. Technology is disruptive to the employment market - it can quickly make an occupation type obsolete, but that is entirely different to creating, in the long run (as per original question) higher unemployment. ny156uk (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find the name of something I've heard in psychology class... I remember that you chose six adjectives that you think best describe you (there was a version with good adjectives and bad adjectives) and then invite a lot of other people to do the same about you. Depending on what other people picked based on what you picked, the adjectives would be sorted into four categories. I'd like to do more research on this but, as I've forgot what this is called, I can't look it up. Does anybody know what I'm talking about? Thanks in advance! --216.110.206.253 (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all you're interested in is maximizing the ratio of expected income to years spent in education, then you would probably do best to get an MBA or professional qualification after your bachelor's degree (instead of a typical academic Master's or PhD). AnonMoos (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the definition. If you define marginal utility of education as the "increased satisfaction from consuming the goods and services purchased with the increased income that resulted from more education" then the usual diminishing marginal returns to income apply as long as you assume that equal increments in amount of education (which needs to be defined) result in equal or decreasing increments in income. This is not necessarily the case. Note also that people with qualifications such as a PhD do not necessarily seek out the most lucrative form of employment.
You could also define the marginal utility of education as "the increased satisfaction gained from knowing/learning more". Or are you perhaps interested in allowing for the utility lost due to time spent at study? I've also seen people use diminishing marginal returns to studying to justify spending less time to prepare for an exam but I'm sure you're not referring to that. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who was Zhongyin (仲尹)?
I am doing some research on early China, and have come across the two characters "zhong" (仲) and "yin" (尹) right next to each other. I am nowhere near a library with the resources to look this up and haven't been able to find it on the web. I am almost positive that this is a name, and would like to know who he was. The source is the Jiaoshi Yilin (焦氏易林) which would have been no later than Warring states, if I remember correctly. The sentence itself is "膳夫仲尹，便我噏聊。“ Thanks in advance!! Jen (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know absolutely nothing about Chinese, but it might help if we knew what "膳夫仲尹，便我噏聊" translates. Google translate only manages "Shan Fu Zhong Yin, I have nothing Xi."78.150.213.68 (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Translation! Sorry!! Here we go: First off, I just noticed a typo in the original text, which probably wasn't helping. It should be 使, not 便. So it reads: 膳夫仲尹，使我噏聊. An approxmate translation is "Chef 'zhongyin', makes me breath and chatter." The thing is, with this form of Chinese, there is no way to know whether 'chef' is a title or if it should actually be 'the Chef and Zhongyin' or if 'zhongyin' isn't a proper noun, then it could be modifying the 'chef' part. I'm really quite stumped, as you can tell.... Jen (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extra - I just noticed on the Confucius page that Confucius' courtesy name is 仲尼. It doesn't help much, but it does imply that there's a possibility that 仲尹 is a usable name in antiquity. Steewi (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have no idea about the movie, but if you mean half-Arab and half-Black, the answer might be "yes", but if you mean half-Arab but not half-black, then the answer is definitely "no"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mulatto generally referred to a person with part-black part-white ancestry, so wouldn't have included those of part Arabian descent. As our article notes it did originally refer to "any kind of hybrid", including animals, so in that sense you could apply the word, but only if you didn't mind running the risk of being horribly offensive. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Since when have Arabs stopped being white?
When beinb discharged, how would military label field of op. for covert work?
I may never finish this Hogan's Heroes fai fiction idea of mine, but I do need one question answered. If a person served in World War Two, and was in some sort of Intelligence or covert work (not OSS), how would their job ddesignation be listed on their dischrage papers? The reason is, I'm thinking that those who volutneer at Stalag 13 would have this label on their discharge papers, so their families think they weren't prisoners but were just told that. After all, as Hogan says in mys tory, the mliitary can fake anything, even postmarks from Germany when people send letters home.
Generally not in the UK, without additional qualifications or experience. For example, to begin a postgraduate degree at the University of Warwick, one requires "Vordiplom plus 1 year of study/ Fachhochschuldiplomdiplom/ Diplom/ Erstes Staatsexamen/ Magister Artium". At the London School of Economics, "Vordiplom, or the Zwischenpruefung, does not meet the minimum entrance requirement [for postgraduate study], but applicants are eligible to be considered if they have the Vordiplom or the Zwischenpruefung and a third year of substantive study (either the school's general course, or a third year of study in Germany)." [10]Dostioffski (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for the help. The page is obviously just incomplete; i'll add it to my list of "things to do"..
Law question
This (fastcase.com) appears to be an excerpt from a document titled People v. Winley, 432 N.Y.S.2d 429, 105 Misc.2d 474 (N.Y.Sup., 1980). My question is, what is the status of this document? Who is doing the writing, as in "In what is purported to be a first prosecution of its kind in New York State"? Is it Justice Stecher as a Supreme Court judge? 86.44.17.5 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the quoted phrase is by Justice Stecher himself, not by a court reporter or commentator. By the way, the standard format for citing this decision in legal writing would be: People v. Winley, 105 Misc. 2d 474, 432 N.Y.S.2d 429 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1980). The "N.Y. Co." specifies that the case was heard in New York County, not just somewhere in New York state. JamesMLanetc02:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm re-reading Louisa M.Alcott's "
Eight Cousins" and've finally stopped to find out a question which has long puzzled me and for which I can't seem to find enlightenment on the web. One of the Campbell boys, nicknamed "the Dandy," wears a hair style referred to as a top knot. Only being familiar with women't top knots, I'm having trouble visualizing this hairstyle. I've been searching for images and references online for several days and can't find anything which would explain this style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcsgibson (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian legislator John Charles Rykert, 1873: is this a top knot?Found a page with discussion of the "top knot curl" here, but it wants a password to view the images. Trying search terms such as 1875 (or 1870s) hairstyles, got this page, which shows (see the pic labelled "1872 hairstyle") a man who has created rolls in the top of his hair with hair oil - maybe that's the idea. Some more pics here. Unfortunately, our 1870s in fashion page doesn't get into men's hair, though the pic of John Charles Rykert from 1873 has a forehead curl that also might be this top knot thing. A book to find: An Illustrated History of Hairstyles: 1830-1930. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topknot in 19th century Europe as a hairstyle was most likely a product of Chinoiserie, or Europe's obsession with all things Asia, and most specifically China. The topknot has been a popular hairstyle in China since at least the third century BCE, as illustrated by the Terra Cotta Warriors and other art of the time. It went in and out of fashion in China, but even if it wasn't popular in China at this time, a lot of their art illustrating "classical times", which merchants would have brought back with them to Europe, would have had topknots as hairstyles, and so I imagine that might be the provenance. Jen (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I'm guessing mostly, but could imagine some variation on that. It is most definitely something done only with long-hair, and it should be some variation on a bun or a bun/ponytail combo. Beyond that I'm only guessing regarding the European fad, and would be surprised if a European fad didn't make it to the US as well. Jen (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No pics, but fyi, the article Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son would put the date at 1700s. The top-knot is here[11] is a book english folk rhymes 1892 by G. F. Northall (p. 565) shows a version of Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son as "...and a long way off" with the words and the wind has blown my top knot off[12]. Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Term White in US Surveys
In US sociology, how often does the term White include so-called white ethnics, ie all non WASP Europeans ? Are WASPs still largely dominant over the ethnics, to the point where White and WASP are still likely held as synonymous, or has that changed ? 69.157.227.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to how know many Hun warriors arrived in Europe in the late Roman Times. Are there any Roman records that tells the size of the hunnic tribe in Europe? Sonic99 (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure there are Roman records which mentioned the size of the Hunnic Tribe because Huns were the biggest threat to the Roman Empire and the historians would have written a lot about them. Do you guys know the estimate number, but you don't want to tell me? Sonic99 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Porn model rape
How often do porn models in US get raped even if intercourse isn't part of their contract? I mean non-consexual sex. Is it common for some member of the shooting crew to rape the model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a kind of an amazing question. Uh, no. It's not common. I mean, I have no doubt that rapes occur in the porn industry, just like they unfortunately occur in just about every other industry, but the idea that porn models get raped on a regular basis is, frankly, pretty far-fetched at best. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even more the case considering that the porn industry is actually relatively well-organized around the issue of health and safety. My bet is that rape in porn is actually a lot lower than in some other industries, in the same way that occurrences of STDs amongst porn stars are statistically quite low (because of lots of screening), but I don't have any statistics on that. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean rape as in 'hold the girl down and physically assault her' or 'not tell her that you want to film an anal scene and coerce her when you're filming'? They seem distinct with the first being relatively rare and the later being more common (but not too common).--droptone (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the latter is common at all—my bet is that it is faked in nearly all situations. There is nothing stupider than breaking the law and tape-recording it—it's bad for business. There are an apparently endless stream of women willing to do anything for money, why risk it? Just doesn't wash with me that such would be the case. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't tape the coercion. Pressuring employees to do work they didn't originally sign up for (including simply overtime, rather than a different type of task) happens in every other industry, why not the porn industry? Pressuring a porn star to do overtime could constitute rape (although, the person performing the sexual act wouldn't be the one doing the coercing or at all involved in it, which would probably make it an interesting legal situation - I'm not sure quite how the law would handle such a thing). --Tango (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not the porn industry? Because pressuring someone into sex acts they don't want to do is not like "doing overtime". Pressuring an employee to do overtime is not against the law. Pressuring someone to do sex acts they don't want to do is a federal crime. (And no, just because someone else did the act itself would not get someone off the hook. They'd both be charged, no problem.) As I said—it'd be bad for business. Hot-headed police would be all over that likes flies on crap.
Let's not forget people don't always do the things that make the most sense. Certainly not the things that would make the most sense to outsiders (us). And when lust gets involved...
I'm sure that there have been some people in the porn industry who, at the sight of a naked breast, get so uncontrollably horny that they resort to rape, but generally speaking, these are people who aren't terribly affected by work-related nudity any more than morticians are affected by work-related corpses or people in skyscraper construction are affected by work-related heights. It's simply a question of having a certain mindset for your work and another for your private life, which is probably something we're all familiar with. You might as well ask whether gynaecologists commonly rape their patients, since they're looking at vaginas all day long. The underlying assumption is that if you see it, you have to have it at any cost, and that's, frankly, kind of stupid.
Anyway, the question was whether it's common for crew members to rape porn models. It isn't. (How would that work, anyway? It's not an orgy, it's a workplace! I'm not saying that no one ever gets raped at work, but what are they supposed to do, club the model over the head and drag them into a broom closet while no one else is looking, and afterwards everyone resumes work as if nothing had happened? The idea that this happens on an even remotely regular basis and no one notices or cares is simply ridiculous.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Comprehensive Resource Providing Profile/ID of Corporations and Organizations
Is there is a page providing a comprehensive listing of corporations and their identity (1. legal name, 2. addresses, 3. main web link, 4. what they produce and/or service) ?
I would use this web resource especially for researching non English language organizations. For example, China companies wanting to do business with me, but there is difficulty confirming their ID, as very often their entire identity appears to be represented in only a non English web link.
Grateful if you could advise a reference even if outside of Wikipedia - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkysports (talk • contribs) 10:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall seeing works by a modern sculptor whose works were sort of odd hybrids of both the organic and the machine; the sort of things that looked like they would fit into the aesthetic of eXistenZ. Anybody have any idea of people who might fit this (very vague) description? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, less "metal" and "slimy" than Giger, more "brown-yellow squishy." Giger's whole kick, as I understand it, is in making living things with machine-like appearances; I'm talking about the opposite here, machines with life-like, organic appearances. And not the sort of gear-crazy stuff like Ganson. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sand castle
In 1542, while exploring the Amazon Basin near Ecuador, Spanish conquistador Francisco de Orellana began checking the area around one of the Amazon’s largest rivers, the Rio Negro. On returning to Spain, he reported the jungle area held an ancient civilization — a farming people, many villages and even massive, walled cities. Later explorers and missionaries were unable to confirm Orellana’s reports. They said the cities weren’t there and only hunter-gatherer tribes roamed the jungles. Orellana’s claims were dismissed as myth until recently.
It is now believed that Orellana's very visit brought European diseases, as in North America, which 90% of the native population were unable to survive. Although communities of several hundred people are known to exist in various areas who have a ruling hierarchy more suited for hundreds of thousands of people and evidence has been uncovered of vast territory the size of the UK laid out in grids and covered to depth of two or more feet in a man made soil known as "Dark Earth" or Terra Preta the vast society it apparently supported no longer exists and has never recovered bringing me to the question I have to ask.
In the event of a truly devastating disaster including nuclear war and bombardment by many small or one large asteroid would our society as we know it today ever recover to the point it is today or like the last sand castle created by a sand castle artist never be recreated in such grandeur again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding facetious, the answer is "yes" or, perhaps, "no". There are science fiction writers and movie producers who have tackled the subject, from Planet of the Apes on up, down and all around. "It depends" is likely the closest statement to a real answer, notwithstanding hundreds of possible ways, in thousands of possible words, that attempts may be made to expand the detail. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't predict the future here so I'm not going to engage in speculation, but I think your answer comes in the part of the story you didn't tell. The 'later explorers and missionaries' didn't come much later when you consider how long a rebound of that magnitude would take, and they impacted these people as well. Moreover, the later explorers and missionaries led to colonies and foreign occupation and cultural displacement, etc. So I think the answer of your question depends on what pressures and forces we would have to overcome. -LambaJan (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting Olympic medals would be pretty much a full time job for 2 weeks, there's no way the Queen would do all of them even if it was up to the hosts to do it. She would nominate other members of the royal family to present them. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both Bielle and Corvus are correct. I have no experience with the Olympic Games, but I do know a thing or two about Paralympic Games medal ceremonies, and as the two Games are conducted in a very similar manner I think the medal ceremonies will be similar as well. Medals are awarded by a mixed bag of people that can include IOC (or in my experience, IPC) members and VIPs, international sport federation representatives, host country representatives, and sometimes visiting foreign dignitaries as well. There are actually six presenters in each ceremony; three to present medals and three to present flowers. The VIest of VIPs presents the gold medal and so on down the line. - EronTalk22:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your first sentence, you acknowledged the distinction between awarded (by the governing body) and presented (by a VIP). But you then used "awarded" when I think you're actually talking about "presented". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see that. Olympic medals are awarded by the IOC - that is the governing body that sanctions the event. The medals are presented by a range of VIPs and dignitaries. - EronTalk23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
history of 'year' dating
Is there any article(s) which cover the history of what year dating was used locally my most areas in europe?
For example from what I understand AD dating didn't start until about the year 300AD, and that it was common to write i324 or j324 (for number of years after Jesus). I also read that in at least some places for some amount of time (hundreds of years) there has been the occurance of i324 -> 1324. Some lists explicitly have this 'millenium' jump error. What regions did this happen to? Also in the late middle ages there were a number of aurthorities which adjusted the year by considerable distances (+/- 50 years or more), I am guessing this was the papacy but when exactally and from what values?--Dacium (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to have a look at Claus Tøndering's Calendar FAQ, though it leaves your questions mostly unanswered. Section 2.14 ("How does one count years?") notes that at the time Dionysius Exiguus did his calendar work, it was traditional to count years since the reign of the Emperor Diocletian. Dionysius was the one who set the year 1 of the Christian Era equal to 754 ab urbe condita. Throughout much of Medieval European history, dates were given in (local) regnal years rather than in years of the Christian Era. 300 AD is certainly too early for the advent (as it were) of AD dating, as Dionysius did his writing about 523 AD. - Nunh-huh01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also, although a bit philosophical, Leofranc Heoffard Stephens's A Very Brief Introduction to Time, which is quite entertaining, quite short, and quite thick with information. Geogre (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bloodmoor suffolk england
Does anybody have any information regarding the saxon/roman settlement at Bloodmoor in Suffolk England
I'm looking for some painting, etching or other work from the visual arts showing scenes from the times of the Ulster Plantation. Google images didn't help much. Would you know where I could continue my research, are there any illustrated books on history which I could refer to? -- 84.160.11.127 (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember not to read anything on that site. :-) From an Irish perspective, their history of the plantation is very offensive. The idea that Irish people benefited from having their houses burnt and their land stolen, will take a while to catch on here. Fribbler (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the problematics of the different perspectives, which is a fertile ground for discussion in English lessons (in Germany). That's what I wanted the paintings, illustrations etc. for - even (or even more) if they were biased. (I'd still be happy if someone knew some other sources.) -- 84.160.16.164 (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can Musharraf be judged and receive a death sentence?
According to Use of death penalty worldwide, Pakistan does practice capital punishment. If Musharraf is convicted of a capital crime in Pakistan, he could receive a death sentence. According to this article, Nawaz Sharif has called for Musharraf to be tried for treason, which, according to the article, is a capital crime subject to the death penalty. However, the same article suggests that Musharraf will instead go into exile, presumably in a country where he will not face prosecution. Marco polo (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the ancient civilizations, which one had the most complicated system of officials? I know only a little about the Chinese, and it seems to me that theirs would be the most sophisticated, I think this is because there are many to manage and because also that the system was allowed for a long time to simply sit and extend itself. Anyhow, back to the original question, who had the most sophisticated system of officials? (Mayors, provincial governors, small clerks, advisors in courts). Especially those with titles that weren't just used for once but passed on from previous titleholders? 99.226.24.150 (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The feudal system could get extremely complicated with lots of levels in the hierarchy and even cases of two people being eachother's superiors in two different places. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How easy is it to get a job in the EU outside the UK and Ireland if you only speak English?
I would imagine it is not easy; however I would be interested if any of you could give me a guide as to how long and how much you would have to become proficient in, say, Italian, to work in Milan, or German, to work in Berlin. Some Polish and other Eastern European workers in the UK don't have English that is that good, and wanted to know what the prospects for working at a middle range job in Europe would be like, such as an office clerk.--Quadrilateral Tertiary (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some pointers for you:
To my knowledge (which is limited to some areas), most jobs with the EU (as in, working for the commission etc.) require proficiency in a working language (English or French) and a second official EU language.
You'd be able to work in Northern/Western Europe (Scandinavia, Netherlands, to some extent Germany) with knowing just English. You wouldn't qualify for low-key service jobs, but if you have higher education in some field, your chances are pretty good at finding a job where English is the working language.
Outside of there, especially France and Italy, the opportunities to use English are more limited and you'd have to know the local language.
Local offices of multi-national corporations often use English as the primary language for doing business whatever country they're in, so you might be able to get work in one of them. It might be easiest to get a job with such a company in the UK and then request a transfer after 18 months or so (you can ask in the interview if they would consider such at transfer) - they might even pay for language lessons to help you live in the country (while you would work in English, you still need to buy groceries in the local language!). --Tango (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. It was just a hypothetical question really and I wanted to gather some opinions. I am not particularly interested in the idea of working in Scandinavia though.--Quadrilateral Tertiary (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly easier in a former British Colony, like Malta or Cyprus. The French require by law that companies use the French language internally, and have fined companies for publishing internal documents only in English! 78.148.71.233 (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of law may well be unique to France - the French are very sensitive about their language, more so than any other nationality I know. --Tango (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brussells is a pretty good place for English speakers. Because of the French/Flemish language division, people tend to use English as a neutral compromise. And most of the barmen seem to be Germans who speak English better than they speak French or Flemish. Last time I was there the only person I needed to speak French to was an Algerian (in an Irish bar. We agreed that Thierry Henry, quand le match est important, ne joue jamais bien). --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prophecies in the Bible are usually very vague, especially about when they're going to take place, so it's impossible to say one has failed to be fulfilled. Various interpretations of biblical prophecies have failed to be fulfilled - all the ones saying the world is going to end at some date that has been and gone, for example! Finding prophecies that have been fulfilled is usually an excerise in finding convoluted ways in which the prophecy could be interpretted to refer to a given real life event - the most obvious issue is that such prophecies are only "correctly" interpretted after the event has taken place. I don't know of any interpretations that were made in advance that actually came true other than things vague enough to be dismissed as coincidence. --Tango (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Revelations is waiting to be fulfilled (assuming you count it as prophecy). I can't say I'm looking forward to it. I'm in the 'Jesus is coming. Quick, look busy!' state of things at the moment. A few to many unresolved differences. Steewi (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prophesies that don't get fulfilled are quickly forgotten: selection bias and hindsight bias operate in this area. Biblical "prophecies" tend to have been written after the fact: see Postdiction. Statements interpreted as "prophecies" tend to be taken out of context: see "Star Prophecy". Endless play here for self-delusion, if you're inclined to it.--Wetman (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perspective is also an issue. Jews and Christians differ in opinion about whether or not the prophesy about the coming of the Messiah was fulfilled. -LambaJan (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hold any brief for the Christian perspective, but isn't the Jewish perspective a little hamstrung by their philosophy that anyone who claims to be the Messiah, or is seen to be so claiming, is automatically eliminated as a possibility? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 19
oil paintings
i was given 4 paintings, that i was wondering about.they are called the four seasons by v. diaz, can you tell me anything about these? i have
tried looking them up, but am unable to find anything, of course, i'm not sure which era they are from or anything.
It would be impossible to give you help on such scant information: the Four Seasons have been a classic subject for sets of paintings, sculptures etc for many centuries. --Wetman (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no quote with those exact words, but Abraham Lincoln used similar ones in the Gettysburg Address, the last sentence of which is:
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do many men prefer blue eyed, blonde women with pale skin?
I have nothing against women having such properties, but I prefer brunette women to blondes. Despite this people on discussion forums disagree with me. Can this cultural phenomenon be explained?--Whatever She Sings, We Bring (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can only suggest that you choose a better type of forum, I guess. Anyway, if you're going to express a certain preference, you're going to find people who express a different preference. I don't think it's not a cultural phenomenon of any significance any more than some people choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla, it's just people having their own preferences. It's pretty much a non-issue, and just because some people on some forum are loud, that doesn't make it any more significant. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the cultural phenomenon you want explained, the fact that many men prefer blue-eyed blonde women, or the fact that people on discussion forums disagree with your preference? I'm in no position to answer the first one, for more than one reason. For the second one: many forum participants treat such places as venues to vent their spleen, and telling them that you happen to have a different viewpoint or are attracted to different types then they are is an invitation for open warfare. Such places do nothing to elevate the human spirit, so you might consider severing your connections to them and spend all your available spare time improving Wikipedia - besides, there are limitless opportunities for discussion here, on every topic imagineable, and open warfare, while not unknown, is frowned on. And anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and they had better be prepared for a fight to the death. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if everyone agreed with everyone else. You can find loads of mutual appreciation societies where everyone agrees with everyone else as well and I'm sure there's some with your predilection. People are different from each other, I don't think one can call this disagreement a 'cultural phenomenon'. Dmcq (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A theory I have heard is this: Both Blonde hair and blue eyes are more 'rare'. This rareness makes those people 'stand out' as different from the general population. People are attracted to difference at least as much as they are similarity, and so people are attracted to these people as they are rarer than brunettes. Certainly the obsession with blonde hair/blue-eyes seems more noticeable whenever i've gone on holiday to countries where the general population has olive-skin and dark hair - again i've heard this being put down to rarity. Also aren't most babies born with blue-eyes? I suspect that could be a reason for the liking of blue-eyes too? I'm also more of a brunette man - as for the forum people, i've never understand why people can't just accept that people like different things to each other and that's there is no wrong/right version of beauty/perfection, only that which we think is so in our own minds. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neoteny seems to be a factor in the development of the human brain and why people look like they do nowadays. I'd guess evolution has had to mangle the brain too so there's a preference for all sorts of babyish things in a mate rather than people still falling for the gorilla look when they grow up. Dmcq (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One theory I heard was that it's easier to spot illness with pale skin (if you're slightly jaundiced, for example, it will show up more on paler skin), so if you pick a mate with pale skin you can be more confident that they're healthy. However, I'm going to join the apparent majority of Reference Desk participants that prefer brunettes, which may suggest that actually blondes aren't preferred, people just think they are. --Tango (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about their hair colour, as long as they certain parts in large proportions... More seriously tho, is there any evidence that men do prefer blondes as opposed to all other hair colours including red hair and brunettes? I'm talking about all men here. How about African men, East Asians? South Asians? Arabs? Indigenious Australians? Native Americans? Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In China, blue eyed people were thought (pre-modernization) to be able to see treasure or gold buried underground. And, pale skin even today is considered a sign of the elite throughout East Asia, since those who have to work outdoors tend to have darker skin. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in EB1911, come on over to wikisource and help out. Pick an article, read it in the scanned TIFF version, and transcribe it into a Wikisource article. I have only done one such article, but if enough folks do one article apiece, we will get there eventually. I wanted to add an article on Michel Baron to Wikipedia. I found the EB1911 article TIFF, but no Wikisource article, so I created The Wikisource article first, and then created the Wikipedia article. Alternatively, you may find a Wikipedia article that derived from an EB1911 source that does not have a corresponding Wikisource article. In such a case, you might decide to read the original EB1911 article to see how the Wikipedia article has evolved. This might inspire you to create the Wikisource article. -Arch dude (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poverty and prosperity
I always wonder why such a big gap between human beings in terms of prosperity(wealth,health care,standards of living etc etc)exists just because people are living in different parts of our common mother earth.In todays world there are so many universities and institutions doing research in various fields of social sciences.Why are they unable to find a answer for the above question?
Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.74.134 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are unable to find an answer because it is an incredibly complex question. Just to begin, how to measure prosperity? You listed three items but as you note with the etc., there are many more. Which ones are more important? Then there are all the different factors that may affect prosperity: availability of natural resources, population base, climate, infrastructure, social cohesion, public institutions, laws, etc. etc. And these factors are often interconnected.
These things can be studied and people do come up with all sortsof theories about them. But how can these theories be properly evaluated? Societies are poor laboratories for experimental proofs. So theories are generally measured by how well they explain existing and historical societies. However, as these tests and comparisons are not rigourously controlled, they cannot really "prove" that the theory is correct - only that it seems to explain some situations. - EronTalk17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think one major contributing factor is that it's much easier to create wealth when you are already wealthy, so once a small gap develops a big one usually follows. The cause of that small gap can be absolutely anything - random fluctuation would probably do it. --Tango (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we can't find the answers. I don't think a lack of answers has ever been the problem. Sure, if we were to try to come up with a comprehensive plan to solve all of the worlds problems we'd certainly fail, but if we allow solutions that are proven (enough) or are believed to probably work move forward then we can surely go much further and faster toward a more just world than we have been. We have more than enough food to feed everyone, and so on. I think some (super-rich) people bend/break/change the rules to work for them and come up with solutions that work for them but that they wouldn't accept for their families if they were on the other side of them. Thankfully in market economies you're enabled to make every effort to stop giving people your money when they step on other people. -LambaJan (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Researchers have found answers for most of these questions, and we know many of the steps that could be taken to improve life for the world's have-nots. The problem is that real solutions would involve a reduction in power and income for those who are most powerful and affluent, since their income tends to derive at least in part from conditions of severe inequality. For example, the world's wealthiest people live largely from their investments. Their income depends largely on the profitability of multinational corporations. Multinational corporations' profit depends increasingly on minimizing pay for producers, increasingly located in poor countries where pay is lowest, and maximizing sales in countries where pay is higher. That is, many companies' business models depend on sharp inequality, in theory the sharper the better. Also, aid programs to benefit the poorest would have to be funded from taxes on those who are better off, but those who are better off want to minimize their taxes. Because improving the lot of the poorest would require trimming the income of the wealthy and powerful, improvement is unlikely to happen, because for most of the wealthy and powerful, maximizing their individual income is more important than, say, reducing infant mortality in Africa. Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find measuring prosperity / poverty to be relatively easy (index for the number of calories and protein consumed; longevity; literacy; access to safe water and sanitation; and a few other items such as medical care and personal security). What usually happens, however, is that researchers either can’t get adequate data or want something measured in “headline” dollar amounts (major headache). As for inequality between societies, geography is a huge factor: either your land is fertile or it isn’t, either you have a port or you don’t; either you have nasty neighbors or you don’t. After that, I’d say religion is next most important: either it support change or it doesn’t. The main reason no one agrees on these issues is that we can’t control for variables and experiment. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Your observation may be discriminatory within a humanities perspective. Please rephrase your question. It may be better interpreted in a science perspective. --Mayfare (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Why do Esso's and the Canadian Automobile Association's logos look similar? Both have ovals outlined in blue and red letters. Was there a logo trend? Esso was annexed from Standard Oil around the same time that CAA was founded. Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly possible for Georgia to invade South Ossetia (which was de jure part of Georgia) and for Russia to then invade Georgia. It is also perfectly possible for the second of these to carry more international significance. 217.42.157.143 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read the following referring to the current Bush administration: "the unprecedented concentration of executive power by the White House" [[15]] (Nor is The Daily Show afraid of tackling what it calls "super depressing" stories, such as President George Bush's decision to approve the use of torture after the September 11 attacks and the unprecedented concentration of executive power by the White House.) I'm not American and don't understand: in what way is it unprecedented? Thanks for info., Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's precedent... calling it "unprecedented" is a rhetorical device, you shouldn't take it seriously. It must mean that the reporter really, really doesn't like Bush's behavior. One glaringly obvious precedent is Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the right of habeas corpus and imprisonment of Confederate sympathizers without trial. Long before there was a President Bush (either one) there was concern about an Imperial Presidency. - Nunh-huh06:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. The combination of the Imperial Presidency with Bush Derangement Syndrome has made for some amusing, if historically naive, hyperbole. For better or worse (probably worse), the power of the presidency has been growing steadily since FDR, but some folks seem not to have noticed this until recently. Some of the geniuses who think Bush's actions are "unprecedented" probably like Woodrow Wilson! 24.172.156.74 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How evil something is is entirely subjective. The reference desk is not intended to be a site for subjective debate. --Tango (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more of "When in doubt, go with the nazis" kind-of-a guy. I recently read an article online that listed the top ten most evil experiments on humans (WARNING: the article is horrifying, don't read if you're not ready for it) and Unit 731 and the Nazis did indeed top the list. The author stated (in the third comment) that the only reason Nazis topped Unit 731 was that they killed more people. I agree, I think that the crimes themselves are so cruel that you can't compare them to each other, the only way to measure is in pure lives lost. 90.235.18.8 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Acme Prototype Evil-o-meter overheated and melted when I fed this question into it, so no categorical answer is possible. Does the difference between "very, very, very evil indeed" and ""disgustingly, nauseatingly evil" really matter that much? You wouldn't want either to marry your daughter. Karenjc21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Empire
in the days of the Roman Empire royalty would have a person taste test there food for safety before they ate it. What was the name they gave this person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.129.85.220 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tigishsimon, it's an essay question, that's why it's vague. Please do your own homework. If you can do some groundwork first, we will help you with something you can't understand. We won't write it for you.78.148.49.125 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In court, conflicts of interest are essentially a matter for judges and advocates (that is, lawyers speaking on behalf of one side or the other). It's very unusual for a lawyer to arrive in court with a conflict of interest, because they have seen the papers in advance and know where they stand. But judges can find they have such conflicts and need to recuse thermselves. Strawless (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning of life?
Why does life exist in the first place? Why is earth not just a giant pile of rocks like most planets that we know of in existence? Is there a scientific reason, not religious, why life has to exist. Maybe I am feeling melancholy, but I hate suffering so.... --Anilmanohar (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically it's this: all life today comes from life that was here previously. You're the result of egg-cells from your mother and sperm-cells from your father. Plants grow from seeds. Cells divide. This is the way new life is made, from older life.
However, this process can't stretch back indefinitely. Go back further, waaaay back (a few billion years), there had to have been a primordial cell. A first cell, that started dividing, from which everything else comes from. But how did it get there? It can't have come from some earlier cell, because there were none.
Truth is, as Algebraist said, we have absolutely no idea. There are theories, but no one knows for sure. We probably will know, some day, but it remains one of the great mysteries of nature.
As for the question "Why earth, why not some place else? What makes this special?", that leads to something called the Anthropic principle. There is much debating and theorizing going on about that question, much of it deep and arcane philosophy, but it basically boils down to this: "Why here? Well, if life developed on the planet Zargon in the sixty-third dimension, there'd be a bunch of Zargonians asking the same question!" Well, sort-of. 90.235.18.8 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russia's threats regarding the missle defense base in Poland
So i was reading in the news this morning that Russia's military leaders had the hilarious idea to warn of a possible nuclear attack on Poland regarding the missle defense base they are building there. I dont know how the leadership of the country would be crazy enough to let something like that slip out. I have noticed in the past of course that half of foreign relations with countries one is at odds with is a great big pissing contest, but something like that should have been dismissed as entirely unhelpful by any kind of government office that has any knowledge of proper foreign relations. What could this serve to accomplish? And more importantly what do the common people in Russia think of making ridiculous statements like this?
How is this ridiculous? Nuclear war between Russia and the US is a possibility. Poland is now part of the US's defences in case of such a war. It would thus be natural for Russia, in the event of nuclear war, to attack Poland (and the UK, and various other countries) to weaken US defences. Russia has reminded Poland that this is the case. It's not as if Medvedev has said he might wake up tomorrow and decide to nuke Warsaw. Algebraist16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Russia is saying is that if Poland helps the US with its missile shield, and then Russia feels the need to nuke the US but can't due to the shield, it will nuke Poland instead (or as well - once they've nuked Poland they can probably move on to nuking the US). I don't think this should come as a surprise to anyone - it's an obvious risk of hosting a missile shield for another country. Russia only said it as a fist shaking measure. --Tango (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the statement could serve to accomplish would be to make any other nation think twice about aligning itself with the US in a way that Russia finds militarily threatening. Russian authorities are reminding other nations that there are downsides to taking a hostile military posture towards Russia. I'm not sure how this is at odds with "proper foreign relations" when the United States and other major powers have always issued warnings like this. Probably many Russians are happy that their leaders are standing up to what they may see as Western bullying. Marco polo (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
![[9]](http://www.gif.gl/program/index.php?t_id=70&sprog=3&music=1&shifter=5){kind=link}
