Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 23

United States and the Impending Canary Island Disaster

Has any United States politician addressed the problem presented by the impending disaster of a Canary Island Tsunami? 66.229.148.27 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have looked into this, and for several years there have been reports that the severity of the problem is overstated. See this BBC news article from 2004. [1] Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to seem rash or any of that. I thank you for the information, it was definitely a reliever. I just want to know if this has been addressed on a political forum. Such as the floor of congress, etc etc. 66.229.148.27 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It has. (Google is your friend). -- kainaw™ 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Cross-state sexual issues

I have a question about cases of US law. Is it illegal to cross state lines to engage in sexual conduct with a minor? Such as, in my state, the age of consent is 16, but in the other state, it is 18. If I were to bring that person back to my state, where it is legal, would the act of transporting cross-state be a federal crime?

Also, what does the law say about transmission of sexually explicit content over the internet from a minor, if that said person is agreed to the transmission, and I am over age? RefDeskPrivateAcct (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk does not give legal advice. Consult an attorney for the application of the Mann Act to your situation. B00P (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a Roger B. Taney issue to me! 68.231.164.27 (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

18 U.S.C. 2423 (2006) says:

(a) Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.— A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.— A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[2]

--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing Taneyish in sexual consent laws. Roger Taney was chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court during the Civil War years. Dred Scott, upholding slavery, was his opinion. He helped create the inevitably of the Civil War. If someone is not capable of giving consent, they cannot give meaningful consent. Children may be sexual but the law recognizes that they do not have an equal bargaining position with an adult. Statutory rape laws also exist. My personal story is that a child cannot stand up to an adult as an equal and is, therefore, easily exploited and abused.75Janice (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

Doing what's best for the economy

Here in the States, people will soon start receiveing their income tax return checks and that has me wondering something. What would be best for the economy; A) people spending that money as soon as they can so that it can move throughout the financial system or B) putting it into the bank, by way of a savings account or certificate of deposit, so that the banks have more money to lend out? I'd like it if you could pick from those two options but I'm open to reading better things to do with the money. Apologies if I've simplified the whole banking system way too much for my little brain. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you might find this post useful. Or perhaps not. Its not especially serious, but at least it's asking the question to economists. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Spending it. The reason they're doling it out in small amounts rather than making one lump sum payment is because they think people are more likely to spend a little cash, while they are likely to save a lump sum. --Sean 12:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Spending it is best for the economy, now, because banks, once they get hold of money from any source, tend to want to "hold onto it until the economy improves". This hording of money, of course, is precisely what keeps the economy from improving. However, once the economy does improve, both people and banks should increase their savings rates to prepare for the next economic downturn, as a lack of cash reserves was one cause of our current problems. StuRat (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Spending would be better for the economy (but is it better for you?). Banks have become quite risk averse and so extend credit cautiously. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Chances are, spending it is best, but if there is a chance you will soon be in financial difficulties it would be better save it. Going bankrupt is going to harm the economy more than deferring spending a little. --Tango (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Paradox of thrift may be of interest.

I have a hankering for the attitude of Enoch Powell, who used to say that it's generally a mistake for people to act in what they conceive, often wrongly, as the national interest. According to this old-fashioned view, people should act responsibly in their own interest, and if they do that then the nation acts collectively in its own interest. No doubt this has some flaws, but then all economic ideas have flaws. Xn4 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Although increasing short-run Aggregate Demand (consumption) is the point of a fiscal stimulus, if it hadn't been for the low marginal propensity to save (amount of money that goes into savings for each dollar of additional income) in the United States, it may not have had so many problems. A low Savings rate leads to a trade deficit, increased private and public financial leverage and, often, less domestic ownership of assets (land and capital). These things allow foreign countries to capture surpluses that otherwise would be going to the United States. And they make financial panics more extreme. Some economists believe that countries go through cycles during which they start off in the world as a "net borrower" with low income and slowly achieve a high savings rate, during which time they accumulate capital, which increases their per capita income, which combines with a high savings rate to make them become a "net lender" in the world. The higher income slowly increases consumption (at the expense of savings), which eventually makes them a net borrower again. During this time, they maintain a high propensity to consume and a low propensity to save which slowly the erodes rate of capital accumulation and income growth. They "live beyond their means" for a while. Examining the increasing and consistent trade deficits and stubborn addiction to leverage (credit) in the US suggests that this is the stage in which they currently find themselves.NByz (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Children and Women of India

I would like to research women and children surviving on garbage dumps in the country of India. Thanks, Pam Moes

You might start by googling (without the quotation marks) "garbage dump living India". It brings up a lot of results. If you want a background as to the causes, you could look at Poverty in India and its references. // BL \\ (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Other helpful searches could use the terms "rubbish dump", "rubbish tip", "dumping ground" and "rag pickers". For example. You might also look at this article in The Independent about a charity helping rag pickers in Delhi. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppression due to gender/skin colour

[to settle a discussion please] On the whole, who were more oppressed? - women under the Taliban in Afghanistan (1996-2001) or pre-Civil Rights blacks in the southern USA (1900-1950s)? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

At least African slaves could show their faces in public. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the object of this discussion? Does someone win something? Because women under the Taliban and black Americans before the Civil Rights Movement didn't win anything. Getting acid thrown in your face or getting burned and lynched by the whole town: which would you choose? --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with being lynched. Recury (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What about stoning, still a punishment for adultery, and indirectly a punishment for being raped? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppression is a subjective thing, a direct comparison like that is impossible. --Tango (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we be given some background on the question? Why would those two classes of people be compared? Is there a reason why those two categories of people need to be compared on the basis of "oppression?" I am just wondering about the origin from which springs such a question. The questioner indicates that it is to "settle a discussion." Can we be afforded a glimpse of the nature of that "discussion?" Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bus Stop. The discussion concerns denial of human rights in historically modern situations (20th Century+) to different groups + to try to understand how the oppression of these groups within the power structure could be maintained (eg: denial of education/career/freedom of movement etc.). The question would be which of the groups mentioned above was denied more basic legal and human rights. Hope that's clear, thank you for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you -- but why those two particular groups? That is what I am mainly wondering about. I'm sorry I didn't make my question more clear. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If the question is badly phrased, then please remove it. I/we were informed that this is a good place on internet to receive information from people with good knowledge about historical contexts and the discussion, that we had, concerned denial of specific human and legal rights by one group over another (I thought this is called oppression politics, sorry if wrong). --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have trouble focussing on a question? Do you have difficulty conversing? You have been asked twice, by me, why these two particular groups are being compared on the basis of their relative "oppression." For the third time, I am asking you why those two particular groups are under comparison. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if there are any objective sources that compare relative oppression of these two groups. But I could be wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it too. But it is possible. Anything is possible. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Because they are, among other groups, being discussed here by us in a private conversation, as is our right of freedom of expression here in our country. I find you to be extremely rude ("Do you have trouble focussing on a question? Do you have difficulty conversing?") and would ask you to please desist from further communication here, thank you in advance.--AlexSuricata (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. You are well within your "rights" in not conversing with me. Sometimes I pose "difficult" questions. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Although Bus Stop's demeanor was not as cordial as we like to see here on the reference desks, yours, AlexSuricata, was not without its problems. On the face of it, your question is the sort designed to incite rancorous debate, and debate, rancorous or not, is not what this desk is for. We volunteers are here to help you use the encyclopedia to find specific information; this is not a discussion forum. Your question presupposes an equivalence between the conduct of the United States and the conduct of the Taliban, making it quite a lot like the sort of non-question that trolls ask to make trouble, and it is unanswerable in any concrete way, as Tango pointed out, again troll-like. Of course, both oppressions happened, and therein lies a reason to assume good faith. We here at Wikipedia are supposed to assume good faith, and I think you'll admit that Bus Stop sort of did by asking you for clarification, which was not forthcoming from you. We still don't know why those two groups. What about the Russian serfs? What about Athenian non-citizens in the Golden Age? What about the Slavs, the Kurds, the Armenians, the Ainu, the Untouchables, the Irish? Why the two you name? I'm sure that many of the volunteers here saw the same problem with your "question", and either chose to ignore it, as is our "right", or answered levelly. So now it's me asking, why those two groups? --Milkbreath (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The question also presupposes an equivalence between men and women. One of the classes of people being discussed consists of women only. The other class of people comprises both sexes. I apologize for what may have been incivility on my part. I found it particularly curious that a group comprising one gender was being compared to a group comprised of both genders. I ask questions that I think will lead to fruitful discussions. I only grew frustrated, when my inquiries were thwarted. But I apologize to AlexSuricata. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A better comparison might be between women under the Taliban and women in Western European medieval culture (or even women in more progressive Islamic states such as Egypt, Lebanon, or Tunisia). Wrad (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming you know why those two particular groups were chosen for this comparison. It appears that we will not be told what the interest in those two groups may be. Without understanding why those groups were chosen, finding references that could possibly compare them is extremely difficult. I am left thinking that it is an argument between a white woman and a black man about who's had it worse, even though neither one has ever been oppressed by a slave master or the Taliban. -- kainaw™ 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to quantify abstract qualities. There is no single "unit of oppression," and likewise, no direct way to compare them. How can one objectivly decide which acts of violence and oppression against either group are more severe? While the Reference Desk does very well with questions that have a definite answer ("Who is the current pope?" or "When was the War of 1812?"), we do not do so well with questions that have no definitive answer ("What is the meaning of life?") A discussion forum may be a better place to ask this question. Livewireo (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, on a general level, what is the difference between the way modern, 20th century governments oppress and create a framework supporting oppression and the way governments of the past have done so? I don't personally think that much changed at all. Wrad (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with and appreciate the comments above, here's a suggested approach to finding a common denominator for the comparison. If "oppression" is measured by the presence or absence of human rights (or civil rights), you would investigate the nature of those rights in each context: i.e. women vs. men in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and blacks vs. whites in '30s–'50s Southern USA. A fair comparison will require digging under the surface: do the Taliban oppress their male political opponents in any way? what aspects characterized rural vs. urban Southern settings? And then (or first) examine your own definitions of context-dependent human/civil rights to ensure that other factors aren't involved: to take an example external to the chosen cases, is it oppression or liberation to deny a devout schoolgirl her choice to wear the headcovering required for modesty in the religion she professes? (Caveat: this may be mediated by a school acting in loco parentis for minors...but applying the values of the school board, not the girl's own parents!) A thoughful consideration and study of these issues, supported by what you can read online and in the broadcast and print media, should give you plenty of material and lead to some meaningful insights if not actual conclusions. Go for it! -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer from OP to user Milkbreath: Because they are two groups we saw about recently in some movies ("Mississippi Burning" and "Osama") and read in books ("The Color Purple" & "The Kite Runner") and read about on the internet and these 2 timeframes and the groups (and how the power structure could be maintained - eg: denial of access to education/career, 2nd class citizens in legal systems, own bank accounts and driving licences, citzenship. etcv.) interest us and we were talking and comparing. Is that so bad? We are in Europe and know little first-hand about these groups. If the question is offensive, please remove - We were curious as to information about, for exaample, specific legal discrimination and which group had it harder to achieve "pursuit of happiness" for different reasons, and hoped someone could here comparitively point out basic but specific legal/human rights areas. But, if you deem this "troll-like" or offensive, then of course please remove, thank you. --AlexSuricata (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Al (may I call you Al?). I didn't say it was bad, I said it looked bad. I didn't say you were trolling, I said that you should appreciate that a certain degree of suspicion on the part of a certain volunteer was understandable given the circumstances. We don't remove offensive questions unless their intent is solely to offend, and I am not offended by the question. Anyway, your question asks which was "more oppressed". Who can say? I guess we can measure oppression by numbers of victims killed per capita, but I doubt the Taliban recorded it every time a wife or daughter was beaten to death. I think we cannot know. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the question itself, I would say it was women under the Taliban. I see two key points.

1. Lynching was never official government policy in the United States; executions in Afghanistan were officially sanctioned. Throughout the period you are discussing, oppression of blacks in the South was widely publicized and condemned by other segments of the American population, and by many people in the South itself. When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he noted that his father had opposed the resurgent Klan in Texas right after World War I. In Afghanistan, where the government was the oppressor, protest against such oppression was itself a crime. When it comes to lesser forms of oppression than death, such as the inability to vote, this was, in the United States, a violation of the US Constitution obtained by dubious means, such as poll taxes, but in Taliban Afghanistan, as flowing directly from their law.
2. The was very little preventing blacks from leaving the South. Hundreds of thousands migrated north, to places like Chicago and Detroit, or west. On the other hand, it was all but impossible for a woman to leave Afghanistan.

While it hardly matters to the victims who is killing them, for the society as a whole, it does matter if the offense is being perpetrated by some small, repulsive segment of the population or is the explicit policy of the nation. And it certainly matters whether one can escape a bad situation, or is, in effect, a prisoner. Lack of human rights is always a tragedy, but looking at the issue in the United States and Afghanistan discloses two very different trajectories. In the US the movement whas been from slavery, through oppression, towards equality. (It hasn't been fully achieved yet, but you might want to take a good look at the current President.) The Taliban removed whatever legal equality women had before they came to power. B00P (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• • It is quite incorrect to claim that there were no barriers to blacks leaving the south. Freed slaves travelling north right after the civil war were sometimes murdered for their impudence in not becoming sharecroppers. There was a longstanding fear of the loss of cheap labor, and rail travel was difficult for many years after emancipation. In the 1927 Mississippi River flood, sharecroppers/laborers were prevented from leaving the flooded Mississippi delta in Tennessee, and were kept in abusive and inhumane conditions on the levees, while whites were transported to safety elsewhere. The NY Times said "“Blacks were rounded up into work camps and held by armed guards. They were prevented from leaving as the waters rose. A steamer, the Capitol, played "Bye Bye Blackbird” as it sailed away."Edison (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Edison attempts to counter a general condition that existed for a full century (1865-1964) over then entire South by pointing to a special case covering a few months along a stretch of the Mississippi. He also changes "very little" to "no barriers." Now, cleatly, I acknowledge that the transportation system in 1870 was hardly equivalent to that of 1920, but I reiterate that hundreds of thousands left for the north and west. There was no such mass female exodus from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. It might be remembered that the ne plus ultra court case allowing Jim Crow legislation, Plessy v. Ferguson, dealt with accommodations on railway cars. While it allowed discrimination, it also shows that blacks had no problem getting on trains. There were no border guards preventing them from leaving the state.

The question wasn't whether blacks were oppressed, but whether they had it worse than women under the Taliban. B00P (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly thousands of blacks left the South, but I have read of southern rail stations refusing them passage north in the late 19th and early 20th century. Some circumvented that by walking to other towns where the restrictions were not in place. There was also a class divide: poor whites were less sorry to see them leave than large landowners who needed cheap labor, and who wanted to have a cheap workforce to keep down the pay demanded by white workers. Plantation owners certainly were not eager to see freed slaves leave the land and migrate north in the decades after the civil war, and extending into the 20th century. Slaves became sharecroppers. "A Century of Negro Migration" (1918) By Carter Godwin Woodson says p122 that after emancipation, legislatures of the former slave states enacted vagrancy laws which allowed free Negroes to be arresated for "vagrancy" and forced to work with ball and chain. This and debt peonage were powerful barriers to migration north. Page 137 notes the inducing of steamship lines not to furnish transportation to Negros seeking to emigrate from the south. Circa 1910, peonage still was being used to keep some Negros on the land in the south until trumped up "debts" were payed off, which they system was set up to prevent ever happening. Those fleeing were likely to be killed if caught (page 154). But certainly there was large scale Negro migration to the north despite any barriers, especially by the more educated and urban population and skilled workers (pp 162-163). Woodson on p 175 notes the practice of arresting Negros who showed up at southern train stations to catch a train north, although it was obviously not universally done. An Atlanta University publication in 1917 discussed anti-Negro migration efforts, which included taxes on labor agents (who hired workers for jobs in the North or West). It noted that fair wages and good treatment were the only hopes for keeping them from leaving. Edison (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would point out our article on the Great migration (African American) but that article is in a confused state. Rmhermen (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

February 24

Recovery from Narcisstic Nurturing (or lack of)

I do not have a "sense of myself". When I'm alone, I am not able to decide to do/or not do- anything. After changing out of my work clothes, I may simply sit on a chair for hours, until someone comes home, or phones. "No sense of myself" is the best term I can think of to describe this. I'm 53, and recently come to realize my mother was an extreme narcississt. How do I outgrow or overcome this lack. Is it something I devlop - or create? Is there a universally recognized form of therapy or treatment for this condition?NotaFiffle (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should see a neurologist. You're not going to get sound medical advice here. This is just a bull session. Bus stop (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly see a therapist, but in any case see someone. As usual your doctor is a good person to start with. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the above comment -- one's own doctor is probably the best place to start. I should have said that in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be suffering from depression - as others have said, you must see a doctor. Apart from that, get some interests - do evening classes or night school, join a social group of some kind such as dancing, get into the habit of reading a quality newspaper everyday, start painting, gardening, investing, cycling, running, dancing, sailing, playing cards, skating, bowling, acting, etc etc. 78.146.52.210 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Why is sex in the physiological portion of Maslow's hierarchy? It's not necessary for life. Well, not for an individual to remain living. It's not directly necessary to be able to fulfill the safety needs. And it's redundant given the love/belonging needs. Dismas|^(talk) 04:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sex is a physiological event, and under Maslow's theory of human actualization, ALL physiological processes of the body are at the bottom of the pyramid. Sex, that is the physiological event of sexual release (i.e. orgasm), is distinct from the emotional processes such as love or belonging higher on the pyramid. Sexual release occurs even in the absense of love (masturbation, sexual dreams, nocturnal emissions, etc.) and in order to complete the lowest level of the pyramid, an individual must have an outlet of sexual release. It's important to note that the lowest level of the pyramid is not merely about "you will die if you don't get these things", its that you cannot fully reallize your potential as a human (i.e. be fully actualized) unless these needs are met.

Maslow draws a distinction between several human experiences which we conflate with sex.

1. Orgasm is on the lowest level.
2. Being in a sexual relationship with another would be on the second level (this makes sense, since you cannot have a full sexual relationship if you are incapable of orgasm).
3. Being in an intimate sexual relationship, where sex is intertwined with love (i.e. marriage or its equivalent) is on the third level (being in a working marriage requires a healthy sexual relationship, so this rests on the second level being complete first)
4. Feeling good about your marriage and being content in your family life would be on the fourth level.(Having esteem in your marriage requires a healthy sex life with your partner)
5. Feeling the need to place the needs of your marriage ahead of your personal needs; having a morally committed relationship to your partner, etc. etc. would be the fifth level.(Having a moral committment to monogamy in your relationship requires that you have esteem in it).

Hope this spells it out a bit better for you. Its not the entire of sex and all that comes with it that Maslow places on the lowest level, its the mere physiological process of orgasm that belongs there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Which all sounds fine in theory, but reality is somewhat different. There are many people who, through disability, injury, infirmity and so forth, are incapable of sex (level 1) but have a very emotionally and intellectually rewarding marriage/relationship (levels 4 and 5). Gwinva (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Maslow's hierarchy is somewhat arbitrary, since he revised it himself later. It is an interesting, but not 100% full proof layer scheme. At first glance physiological needs should be a the bottom, since without that layer, other layers are often disregarded. And sex is physiological, but not nearly as necessary as food. It would just tear up a neat structure to move sex to any other layer. And "... and thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner " DanielDemaret (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Allegory of the cave

In Plato's allegory of the cave, how do I determine whether I'm one of the prisoners in the cave or whether I'm one of the shadows being cast on the wall? NeonMerlin 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you take the red pill or the blue pill? bibliomaniac15 05:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To explain a bit more about Biblio's oblique reference, the 1999 film The Matrix is essentially a sci-fi version of the allegory of the cave. The whole point of the allegory is that, unless you are specifically shown the real world (i.e. offered the red pill) you can never know whether or not the world you experience is "real". You can only assume what you experience is the totality of experience until someone leads you out of the cave/offers you the red pill. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, shadows aren't sentient, so you must be a prisoner. On a separate note, William Poundstone's interesting book Labyrinths of Reason posits the ultimate allegory of the cave -- a single bit of information -- in which a single red LED taps out a depiction of reality in Morse Code. The subject would have just as rich an experience of the world as Plato's prisoners or we in our own cave. --Sean 13:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean's point being summed up as I think therefore I am. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the observers are the prisoners, you are a prisoner in that allegory. The shadows are only a reflection of a higher reality. DanielDemaret (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Plato believes that we are ALL prisoners in the cave. By this he means that we do not see the true nature of reality. The objects that cast the shadows are the objects of reality. But we see only the shadows and not the real objects. So everything in this world is a mere ‘shadow’ of its corresponding Form. The only way to escape from the cave, and the only way to see the true reality, is by studying the Forms. See Plato’s theory of Forms Theory_of_Forms. WillMall (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

homosexual

Who were some people in the 19th century who opposed homosexual activity? This is homework but I just need a starting point. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles that might be helpful: Paragraph 175, Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, Cleveland Street scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry I forgot to specify this mainly for England during the 19th century, although other world sources are welcome for background context. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of respected public figures who were willing to make any kind of public statement on the matter viewed it negatively. It would have been quite scandalous to do otherwise, except in rather subtly coded language when discussing ancient Greek society, anthropological comparisons of customs, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

One starting point: read about Oscar Wilde's trial and follow the links to the person whose accusations precipitated the charges. WikiJedits (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry Labouchère is one individual who would interest you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotation wrongly attributed to Paul Valéry

The quotation

"Mettons en commun ce que nous avons de meilleur et enrichissons-nous de nos différences mutuelles [French] = Let us each put in common the best that we have and enrich ourselves with our mutual differences."

has been attributed to the French writer and poet Paul Valéry by a number of quotation guides, without a precise reference. According to specialists on Valéry, the phrase is nowhere to be found in his works. A search through electronic editions of his works did not uncover it either.

Who did originate this oft-quoted phrase? Vossius (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vossius (talk • contribs) 13:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 

I poked around the Internet and my bookshelves, and nada, not that my bookshelves are worth much. (Isn't that more like "Let us bring together the best..."?) I wouldn't be satisfied that it wasn't his unless I'd actually read every word he ever wrote, and even then it might have been oral. The absence of a work cited is suspicious, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just speculation: it could have been a saying that he invented and used in conversations so that it eventually became known with his family, friends or colleagues. On the other hand, he liked to ponder a lot about wise sentences and their formulations, so I wonder why it's not in one of his Cahiers. At any rate, it's not so unusal that quotations are attributed to writers but no refernce can be found. -- 95.112.166.243 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Leviathan

Why did Hobbes call his book/commonwealth Leviathan? It seems that the huge monster of the bible was regarded as a demon and probably wasn't the nicest name for anything, let alone a sprawling totalitarian state. So why the demonic name? Thanks 86.8.176.85 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, one more question: were Hobbes' views about the subordination of church to state controversial? Thanks 86.8.176.85 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Hobbes's reason:

Hitherto I have set forth the nature of Man, (whose Pride and other Passions have compelled him to submit himselfe to Government;) together with the great power of his Governour, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth of Job; where God having set forth the great power of Leviathan, called him King of the Proud. "There is nothing," saith he, "on earth, to be compared with him. He is made so as not be afraid. Hee seeth every high thing below him; and is King of all the children of pride." But because he is mortall, and subject to decay, as all other Earthly creatures are; and because there is that in heaven, (though not on earth) that he should stand in fear of, and whose Lawes he ought to obey; I shall in the next following Chapters speak of his Diseases, and the causes of his Mortality; and of what Lawes of Nature he is bound to obey. -- Part 2, Ch. 28

All pretty opaque but I think Hobbes's point is that the state is a huge powerful creature akin to Leviathan, and Leviathan isn't really a daemon anyway rather just one of god's biggest creations. The question of the church's subordination to the state was one of the main impulses of the Reformation, particularly in England, so it wasn't hugely controversial for that reason in many protestant parts of Europe but all of Hobbes's works were placed upon the the catholic church's Index Librorum Prohibitorum meltBanana 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant answer, thank you! 86.8.176.85 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

World Leader's role in 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War

What was the role of the world leaders including United Kingdom, U.S.A. and Saudi Arabia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh's Foreign Policy

What is Bangladesh's foreign policy toward to Muslim nations and Commonwealth nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ami Banglai Gan Gai

Who originally sang the song "Ami Banglai Gan Gai"?

The entire composition (lyrics+tune) is totally by Pratul Mukherjee. There has been subsequent performances of this song by several artistes both in India and Bangladesh, but the original creator and singer of this song is Pratul Mukherjee.

Bengali songs

Where can I find Bengali songs sang by Ghulam Ali, Mehdi Hassan, Mohammed Rafi, Jagjit Singh, Pankaj Udhas and Anup Jalota? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghulam Ali, Mehdi Hassan, Mohammed Rafi, Jagjit Singh, Pankaj Udhas and Anup Jalota. These wikipedia artist pages may be of use to you. MarquisCostello (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bangladeshi films

Is there website where I can find Bangladeshi films and their sypnosis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Indian and Pakistani Nationalism

Why do I have feeling that Indian Nationalism is like Hindu Nationalism with its policy that make every Hindu, regardless of its ethnic background, speak Hindi and same thing with Pakistani Nationalism: it is like Muslim Nationalism with its policy that make every Muslim, regardless of its ethnic background, speak Urdu? **If I am wrong, please correct me with some articles on Indian Nationalism and Pakistani Nationalism either from Wikipedia and/or from other websites. Bangladesh is having a cold civil war between two political parties(Awami League and BNP-Jamaat-e-Islami and its supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have edited your question, not something anyone on the Ref Desk does lightly. You made one statement that appeared to be racist and I have removed it. If you did not intend the remarks to be against a people, but rather against a policy, then I would suggest that you reword it to something like: "I am opposed to Indian nationalism and Pakistani nationalism for these reasons." Thank you. // BL \\ (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) **The deleted sentence was removed from the position marked by the double asterisk. // BL \\ (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We have quite a lot of pages which help to answer this question, for instance, Hindu nationalism, Hindutva, Sangh Parivar, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Hindu Taliban, Bharatiya Janata Party and Saffronization. See also Religious violence in India - and, indeed, Two Nation Theory. Xn4 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Christianity

I notice that Islam is the religion that has an international organization in the name of Islam (Organization of the Islamic Conference). Why Christianity doesn't have an international organization, even though it is world's largest religion before Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It did for a long time, until the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church claimed to represent all of Christendom (at least the Western parts) and it certainly did before the East-West Schism in the 11th century. Since the Protestant Reformation, western Christendom has become increasingly fragmented. There have, throughout history, been various Ecumenical councils which attempt to bring various elements of Christendom together for mutual understanding. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See also Ecumenism and World Council of Churches and several other organizations noted in the Ecumenism article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because of the priciple of secular government in the "Christian" world. Christianity concerns itself with saving souls, not making nations. It's Jesus vs. Caesar. And for the many religions, denominations, and sects within Christianity to unite, they would need something to unite against, and they would need their "member states" to be self-described "Christian nations", a hard sell in the developed world. Also, a Christian world organization on a par with the Islamic one would not be able to get away with making pronouncments like that the Jews "invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong". Even PC has a silver lining. The Pope caught a ton of crap for suggesting that the Moslems might be a bit too shirty for everybody's good; imagine if the Christian world spoke such things with one voice. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The punishment of nuns who broken their celibacy

This is a historical question. I wonder: If a nun in the, for example, 16th century had sexual intercourse with a man, then which punishment would she have? And which would a monk have, who had sex with a woman? --85.226.42.129 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly an answer, but Peter Abelard was castrated and separated from his lover for life. But he became a monk after his affair with Heloise, and she was his student, so there were complicating factors. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Abelard's castration was an act of revenge rather than a standard punishment. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether Aldous Huxley's The Devils of Loudun is historically accurate or is in quite the right time frame, but it has some pretty lurid descriptions of punishment for these sorts of things; that's assuming Ken Russell's film version didn't stray too far from reality .... wait ... -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Rule of St Benedict, IIRC, has a section on appropriate punishment for breaking the rule. Actual practice, however, would likely be different to the rule's recommendation. Steewi (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If people will pardon an extended quotation from Barbara Tuchman's book on the 14th century:

[M]onks and itinerant friars...were notorious as the seducers of women. Peddling furs and girdles for wenches and wives, and small gentle dogs "to get love of them," the friar in a 14th century poem "came to our dame when the gode man is from home."

He spares nauther for synne ne shame,

For may he tyl a woman synne

In priveyte, he will not blynne

Er he a childe put hir withinne

And perchance two at ones

In the tales of Boccaccio, in the fabliaux of France, in all literature of the time, clerical celibacy is a joke. Priests lived with mistresses or else went to hunt of them. ... This sense of betrayal explains why the friars were so often the object of active hostility, sometimes even of physical assault, because, as a chronicle of 1327 stated simply, "they did not behave as friars ought."

I'm afraid I can't help with the 16th century and Tuchman says little about nuns. - BanyanTree 11:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at Urbain Grandier. He was severely punished, but the nuns who allegedly fornicated with him were not, although that is particular to this one case. --Xuxl (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

His case is at the heart of The Devils of Loudun, mentioned above. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Each order had its own rules. As a rule there were no physical punishments for any digression from any of the order rules, since that would go against normal Canon Law. Repentance together with reparation to any injured party was the standard way. DanielDemaret (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese Nationalism

I know that Lebanese Nationalism is also called Maronite Nationalism. So, is this mean that Iraqi nationalism is also called Chaldean nationalism and Egyptian nationalism is also called Coptic nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. One situation does not necessarily extend to others. The relationship between Maronite Christians and Lebanese society is quite different than that between, say, the Coptics and Egyptian society. To some extent, each situation is a sui generis situation, and must only be understood on its own terms, and not in relation to other superficially similar situations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly! The Arabic language of the 20th and 21st centuries has two distinct and separate words for "nationalism": wataniyya وطنية and qawmiya قومية. The word qawmiyya refers to pan-Arab nationalism of all Arabs, while wataniyya refers to local patriotism for one's own home area (considered "nationalism" if you think that the Arab states should remain separate countries, but considered mere "regionalism" if you think that the Arab states should be unified into a single pan-Arab nation-state). During the 1950s-1970s, some Maronite circles were very eager for Lebanon not to be sucked into a majority-Muslim Greater Syrian or Pan-Arab state, so they emphasized a local particularistic wataniyya identity (sometimes called "Phoenician"), and preferred local vernacular dialect Arabic to international Modern Standard Arabic (which is based on the language of the Qur'an), etc. However, the Nasserites and Ba`thists in Lebanon claimed to be the greatest nationalists of all (in the qawmiyya sense), and that wataniyya wasn't true nationalism, and in fact was little short of treason to Arab nationalism.

In Egypt, there have been sporadic attempts at a quasi-separatist "Pharaonic" identity distinct from pan-Arabism (based on spontaneous feelings of many Egyptians that they're somewhat different from other Arabs), but these never really amounted to much in practical political terms, and I doubt whether they were always strongly associated with Copts. In Iraq, considering that the Iraqi government celebrated its formal "independence" in 1932 by conducting the Assyrian massacre in 1933, it would rather ludicrous to believe that Iraqi Christians have a strong attachment to Iraqi nationalism. In fact, traditionally there have been no real strong feelings of wataniyya associated with the post-1932 borders of Iraq as a whole -- which was part of the problems in Iraq after 2003... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heartland of Lebanon

Mount Lebanon Governorate is considered as "Heartland of Lebanese Christians" and Chouf District is the heartland of Lebanese Druze community. So, what about Sunni and Shi'a Muslims? Which governorate or district is the heartland of Lebanese Sunni Muslim community and which governorate or district is the heartland of Shi'a Muslim community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally the Shi`ites were concentrated in the south and the Baalbek valley, while the Sunnis were in the north. However, a lot of Shi`ites have moved into certain southern suburbs of Beirut... AnonMoos (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heartland of Syria

Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Maronite Christians? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Greek Catholic? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Greaak Orthodox? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Syriac Catholic? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Syriac Orthodox? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Armenian Catholics? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Armenian Orthodox? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Protestants? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Latin Catholics? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Sunni Muslim community? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Alawite community? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Druze community? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Shi'a Ithna Ash'ari Muslim community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I already answered this question previously with respect to the Alawites and Druze. What is the point of these monotonously repetitive questions, the answers to which would be frequently rather meaningless? And what is "Greaak"? AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heartland of Iraq

Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Chaldean Catholic Church? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Assyrian Church of the East? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Ancient Church of the East? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Syriac Catholic Church? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Syriac Orthodox Church? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Sunni Muslim community? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Shi'a Muslim community? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Kurdish community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The main Shi`ite shrine cities in Iraq are Najaf, Karbala, and Samarra (as you could see at Holiest_sites_in_Islam#Tombs_of_Shiite_Imams), while Shi`ite populations are concentrated in southern Iraq and certain neighborhoods of Baghdad (especially Sadr City), as you could have learned by paying perfunctory attention to newspapers a few years back (note that Samarra is not a majority-Shi`ite city). AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you've worked out for yourself that the Kurdish population of Iraq is concentrated in Iraqi Kurdistan. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

List of restrictions imposed on Jews by Nazis

Is there any website where i can find a list of all of the restrictions imposed on the jews by Nazi Germany in period 1933-38. --Thanks, Hadseys 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Start with our page, Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany. May not be as comprehensive as you want, but it'll give you some terms for further searching. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no real search result for pre nazi germany. ~ R.T.G 13:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Try the Weimar Republic. Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would we want that? The question is about Nazi Germany only. Algebraist 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding to the pre-nazi germany non-result - the Weimar republic was the period in german history before the nazis came to power. Exxolon (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

George, King of England, Scotland, Ireland, France, etc.

I observed that George III was the last king in London to claim the throne of France, and his article and List of French monarchs note this fact, but all that I can find related to this is that he dropped it at the same time that Ireland was united to England and Scotland. Any idea why he dropped the claim? Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, events in France (the Revolution) meant that after 1792 there was no longer any throne in France to pretend to (though Britain didn't fully recognize this until the Treaty of Amiens in 1802). After 1797 (when Austria reached an accord with France), Britain was left without major allies in its war in America. Britain entered negotiations with France for support; those in charge made such initial demands as return of the Channel Islands. This demand was untenable, but the demand for renunciation of the title of king of France remained, because the revolutionary ministers would "not allow of his retaining a title which would imply the existence in France of an order of things which is at an end." GIven the British need for allies, a decision was made to discretely drop the title "by choice" rather than at the demand of the French, and when George IV ascended the throne, the designation of "King of France" was missing from his accession proclamation. - Nunh-huh 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The French Revolution was one reason I was wondering, since surely a George-is-king-of-France partisan could claim that the Revolution had eliminated every other viable de facto candidate, and that the overthrow of the monarchy was just the overthrow of a pretender to the long-improperly-occupied throne. I had not known that Amiens included a recognition of the end of the monarchy, among other things. One bit of confusion, though: in what war in America was Britain involved? I don't remember reading anything about a significant colonial war between the British and the Spanish, I know that there wasn't anything going on with the USA at this time, and I can't imagine any other power that the British would be fighting in the Americas except France; and how would Austria affect that, since they weren't a power in the Americas? Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also the more practical point that the claim had been merely theoretical for a significant time- the chance of it actually being realised was minimal. English kings continued to claim the French throne for so long because it was a matter of honour. MarquisCostello (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but claimed titles sometimes hold on so long; otherwise there wouldn't be an alleged King of Jerusalem reigning in Madrid today. I just wondered: why drop it then, as opposed to some other time, which I now understand. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Another odd detail: the king of Spain also purports to be king of Corsica, which so far as I can tell was never in fact attached to any Spanish dynasty. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I also have to dispute the claim that following Louis XVI's execution, theer was no viable candidate for the French throne. Both of the king's younger brothers, the future Louis XVIII and Charles X were alive and in exile at the time, and plotting the restoration. The British claim dating back to the Hundred Years War had become merely symbolic by the late 18th century; in fact the kings of Spain would have had a better claim, being descended in direct male line from Louis XIV. --Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that there was no person who could step up and become the king: I remembered the brothers, but I ignored them because they really had no chance without the end of the French state as it was at this time. As far as Spain: I need to get to bed, so I'm not going to look it up lest I get QWERTYitis; but didn't the line that took the Spanish throne after the War of the Spanish Succession publicly renounce their claim to the French throne? Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at least according to Treaty of Utrecht. That's why France's most visible pretender is a descendant not of Louis XIV but of his younger brother. —Tamfang (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

When and where did judaism begin?

I need to know the date and birthplace......pleaseTiki Tiki girl (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: we don't know. The Bible doesn't specify a single beginning point, and other ancient accounts don't provide such answers, so whether or not you hold a Bible-is-literally-true position, you won't be able to say "this is when and where". Even the definition of "Judaism" would need to be set down firmly. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It originated as the ethnic religion of the Israelite tribes, but there's not necessarily any abrupt transition point where we can say that Judaism as we know it suddenly began. According to the Bible itself, there was an early glorious patriarchal period when founding figures were often in direct contact with God, a period of fragmentation (see Book of Judges), another glorious period under the united monarchy of David and Solomon (though Solomon himself fell away from monotheism during his later years), a difficult period under the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah when many ordinary Israelites lapsed into idol-worship while the flame of true monotheism was kept alive by the prophets and their relatively few followers, and then the new glorious period of the reigns of the great reforming kings of Judah -- Hezekiah, and especially Josiah (ca. 640-609 B.C.). The doctrine of the "oral law", and the style of religious decision-making by consensus obtained through legal debates, didn't become firmly accepted until the rabbis obtained undisputed leadership of Judaism during the Mishnaic period, ca. the 2nd century A.D. (as alluded to below).

So Judaism is kind of like Hinduism in this respect -- there isn't any exact date and place of origin for Hinduism either, and even within ancient sacred writings, several phases are visible (e.g. there was a "first Hindusm", if I can call it that, of animal herders roaming the Punjab, which was by no means identical with a "second Hinduism" of settled agriculturalists along the Ganges valley, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you cannot talk of Judaism before Judah, for whom it is named. Who as a tribal founder is of course semi-mythical, but the Kingdom of Judah is perfectly historical, established in the 11th century BC. But there wasn't of course any Judaism as we know it at that time. For this you need to look to the 2nd century AD, and Judah haNasi (see also List of founders of religious traditions). Thus your short answer is really, since the 2nd century, but there is a considerable history of developments leading up to that. --dab (𒁳) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the name "Judaism" has no particular strong association with the eponymous tribal ancestor Judah, but refers to the fact that after the fall of the Biblical northern Kingdom of Israel ca. 721 B.C., the only independent Israelite state left standing was the southern Kingdom of Judah (established on the former tribal territories of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, and also containing many Levite inhabitants). Eventually, those of Israelite ethnicity or descent who did not accept the leadership of the Israelites of Judah either assimilated into the surrounding populations of Canaanites (later "Syrians"), or ceased to be considered "real" monotheists by those Israelites who were led by Judeans (this is how the Jewish-Samaritan split occurred). So the word Ioudaioi (Greek) or Judaei (Latin) came to be used to refer to those Israelites led by Judeans. AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The OP may want to read Judaism#Origins. Deor (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer: Mount Sinai, 476 years before the reign of King Solomon (~1500 BC). (1 Kings 6:1)

Of course, that's the traditional, Biblical answer, and as good as any. As with most things, we are dealing with a continuum, and picking one, specific point to divide "before" from "after" is somewhat arbitrary. The real problem is that the question is flawed in making such a demand. Things develop from "less" to "more," but Tiki Tiki girl is looking for a non-existant dividing line between "none" and "all." Note that the Bible, itself, doesn't claim that everything happened all at once. Some traditions came before the Ten Commandments, and others afterwards. Still ... if you insist on one specific place and time ... I've given it to you.

Now, when and where was baseball invented? Do you want to repeat the Abner Doubleday fairy tale, or talk about rounders, the city game, and Chadwick? And, by the way, how about the game Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery played against the Nez Perce in 1805? —B00P (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And as was said above: if you believe the Bible to be historically accurate, as I do, you still have the problem of defining Judaism specifically. The King James version of the Old Testament (and I'm sure any other translations of the Hebrew Bible likewise) only uses the term "Jew" in the books of Esther, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, all of which were composed hundreds of years after Solomon's day. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The ancient Hebrew language (like all the relevant ancient languages, such as Greek Ιουδαιος, Latin Judaeus etc.) actually had only one word -- יהודי yehudi -- for the following three meanings:

1) "Judahite", i.e. a member of the tribe of Judah by genealogical descent or tribal affiliation.

2) "Judean", i.e. an inhabitant of the geographical region of Judea.

3) "Jew", an adherent of the monotheistic religion largely based in Judea (before the Second Jewish Revolt).

A form of the Hebrew word yehudi actually appears as early in the Bible as Genesis 26:34 (see also 2 Kings 18:26 etc.), but the third meaning was not fully developed until rather late in the Biblical period, as the English translation indicates... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, Abraham is considered the first Jew. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

February 25

Did Zionist political violence stop in 1948?

Did Zionist political violence stop with the establishment of the state of Israel? I am unclear how to answer this question, as neutrality is so hard on this sensitive subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

After May 1948, there was a widely-recognized state with an organized military in uniform which fought at least four conflicts with the organized militaries in uniform of other states, so the proper term for such violence would generally be "war". AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You are The OP is perhaps thinking of the 1948-to-present coöpted usage of the term "Zionism" by some antagonistic factors as a label (e.g. "Zionist entity") for that state and its supporters, on charges of the imperialistic usurping of native rights, or when objecting to the policies and practices of the State of Israel. This is employed to distinguish "anti-Zionism" from outright antisemitism directed at the Jewish people whether in Israel or the Diaspora. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is a sort of RfC. The editor is in the middle of dispute with user:Jayjg on Talk:Zionist_political_violence. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin? --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What book is this?

Does anyone know what this science fiction/fantasy novel is? IIRC it was relatively recent (probably later then 2002) and I believe the author was British. It has a short Prometheus insipire subplot where the brother? of someone who considers himself a God is required to keep pushing up a rock up a hill. I believe the brother eventually escaped. But he wasn't the primary character although the 'God' may have been the primary antagonist. I believe it involved multiple worlds, possibly including earth and someone who somehow travelled between worlds. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Was there a character named anything like Sisyphus? That's the guy from Greek mythology who was required to keep pushing up a rock up a hill, watch it roll down again, and repeat the process, forever. He was no sissy. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possibly not what you're thinking of but Terry Pratchet's Eric does involve a section in the latter part of the book of someone damned to do as Sisyphus but first has to undertake the more horrifying task of reading volumes and volumes of Health & Safety manuals first. Nanonic (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In Gene Wolfe's novel Soldier of Arete the hero rescues Sisyphus by, as I recall, splitting the rock. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

animal rights quote

I am looking for the quote of a biologist that said that you cannot compare the suffering of animals. I know it is used by animal rights advocates, but I can't find it anywhere on the internet. I hope this rings any bell to you. Thank you in advance. Maziotis (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be found on this site. [3] MarquisCostello (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Do I pay Sales tax

I have started a business making rock candles that I sell at art and craft festivals. Most of the shows are in Ga. sometimes the surounding states. I need to know if I have to pay the sales tax for each county that I do the festival in. I have heard that since I pay tax on the raw materials that I only pay tax on my profit quarterly or yearly.

Having trouble finding an answer. Thanks for the help. FWilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbewilson (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This google search has several links which may or may not answer your question. I have no idea if you have found these sites. If you cannot find information yourself, then your best option is either to contact a lawyer or accountant who specializes in tax issues, or to contact the Georgia Department of Revenue yourself, which has a website located here. There is a "contact us" bit in the menu bar. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural disasters/wrecked environment in literature

T. C. Boyle's A Friend of the Earth is set in a future, in which all kinds of pollution have destroyed the environment. Does anyone know any other novels, short stories or even poems dealing with dystopian visions of nature and environment? --95.112.166.243 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In several of Isaac Asimov's novels, earth is depicted as irradiated to the point where it is no longer habitable. Originally, there were some vague allusions that this was due to nuclear war, but his later novels retconned an explanation that it was a deliberate act designed to encourage earthlings to leave earth and colonize the galaxy. As another example, in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein depicts earth as on the brink of Malthusian catastrophy with some cities so over-populated that they are literally packed shoulder-to-shoulder with people. There are probably many others as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, a number of Philip K. Dick's books were set in dystopian futures or presents. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The '07 Pulitzer winner, The Road by Cormac McCarthy, takes place in a post-apocalyptic future in which life has been all but eradicated due to unexplained circumstanced. Nature is kaput, at any rate, though there are still some people staggering around being horrible to each other. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There must surely be very many. On the Beach (novel), Riddley Walker both came to mind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the List of dystopian literature is categorized by date, not by type of dystopia. --Anonymous, 19:54 UTC, February 25, 2009.

The Purple Cloud by M. P. Shiel is considered on of the first instances of apocalyptic literature where the apocalypse is triggered by science in particular. --140.247.243.27 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Z for Zachariah by Robert C. O'Brien is often set by high school teachers (well, it was back in my day). Gwinva (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Two I remember, though I think the cause, in each case, was nuclear war, are David Brin's The Postman and Walter Miller's A Canticle for Leibowitz. // BL \\ (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The subgenre you're looking for is the Dying Earth subgenre. The article has a short list of examples, but google might turn up more. Steewi (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The dying earth subgenre is something rather different from what (most of, I don't know all these books) this thread is about. For example, dying earth stories are much further in the future, and the dying is not normally a result of human activity. Algebraist 00:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength, N.I.C.E. (National Institute of Coordinated Experiments) want to sterilize the Earth and put up "art trees". Enter Mr. Bultitude. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In his The Magician's Nephew there is also a world where all life was destroyed by a powerful magic word. The sun is put out in The Last Battle. Also in Byron's poem Darkness (poem), the sun goes out and the entire world freezes over. Wrad (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And we must remember Pierre Boulle's Planet of the Apes, originally published in French as La Planète des singes. // BL \\ (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We read The Chrysalids in high school (although the intended reading age is probably younger than that). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also, The City Underground by Suzanne Martel (I should have asked about that on the RD, someone else probably could have found "underground Montreal year 3000 nuclear war" faster than me!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks for all the answers! -- 93.132.161.2 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the first of this genre I ever read was Robert Silverberg's Time of the Great Freeze where folks live in an underground city protected from the new ice age. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There are tons of novels in this genre. Have you had a look at Science fiction#Apocalyptic and Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction? A recent best-seller, with a movie on the way, is Cormac McCarthy's The Road. There are some novels set in times so post-apocalyptic that no one remembers the apocalypse, except perhaps the "remembering machines", and the earth may have returned to a fruitfulness but for certain aspects we notice and the characters do not (e.g. sterile oceans); try Ursula K. LeGuin's Always Coming Home. Others are set near our times, with the apocalypse coming towards us like a freight train, which the protagonists may or may not be able to head off; e.g. desertification and collapse of the water table has fostered a draconian political situation in Starhawk's The Fifth Sacred Thing, also set in California. Some of Margaret Atwood's novels deal with the theme of social collapse after natural or man-made disasters, notably Oryx and Crake and The Handmaid's Tale. Marge Piercy, who anticipated cyberpunk with Woman on the Edge of Time in 1976, dealt with these themes head-on in He, She and It (aka City of Glass). I could go on....

I was prompted to look up Suzanne Martel, mentioned above (the things you learn on Wikipedia!), and found this in The Canadian Encyclopedia: "The City Under Ground (1964) is a science fiction story about brothers who leave the underground world where people have lived since a nuclear attack and discover the world of nature." Good luck and happy reading! BrainyBabe (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jewish MPs (UK)

Hiya :-) Does anyone happen to know how many Jewish people there are in the British House of Commons, who they are, what positions they hold (ministers, shadow cabinet?) etc.? Thanks so much! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See List of British Jewish politicians. I know for a fact that Jack Straw, Michael Howard, Oliver Letwin, Margaret Hodge,David Miliband,Ed Miliband and Lynne Featherstone still sit in the House today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarquisCostello (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I saw the list, thanks, but it's a question of who's still in the House, which that list doesn't state. Someone might know ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There has always been a definitional problem with Jewish Parliamentarians in that some identify as Jewish by religion, while some who have Jewish parents are not religious. You may however be interested in the recently published book "Jewish Parliamentarians" which profiles all who probably meet the description. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

looking for a book I read 10 years ago

I can not remember the title. It was about climbing a mountain in Switzerland that was supposedly unclimbable. The main character's father had died trying to climb it earlier. It was a fictional work. I don't recall anything high tech in the book like cars or helicopters, so it was probably set in the 19th century or perhaps early 20th but I could be wrong on that. It was in English. Any ideas? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Banner in the Sky by James Ramsey Ullman? It was made into a Disney movie, Third Man on the Mountain. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

February 26

Universal Healthcare in the United States

If the government of the United States decided to institute a Universal Healthcare system, run by the Federal Government, what clause in our constitution would support it? Would it be the Commerce Clause? 66.229.148.27 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably the thin legal argumentation that makes the Social Security Administration constitutional too: [4]. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See Taxing and spending clause. Basically, the government can spend money on almost anything. Its regulatory powers are narrower. Assuming the healthcare system imposed included regulatory elements, that would probably fall under the interstate commerce clause. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk should provide answers, not opinions. I don't have time to research this topic. The broadest embrace of federal power is the Interstate Commerce Clause, which the problems of the Great Depression, widened considerably. Although the present Court and the Rehnquist court trimmed the expanse of the clause, it is still formidable. Congressional findings are important for justifying use of a federal power. The SSA is valid, it is not thinly valid. We can post debates between the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society all day. They remain citizen opinions. Hopefully, someone will arrive with citations for cases that clearly express Congress' authority in this area.75Janice (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

You're committing a crime

Ehud Barak is on List of assassins.. how dare you call him an assassin. You have no evidence. --201.254.84.133 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He's on the list because our article on him says he was an assassin during his service in Sayeret Matkal. Comments about the content of an article are best made on the talk page of the article in question. 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)DuncanHill (talk)

But an assassin is a criminal! and he is not a criminal! --201.254.84.133 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sayeret Matkal engaged in assassinations. This is a fact. (See, for example, 1973 Israeli raid on Lebanon.) They no doubt committed crimes in the process. These are not really up for debate. Whether you think their assassinations were, in the end, moral, justified, etc., is an entirely different question from whether they were legal (under whose jurisdictions?). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Assassinations" is your choice of word; what about extra-judicial killings? See the latter page for the distinction; I suggest it better fits the case of Sayeret Matkal (with no different moral equivocation implied, nor language-laundering or sheer semantics). -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

But understand what I mean, if he committed crimes he would have been charged or accused by some International Court and it never happened. --201.254.84.133 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Murder per se is not an international crime. (Assassination as a method of terrorism may or may not be, and in any case is not yet within the jurisdiction of the ICC). And in any case state terrorism may or may not be within the definition of terrorism at international law.

Assassination per se is probably not a crime in many jurisdictions, especially if it is sanctioned by the government and/or in the interest of national defence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, libel is not a crime in a number of jurisdictions although a person may still sue you for defamation. Evidentally Florida has criminal libel laws [5] although this 1991 source [6] suggests they unconstitional but they're being used in this modern internet age [7] and haven't yet been ruled completely unconstitional but some have [8] and it doesn't seem they reached the Supreme Court yet. Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See our page on Extrajudicial killings, the nature and instances of which are treated separately from assassination. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Israel routinely carries out assassinations "targeted killings". Their military obviously considers it a legitimate tactic. --Sean 13:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed by original editor Milkbreath (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Perhaps. The place for a discussion of the purpose of List of assassins is Talk:List of assassins. Algebraist 14:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

True. I've removed my argument for the disinclusion of Mr. Barak, making Algebraist's remark immediately above refer to nothing. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"To-may-to", "to-mah-to." "Assasination," "extrajudicial killing," "targeted killing," "wet work."Edison (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Title of Dante's Commedia

Greetings,

I'm wondering if the background behind the Divine Comedy's original title is known? It predates Commedia dell'arte, and I can't find the original Italian meaning (the full meaning, not just a literal translation to "comedy") of the word.

Thanks a lot, Aseld ^talk 05:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an explanation of sorts in the article on The Divine Comedy, in the thematic concerns section:

"Dante called the poem "Comedy" (the adjective "Divine" added later in the 14th century) because poems in the ancient world were classified as High ("Tragedy") or Low ("Comedy"). Low poems had happy endings and were of everyday or vulgar subjects, while High poems were for more serious matters. Dante was one of the first in the Middle Ages to write of a serious subject, the Redemption of man, in the low and vulgar Italian language and not the Latin language as one might expect for such a serious topic."

- Eron^Talk 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Apologies; should have read the article more carefully. --Aseld ^talk 05:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Dante himself had to say (if, that is, one accepts the attribution of the letter to Can Grande to him):

Comedy, then, is a certain genre of poetic narrative differing from all others. For it differs from tragedy in its matter, in that tragedy is tranquil and conducive to wonder at the beginning, but foul and conducive to horror at the end, or catastrophe. … Comedy, on the other hand, introduces a situation of adversity, but ends its matter in prosperity. … And, as well, they differ in their manner of speaking. Tragedy uses an elevated and sublime style, while comedy uses an unstudied and low style. … So from this it should be clear why the present work is called the Comedy. For, if we consider the matter, it is, at the beginning, that is, in Hell, foul and conducive to horror, but at the end, in Paradise, prosperous, conducive to pleasure, and welcome. And if we consider the manner of speaking, it is unstudied and low, since its speech is the vernacular, in which even women communicate. (Trans. Robert S. Haller)

Deor (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Speech made by the Australian Prime Minister

I've been sent one of these circular emails which claims to report the exact text by the current Australian Prime Minister. Reading his biog on here and his quotes on Wikipedia, it seems most unlikely that he ever made this speech. How can I find out? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you get an email that seems suspicious, you can often just enter a distinctive phrase from it (in quotes) into Google and find various pages (e.g., Snopes) pointing out that it's a hoax. --Sean 13:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Was it this email? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup! That's the one. As I thought! Many thanks. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which refers to the former (not the present) Prime Minister. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What's this philosophical belief?

What's the name of the philosophical belief which states that moral judgments are meaningless from an objective standpoint and are just opinions(for instance, if you say "killing is wrong" you're really saying "I dislike killing" or more crudely "Killing stinks!")? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It think you want ethical subjectivism, though 'Killing stinks!' is perhaps closer to emotivism. Algebraist 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, relativism? Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, moral relativism? Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, in more formal philosophy, Nihilism meets this definition the best. From our article: "Nihilists generally assert that objective morality does not exist, and subsequently there are no objective moral values with which to uphold a rule or to logically prefer one action over another." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In more formal philosophy, Algebraist's answer is best, although see also expressivism. Nihilism is a vague word with various meanings and it doesn't capture the full sense of what the questioner is asking. (The article on moral nihilism says "Moral nihilism must be distinguished from ethical subjectivism, and moral relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but do not assign any static truth-values to moral statements.")

The difference between emotivism and ethical subjectivism is that the latter states that moral propositions are meaningful and it makes sense to discuss moral ideas, whereas emotivism holds that there are no moral propositions, just gut reactions (making it non-cognitivist; hence it is sometimes called the "hurrah/boo theory"). Expressivism is a related non-cognitivist topic, holding that moral judgements don't express moral facts but instead the attitude (likes/dislikes) of the speaker; it differs from emotivism in holding that moral judgements are not primarily emotional reactions (they may be beliefs, expressions of opinion, or commandments). The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy has some good articles that explore the topic in a more formal way than Wikipedia[9][10][11][12]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Some associate that stance with post-modernism. DanielDemaret (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cairo talks, February 2009

[13] says that 13 Palestinian groups are meeting for unity talks in Cairo. The article names Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, DFLP, PPP and Islamic Jihad. But which are the other seven groups present? Any news links? --Soman (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[14] indicates that PNI, PPSF, PFLP-GC, Fida and ALF are also present. So who are the remaining 2? --Soman (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine there will be some Mossad agents there. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is the United States an Empire? I have heard the term before somewhere but it doesn't appear to be a common term in my area. What qualifies it as an empire if it is one? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See American Empire. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget Norton I, Emperor of the United States, Protector of Mexico. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it referred to as the Empire of Liberty. Exxolon (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not an Empire that would be ruled by an emperor but it can be looked at as imperialistic. Livewireo (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Empire of Liberty", by the way, was Thomas Jefferson's phrase; he also used "Empire for Liberty". In Jefferson's day, "empire" simply meant a large, diverse country (or confederation of states), and so the Founding Fathers of the US frequently spoke of their creation as an empire, even though they had no desire for emperors or monarchs. A century ago, an "empire" was a state that imposed dominion over other territories. Now it just means a large state whose foreign policy you don't like. ;-) —Kevin Myers 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Historian Niall Ferguson argues that it is, but that being so isn't necessarily a bad thing, in his book Colossus: The Rise and Fall of The American Empire. Some of the beginning part of that covers some hand-wringing wherein Americans recognise the US has many of the characteristics of an empire, but are deeply unhappy at it being called that. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what have the Romans ever done for us? Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In South America, where the US has a long history of interfering in internal affairs, many refer to the US as "The Empire". Perhaps you heard this from a South American source? DanielDemaret (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. actually has a much longer history of interfering in the affairs of Central America and the Caribbean than in South America -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. acted like an empire in the 1890's when it seized Cuba (including Guantanamo), Puerto Rico, Hawaii and the Phillipines, because fueling stations for ships were necessary to maintaining a worldwide navy. The Phillipines finally got their independence from colonial rule by the U.S. in 1946. Hawaii was absorbed as a state in the 1950's, Puerto Rico is still ruled by the U.S. after 111 years , and Guantanamo is still maintained as a naval base/prison through a contract of adhesion wherein the U.S. could keep Guantanamo as long as it chose. Empire? Certainly, but without an emperor. Edison (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The US has a long history of imperialism. Jefferson himself oversaw the Louisiana Purchase, which placed great numbers of people, including many "civilied" Europeans' and descendants under US jurisdiction without consent. The Mexican Cession forced even larger numbers of "foreigners" to live under US rule without choice. Perhaps the most obviously imperial example is the many American Indian Wars which were often undisguised wars of conquest, forced land cessions, and the long-lasting legal status of defeated Indians as "wards of the state" or at best "second class citizens". The American mythos calls it Manifest Destiny, a noble thing. But isn't this just a feel-good gloss over imperialism? Pfly (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Syria as non-member of Francophonie

Why Syria is not a member of Francophonie, even though it was under the French control during the Interwar Period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.34 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't want to be? Many former French colonies actually have had mixed feelings about having been recipients of the mission civilisatrice, and some Syrians have bitter historical memories about the whole Sykes-Picot and Battle of Maysalun thing, as well as the unilateral French cession of Alexandretta to Turkey. I'm not sure that French was ever as widely used in Syria as it was in Lebanon, anyway. AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Francophonie is sort of the French analog to the Commonwealth of Nations. Just as there are former British colonies which have opted out of the Commonwealth, there are likely many former French colonies which have opted out of Francophonie. It's not exactly the same, since Francophonie is more about French language than French colonialism, so some nations, like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Egypt, which were never French colonies, ARE members because of their sizable French-speaking population. Likewise, there are some areas with sizable French-speaking populations, such as parts of the United States (specifically Louisiana and New England) which are not members. It is a voluntary organization, so places like Syria and Algeria, both former French colonies, may have political reasons to not join. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana is actually an observer, which is all that it is eligible for. Two Canadian provinces are member governments but under the Canadian membership. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana is not an observer in La Francophonie, although it takes part in the Association parlementaire de la Francophonie, the Francophone parliamentary association. Observer status in La Francophonie is reserved for states; sub-national governments can become part of la Francophonie as a "Participating government". At this time, only Quebec, New Brunswick and the Communauté française de Belgique have this status. As for Syria, it has chosen not to seek membership for domestic political reasons (i.e. it considers itself to be a part of the Arab world only). --Xuxl (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well they are an observer in the ordinary sense of the word, perhaps without the fancy title. They took part in the recent summit in Quebec for example and Bucharest before that. Incidentally Syria is a member of the the parliamentary association as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Movement Along the Supply/Demand Curve

In introductory economics classes, you hear a lot about movements along the curve versus shifts of the curve. However, while real-life examples are often given of the latter, none ever seem to be given for the movements along the curve; i.e. it always seems as if ANY change in ANYTHING in the market shifts the entire curve. Is the idea of a movement just a fantasy? Can anyone provide an example of the price changing that results in a movement along one of the curves? Thank you 136.152.140.202 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A shift in one curve corresponds to a movement along the other. For example, if demand for gas increases, the price of gas increases and so too does the quantity sold -- that's a movement along the supply curve. Wikiant (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, but is there ever a time when only a movement takes place? in the free market, there must be some shift in a curve to change the price and quantity. i don't understand the importance of learning about movements, that's my point.136.152.144.128 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Only when there is a disequilibrium. By definition, if the market remains in equilibrium, a shift in one curve is accompanied by a movement along another. An example of disequilibrium is the case of the minimum wage. If the government imposes a minimum wage that is above the free market wage, then we move up the demand curve and up the supply curve. The result is a higher wage, a lower quantity demanded of labor, and a greater quantity supplied of labor. Wikiant (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I don't understand how the original poster is using the word "movement". The curves move, and the intersection of the two curves determines the price in a free market. What do you think is moving along the curve? One can record how prices and supply change over time and graph the datapoint dots to see the intersection points of the theoretical curves. The curves themselves are pretty much imaginary, e.g. it's taken on faith that more people will buy something if it's cheaper (as long as it's not luxury goods), even if there is no practical way for an actual person to buy an item for 1/1000th of a cent less than the previous price. - BanyanTree 02:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Movement along the curve" is a standard phrase used in economics textbooks to describe a change in price due to something other than a shift in the curve in question. The curves are not imaginary, but rather are graphical representations of idealized relationships. Wikiant (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, and this is the essence of my original question. they teach this to us in class, but it doesn't seem to really translate to anything in the real world, as banyantree correctly pointed out. i'm just very confused why the teachers and authors think this is an essential point to make when it really means nothing at all169.229.75.140 (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bangabhumi

I know that Khulna and Barisal Divisions of Bangladesh will be part of the idea of Bangabhumi. Do you know which two districts of West Bengal will be part of this idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.34 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism

After reading the article "Baloch Nationalism", I notice at the bottom of the page that you put Sindh nationalism, Khalistan and Marathi. What about Gujarati, Oriya, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Assamese, and Bengali in West Bengal and Pashto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.34 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited by millions of people around the world, there is no "you," it is "we." If you wish to see it changed, be bold and change it yourself. Livewireo (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag draped coffin photos

Per [15] the flag draped coffins ("transfer cases" in government-speak) of America's returning war dead can now be photographed, as long as the family agrees. What possible mechanism or process could be set up to notify the families that the coffin is due to land at Dover Air Base, then get back permission from the families of all on board, then notify the Associated Press and other news agencies to send a photographer? Or would they Photoshop out the coffins of those whose families did not give permission? How can one flag draped coffin be distinguished from another, since they are not talking about photos showing the face of the deceased? Has any newspaper or press service announced plans to publish photos of all such planeloads of flag draped caskets, or to carry videos of each on the evening news? Edison (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on other considerations, they could do an opt-in or opt-out pre-approval form. Perhaps attached to the notice (phone? in person?) of when the coffin will arrive in the country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're on to something, Edison. That is, Obama doesn't want such pics in the paper any more than Bush did, knowing the press will print those pics daily with few pics of the far more people who die each day of other causes, giving the public the impression that our soldiers are being massacred daily when the casualties are actually quite light. This could undermine public support for any military actions, present or future (such as to stop the genocide in Darfur). However, just banning such pics is bad PR, too. So better to pretend to allow them, but set up a difficult, nebulous process for getting permission, so that it doesn't actually happen. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a better approach would be to allow photos of flag-draped coffins so long as this coverage is proportional to coverage of US deaths from other causes. So, if one soldier a day dies in combat, and 10,000 US civilians die a day from other causes, then every photo of a flag-draped coffin would require 10,000 photos of other coffins, at the same size, in the same paper. This would stop press bias towards over-reporting military deaths, without creating any sense of a cover-up. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Garden of Death

Calling all Oscar Wilde experts! And all Sergey Nikiforovich Vasilenko (who?) experts! I doubt there are any Vasilenko experts here, but I've been amazed before, and am prepared to be amazed again.

In 1907-08 Vasilenko wrote an orchestral work called The Garden of Death, symphonic poem after Oscar Wilde, Op. 13. I’ve been trying to track down some information about its source, for Music based on the works of Oscar Wilde, but no luck. There's no poem or story of that name by Wilde - that I can find. It does sound like a title that Wilde might have come up with, and he did indeed use that expression, but not as the title of anything. Virginia, a character in the short story The Canterville Ghost, mentions "The Garden of Death" in her conversation with the eponymous ghost (Chapter 5), but it's never repeated and there's no explanation of it. That's the only connection with The Canterville Ghost that I can see. This site provides the text of a poem called "I'm Glad she was There", which includes the phrase "the garden of death", and claims it's from The Canterville Ghost. But that seems wrong on 2 counts: that poem doesn't appear in the text of the story; and imho it doesn't look remotely like anything that Oscar Wilde would have written.

And yet, here's another person who wrote a musical work called "The Garden of Death", which also claims to be a setting of words from The Canterville Ghost.

Apart from those two, the best I've come up with are various sites that assert Vasilenko's work is based on "a poem by Oscar Wilde", without saying what the poem is. Wilde's writings are replete with allusions to death, gardens and flowers, so Vasilenko's title may just be a generic nod in his direction. He didn't specify that it was named after any particular work of Wilde's, just "after Oscar Wilde".

But lo and behold! I discover Lord Alfred Douglas wrote a poem called "The Garden of Death". It's an unlikely phrase for two people so closely associated to have independently dreamed up, so I'm assuming one of them copied it from the other. I haven't tracked down when Douglas wrote his poem, so I don't know which person to name as the borrower.

Could Vasilenko have taken the title from Douglas's poem, but still have written his symphonic poem as a sort of tribute to Oscar Wilde? Given Wilde's and Douglas's association, it's not unreasonable. It's just that I've never heard of anything quite like this before – writing something in tribute to Person A but using a title that comes from Person B. It has echoes of "the love that dare not speak its name", an expression that has come to be very strongly associated with Oscar Wilde, but was in fact created, again, by Bosie Douglas.

Can anyone help me pin this down? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As I know nothing about Horace Keats, almost nothing about music and just slightly more about Oscar Wilde, this seemed like the perfect Ref Desk question for me. Here [16] I found the first line of Keats's song. The words are "Far away beyond the pine woods, there is a little garden". Interestingly, these are also exactly the opening words of the Ghost's description of the Garden of Death in chapter 5 of The Canterville Ghost. The description immediately precedes Virginia's use of the phrase "The Garden of Death". It is not set like a poem, neither in the link above, nor in my copy of Collected Works of Oscar Wilde (Wordsworth Editions, 1997), but that is no barrier to a composer. I think you could safely add Keats's piece to your list, even though I can only find the one line, and it is otherwise unpublished. // BL \\ (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr Vasilenko's connection will be more difficult to demonstrate unless there are words in this "symphonic poem" to tie to the theme. I suppose there are academics who could make their professional reputation on "proving" such a link through the music alone, but we may be limited to what the composer has said he has done: written a piece of music drawn from Wilde's description of "The Garden of Death". And now, we turn this over to the experts. // BL \\ (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bielle seems to be on the right track. Looking at Keats' sheet music etc, it seems he has set the words of the Canterville Ghost to music: turning prose into lyrics. "Far beyond the pine woods there is a little garden. There the grass grows long and deep, there are the great white stars of the hemlock flower, there the nightingale sings all night long. All night long he sings, and the cold, crystal moon looks down, and the yew-tree spreads out its giant arms over the sleepers." - a description Virginia identifies as "The Garden of Death". Lord Alfred and Wilde undoubtedly inspired each other; perhaps one decided to expound on an idea created by another. It's also a term you can find in other contexts: [17]. If Vasilenko credits Oscar Wilde with the idea ("after Oscar Wilde") then it seems the description also inspired him to music. Gwinva (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ladies, your thoughts make a lot of sense. Essentially, Douglas's poem is a red herring. It may have given Wilde the idea of a "garden of death", but he was the one who chose to use that expression in The Canterville Ghost, and that's what the composers were focussing on. Still, I'd love to find out when Douglas wrote his poem, to see if it preceded Wilde's story or came later. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Lord Alfred Douglas, Wilde and Douglas did not meet until 1891. The Canterville Ghost was first published as a newspaper serial in 1887, some 4 years prior to the meeting. It seems unlikely then that the phrase originated with Douglas. Douglas's poem "The Garden of Death" was published in 1899 by Grant Richards of London in a volume entitled The City of the Soul [18]. I cannot be sure if that was either the first or the only published version, though more than one Ghit gives the date of 1899 for the poem. If I had to put up funds, mine would be on Wilde as the originator, in this case (but then I would have bet money on Wilde as the originator of "the love that dares not speak its name", and lost.) // BL \\ (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bielle to the rescue. I've updated the article with those details. Much obliged, Bielle. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy places to emigrate to

Asking out of curiosity, are there any countries that let anyone emmigrate to themselves or become a pernament resident without formality? As a european I've come to realise how difficult it is for an American to do that here. 78.146.52.210 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read that there are some countries in the Caribbean which effectively sell their citizenship by requiring a very large fee for processing applications. Try checking out Dominica, Guyana, Nicaragua and Suriname. In Europe, Switzerland used to have a reputation for giving citizenship to the very rich, but I believe that there you need to apply in a particular municipality and the local people then vote on your case. This is said to favour middle and upper-class Europeans (whether from Europe or elsewhere) over others. Xn4 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Svalbard. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If one has money, I think the US is probably easy too. I read somewhere that setting up enough money to start a company there, perhaps one million dollars, and hiring people, would get you automatic US citizenship. I have read about similar deals in many countries, formal rules or not. My experience is that changing country of residence without resorting to this sort of deal has become harder and harder. I do not think passports were needed to move between countries before WWI. As far as I can tell, borders between countries are continually solidifying, so whatever country may have been easy to move to a few years ago, may not be as easy today. DanielDemaret (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd expect that you could get into pretty much any country with enough money. Well, that and knowing the proper people to bribe. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you could get into Somalia very easily. No bureaucratic red tape (among other things). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Literature: slim classics

I've just started reading Voltaire's Candide, only about 100 pages long. It is more amusing and has much more variety than I expected. (Edit - but as I read on, racist and very violent). So unlike the thick doorstopper stodge of over-long Thomas Hardy or Dickens novels (personal view - no offence meant). What other slim classics would people recommend? I can think of Laurence Sterne's A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy, which must have a similar location in time and space. But I am interested in the whole range of literature from any place or time. 78.146.52.210 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh? // BL \\ (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Livingston Seagull -- SGBailey (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich? 160 pages including the intro though and opposite in form to the massive Gulag Archipelago. Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha at 119 pages. Another skinny classic: The Epic of Gilgamesh text itself (Penguin classics) is 58 pages. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Great Gatsby and Goodbye Mr Chips are 144 and 128 pages respectively (in the basic editions available on Amazon). Gwinva (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sorrows of Young Werther is only about 145 pages long. LANTZY^TALK 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Kafka's The Metamorphosis 87.112.17.229 (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hemmingway's The Old Man and the Sea, Mishima's The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea, and the brilliant Charles Bukowski's Post Office. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Conrad's Heart of Darkness - 112pp. See also Novella and Novelette FYI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Onegin, Pushkin. A "novel" novel for being written in verse (which makes it more engaging--you mention wanting variety]--this is no gimmick). –Outriggr § 01:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Byrne: A Novel, by Anthony Burgess, is slim, a novel, in verse, and better than at least half of the "classics" above. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You might take a look at List of novellas. After a glance over my bookshelves, three slim volumes I can recommend are Nicholson Baker's The Mezzanine, Steven Millhauser's Enchanted Night, and Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities. But there are loads of small gems—even if you don't want to tackle Dickens's Bleak House, why not give The Haunted Man and the Ghost's Bargain a try? Deor (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Time Machine by H.G. Wells comes immediately to mind. --Anonymous, 03:20 UTC, February 27, 2009.

Oh, and of course Lewis Carroll's two books, thin enough that they are now typically published as one, about Alice in Wonderland. --Anon, 03:21 UTC, Feb. 27.

The Stranger by Albert Camus is about 120 pages. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Another one I remember is Matsuo Basho The Narrow Road To The Deep North. 78.149.170.123 (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Rum Diary... cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Turn of the Screw (Henry James) and Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (Robert Louis Stevenson). Gwinva (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Inherit the Wind, though not a novel in the strictest sense, is very short. Of Mice and Men is also rather short. I'd look up page totals for you but I'm at work and our internet sucks compared to at home. Dismas|^(talk) 11:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Book by old-time, non-notable British author

Someone stashed a bunch of old books in their since sold holiday house – among them was a memoir of childhood that was well-written and interesting for the sociology of the family at the time (Britain, maybe London, early 1900s?). It was a poor, "working-class" anglo family: a clever brother, intellectual mother and more basic postman father. Both boys were very bright: his brother was an inventor and the writer taught himself to play piano as a child without the usual supports of money, opportunity or real pianos. I think he went on to academia or the public service (maybe both?). Don't have enough to find anything on him unless my googlefu is wilted, but I'm curious – anyone? Julia Rossi (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If has been published in britain then it should be in the online catalogue of the British Library. So any guesses about the date of publication, words in the title etc may help you narrow it down. It does sound a little like a memoir I once read, written in various parts. The book you have described might have been the earlier volume to what I read. The names "Church" or "Peter" come to mind, but these might just be memory-noise. Edit: the author I was thinking of was Richard Church. He wrote a number of autobiographical books, one of which was called The Voyage Home. Looking at the British Library Catalogue, there are 34 books published in english between 1900 and 1960 with the word autobiography in the title, and 29 with the word memoir. But it might not have these words in the title. 89.242.103.68 (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Eureka! "Yet Richard Church (b. 1893), the son of a postman, raised and educated in south London..." He wrote several autobiographical books including "Over The Bridge, an Essay In Autobiography", "The Golden Sovereign", and others. See Richard Church (poet). 89.242.103.68 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You are a star! Thanks so much for your fine googlefu and resourcefulness. Not so non-notable after all, oops. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Episcopal shield (Image) vs Anglican shield

Is there a difference between the Episcopal Shield symbol and the Anglican Shield symbol and what is the history please.Gordon Oscar (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about their history, but they are almost the same. Both are based on the St George's cross (most familiar in the flag of England, also seen in the flag of Georgia), and both have a field azure (blue) in the cross's first quarter, but whereas the Anglican shield has on that a Chi Rho argent (silver), the Episcopal shield has on it a saltire of small Greek crosses argent. I guess the second has more resonances with the flag of the United States, but this is only a guess. I have also seen a version of the Anglican shield with a mitre over the crossed keys of St Peter on that field azure, which I guess applies to the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Anglican communion. If anyone knows whether any of these have been granted by the College of Arms, I'd be interested to hear. Xn4 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This page (referenced in our article Episcopal Church (United States)), explains the significance of the number and arrangement of the crosses in the Episcopal Shield's first quarter. I can't vouch for its accuracy, though. Deor (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Bear DJ comic

Ok, I once saw a comic/cartoon of a Teddy Bear as a DJ holding a broken record. Really loved that image, but am completely unable to find it. I think it was created by an artist from San Francisco, but that's about all the more I know. Any help locating it would be greatly appreciated (been Googling all day but to no avail.) Thanks! Xous (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The best I can do is a monkey (this is my sly way of saying that I tried googling too, and this was the best I came up with) Belisarius (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

http://dom-productions.ovh.org/files2/Winnie-the-DJ-(cartoon)-Dominique-Bray.jpg -- SGBailey (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This? meltBanana 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you!Xous (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

February 27

Presidential inaugural address which is said by heart

Is It usually said this way? Did some of the previous presidents read it from a paper? When it is said by heart, like this time, is there someone close by with the written text, to help in a case of a problem? This may be asked of course regarding other big addresses, like state of the union etc. Thanks! נרו יאיר (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

When they do it without notes, I'd be very surprised if there's anyone on hand with a "cheat sheet". It's not like singers at the opera, where there's a prompter in a box to help them along if necessary (but there's a complicating factor there - they're singing in a language they may not normally speak at home). Some politicians are naturally gifted in the area of public speaking (not that they probably don't practise behind the scenes), and Obama seems to be one of them. Some public speakers have their main points written on a small card, which would be very easy to disguise. Some do it completely without notes. I'll leave the rest of the question to those who know what they're talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you are thinking of Obama's inaugural address, which it sounds like you are, I don't think it was said by heart. Today's speeches by politicians are almost always said while looking into transparent screens, on which the text is projected (much like news reporters use). I expect every recent inaugural address has been given this way. I'll see if I can find a picture. — Sam 216.133.14.34 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This system is mostly known as a teleprompter (originally a brand name) or autocue device. --Anonymous, 20:08 UTC, February 27, 2009.

You can see a picture of the screen in the image of the audio linked in the article: Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration#Inaugural address. Note that they put two screens up, one on either side, so that the speaker can turn his head and look natural as he speaks to the audience. — Sam 216.133.14.34 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A wise speaker has a printed copy of the address in front of him, to refer to in case the teleprompter breaks or is hacked by the equivalent of a Wikipedia vandal. There appears to be such a script on the podium in most Presidential addresses. Edison (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Life in the Papal States

Does anyone know where to find information on people's daily life in the Papal States and how it compared to life in other European nations at the same time? Were there significant differences for the average inhabitant? I don't see much about that in the Papal States article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.250.56 (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What time period? The Papal States existed for about 1200 years. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They kinda still do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a late source but you should read Pictures from Italy a travelogue by Charles Dickens. It is public domain and available online. He travels through various areas so it would give you something of a comparison. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Authorized to brief reporters on condition of anonymity"

Today in the Post I read

Two senior officials authorized yesterday to brief reporters, on conditions of anonymity and a news embargo on their remarks until this morning, said that no politics were involved in Obama's decision and emphasized a series of high-level meetings he has held with his national security team and military commanders since the inauguration.

How can you be authorized to say something anonymously? Why would it need to be anonymous if it were authorized? — Sam 216.133.14.34 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That you are anonymous to the public does not mean you are anonymous to the company/government body you are speaking on behalf of. The individuals in question were likely authorised to give comments on behalf of an organisation on the basis that these comments would be reported on an anonymous basis. ny156uk (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And because organisations (or estates, if you prefer) adopt conventions which enable them to communicate to mutual benefit (administration gets story out on terms acceptable to it, newshounds get fragment for story). Not everyone connected with (or unconnected with) the transaction may be happy with the convention. In the UK until very recently (and details are hazy) the administration would give anonymous briefings to so-called lobby correspondents. Eventually one paper (either the Guardian or the Independent) rebelled, got sulky, kicked up a stink and refused to attend on anonymous terms ... later IIRC the briefings were de-anonymised. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the benefit of it being anonymous if it's an official comment? Anonymity is usually used when the speaker isn't authorised to speak and they don't want their superiors to know it was them. --Tango (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They want to control the spin on the news stories, which is driven considerably by the names of the people involved. Imagine how different reaction to that paragraph would be if it said "Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod", or "Leon Panetta and Robert Gates", or "Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell", instead of "two anonymous officials". All of those named people are plausible candidates for being those officials. Substitute in your own officials too, and see how they sound. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Legality of Nazi Germany as a state/government

Do we have any articles or can anyone refer me to any reliable sources regarding whether or not the government of Nazi Germany was legitimate and legal? I'm referring to its very existence, not the actions taken by it. On one of our article's talk pages [19], there's an editor who's claiming "historians do not accept that the Nazi State was legal". This is news to me but granted I'm not a professional historian. He references a 1974 book by someone named "Harold Kutrz" but I don't have this book nor am I familiar with historians enough to know them by name. I'm aware that the Nazis used intimidation and many questionable if not illegal tactics to gain control, but I've never heard it said that the state on the whole was illegal. I've heard arguments that Vichy France wasn't legal, but not Nazi Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the transition from the previous Weimar Republic was done in accordance with German law or the Treaty of Versailles ? Or are you asking about whether the actions of the Nazi government, once in power, were in accordance with German law (which they then wrote) or international law at the time ? StuRat (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The former. I'm trying to understand another editor's comments that according to historians "Hitler was not 'legally elected'" and "the state was not legal therefore its laws were not either". (Yes, I know I can just ask him/her but the discussion on the talk page has evolved into a slight war, so I figured I would get a better answer here.)

As an example, there are arguments that Vichy France wasn't the legitimate government of France. I'm wondering if there's anything similar in regards to Nazi Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal is defined by the local authority in charge of the plot of land where the event occured. If the Nazi government was in charge of the plot of land where they came to power, then their rise was legal under any normal definition of the term. Now, whether their rise to power was moral or just or ethical or right or good is open for debate, and well within reasonable bounds of the meanings of those words, one way or the other. However, charges of "illegality" need to be narrowly defined. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Nazi party was of course not in control of Germany before the election that (more or less) put them in power. Said election did indeed involve a bit of intimidation and vote-rigging, but in my experience it's not usual to call a state (or even a government) illegal just because of questionable elections; there would be a lot of illegal governments around if this were so. Algebraist 17:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They are usually called "illegitimate" rather than "illegal", but only when there was actually some reason to expect a real democracy. There are plenty of dictatorships posing (very poorly) as democracies, and those aren't usually considered illegitimate or illegal. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You can interpret "legal" as "constitutional" and often get a pretty well defined answer - selection of leaders is usually determined by a constitution rather than regular laws (there are exceptions, of course). --Tango (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've modified my original question to be a little more clear. I'm referring to its very existence, not the actions taken by it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between saying that there was vote-rigging and intimdation in the elections that broght the Nazi party to power and saying that its existance itself was entirely illegal. It is rarely helpful to reduce a complex historical situation to a single sentance, especially one as oversimplified as that. One can note that there were problems with the elections that brought the Nazi's to power, but pragmatically they were really in charge of Germany after those elections, so it becomes pointless to debate whether, from the moment they took power, the entire government was somehow illegal. Its something of an ex post facto situation, but once they were in power, it becomes silly to refer to the government itself as illegal. They may have committed illegal acts, under the laws of the nation at that time, during the elections that broght them to power. That, however, does not make the entire government of Nazi Germany "illegal" from 1933-1945. Again, it may have been unjust, it may have been immoral, it may have been evil and bad and an abomination, but use of the term "illegal" is not really applicable in the way you seem to be using it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, I'm trying to understand another editor's comments. You can follow the link in the original question if you want to see the actual statements. (This in the section about whether "execute" or "murder" is NPOV). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They were certainly elected, although I'm not sure those elections were free and fair. The kind of intimidation used during the elections was probably illegal, but I don't know if that would actually invalidate the result under the Weimar laws. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The kind of intimidation was more like street brawls between Nazis and Communists (not like, say, what happens in Zimbabwe). People tend to forget (and definitely do not like to hear) that the Nazis were a perfectly reasonably choice made by perfectly reasonable people; in hindsight it was obviously a bad choice, but in 1932 was there really a better option? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a little more than that. Would the Enabling Act been passed if the SA hadn't surrounded the Reichstag? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues I'm aware of. One is the passage of the Enabling Act that you just referred to. The other is Hitler's assumption of the presidency when Hindenburg died. Hitler assumed the office and combined it with his own to create the new one, Führer. This act was said to be both unconstitutional and a violation of Article 2 of the Enabling Act as well. This could be said to have turned Germany from a semi-Presidential state with a Nazi government into a Nazi state.

But one should remember that all states are, in a sense, illegal. My Constitutional Law prof. used to like to say that the Glorious Revolution was illegal and thus, in a certain sense, all British governance since then has been as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

One standard is whether the Nazi regime's ambassadors were accredited by other countries and international bodies. This standard would exclude the idiotic "micronations" which people create on their personal quarter acre. The U.S. and other countries , including the USSR, and the League of Nations, received German ambassadors credentialled by Hitler's government as the lawful representatives of Germany. Edison (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If the government of Nazi Germany was not a recognized government, the International Olympic Committee would never have accepted Adolf Hitler as the head of state when he opened the Berlin Olympics. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their answers! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Elizabeth II's coronation footage in the public domain

The footage is classed as public domain at archive.org here. Thanks, --217.84.188.88 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

:And thank you for sharing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread your question. I thought that you were making a general statement. I will let someone else answer this question. My sincere apologies. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that it comes under Crown Copyright, which would probably make it free to use for news or noncommercial purposes, but I am not a lawyer and do not know the specifics of UK copyright law. Your best bet is to go to the official website for Buckingham Palace and send them an email. //roux   20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How many people have ever lived?

Apparently there are 6bn people in the world today, but i would like to know roughly how many people have ever lived. Even if their lived lasted a mere fraction of a second outside the womb. There must be some estimates out there somewhere?79.75.207.25 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere around 100 billion. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Using this link I found a source saying somewhere between 45 and 125 billion people have ever lived. Obviously, these estimates are going to be extremely rough -- what record do you think people kept of babies that survived for a "mere fraction of a second"? — Sam 146.115.120.108 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit more information at Number of humans who have ever lived. Algebraist 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how you define people. Do neanderthals count? Homo erectus? transitional forms between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? Its a tough call, and any answer is bound to have huge degrees of uncertainty. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"People" is usually used to mean Homo Sapiens, the difficulty comes in defining what is and what isn't a Homo Sapien. --Tango (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "Homo sapien"; the "s" in our species name isn't a plural marker. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that as I typed it and tried to remember how it worked... I guess I came to the wrong conclusion! Is there a short way of saying "a member of the species Homo sapiens"? ("Human" isn't quite precise enough.) --Tango (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a challenge. The opinion that I received when I asked some academics about it recently is that species names really shouldn't be used as countable nouns (i.e. "one Homo sapiens, two Homo sapiens"), so you could just say "a member of Homo sapiens"; or you could use "modern human", which I think is arguably the common species name for "Homo sapiens". --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

However, in terms of the Latin language (as opposed to English scientific terminology), "Homo Sapiens" is singular, and the corresponding plural would be Homines sapientes... AnonMoos (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we use the singular in English as well - we refer to the human race as a whole as "man" not "men", so it makes sense to use the Latin for "wise man" not "wise men". --Tango (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that the Latin adjective (masculine singular nominative) for "wise" is not sapien, but sapiens. There's no such word as "sapien" in Latin. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: how do i go about doing a search for information on a legal data base for a particular issue?

I have to find legally binding authorities supporting the proposition that "an oral contract is binding on the parties to by whom it was made. This is for use in the court of Law in Trinidad W.I. do note i am not asking for your opinion on my particular issue, just the way it is or can be done, thank you, D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.208.42 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Trinidad have its laws in a database? That should be your first question. You should contact a library from one of these schools to find out. Followup questions should go to a librarian. --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[20]. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dickens character

The secret POW radio at Batu Lintang camp was nicknamed Mrs Harris, after the character in a Dickens novel who was a gossip-monger. Anyone know which novel that would be? Thanks Jasper33 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Life And Adventures Of Martin Chuzzlewit -- Fullstop (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Jasper33 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really a character, since she never actually "appears" in the novel; she's just continually referred to by Sairy Gamp. Deor (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

men vs. women

My mom says women are a lot smarter than men. (I believe women are strong in faith and pride.) But still, are men physically stronger than women?72.229.135.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Many people say many things. This does not make them true. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The average male is stronger than the average female. Men hold most world records involving strength or speed, though women are gaining is some places, such as in marathons. Both sexes seem equally stupid, though often in different ways. Matt Deres (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Olympic records in weightlifting may help! Livewireo (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Strength is relative. More than half the deceased members of the Donner Party were male. While women did not undertake tasks as risky and dangerous as men, there was also something more to their physiology that allowed them to survive. There is something to be said for emotional strength as well, although I am not comparing men to women. It's just a different type of strength. --Moni3 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It partially depends on what you measure and how you measure it. For example, if you measure absolute upper body strength (such as the ability to lift X number of pounds), then women are pretty much guaranteed to fail miserably. However, if you measure women's strength relative to their body weight, or set tests of dexterity and endurance, then women will come out relatively well.

Also, keep in mind that due to basic statistical properties, if the measured strengths of women and the measured strenths of men on some particular task each have a normal distribution, and the average strength of men is, say, one standard deviation greater than the average strength of women, then it will still be the case that over 15% of women are stronger (on the particular task measured) than the average man... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, on intelligence -- IQ scores may or may not have any particularly deep connection to real intelligence, but IQ testing has consistently found that the average overall measured intelligence of men and the average overall measured intelligence of women are pretty much the same (i.e. not significantly distinguishable from each other with the methods of measurement being used). However, one real difference which does exist according to IQ scores is that the standard deviation of men's measured intelligences is greater than the standard deviation of women's measured intelligences -- i.e. there are more male geniuses, but also more male morons (for whatever that's worth). AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Aren't IQ tests designed and normalised to try and remove gender biases? So of course they come out with equal intelligence for men and women. --Tango (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As a basic matter of balance, a well-written comprehensive IQ test will certainly not give undue weight to tasks which one particular sex can generally do more easily than the other (e.g. certain verbal tasks for women, or abstract spatial logic for men). However, it's still possible to try to use IQ tests to measure overall average intelligence for men vs. women, and the results seem to have been reasonably consistent over decades (as far as I'm aware) -- no real difference between average male intelligence and average female intelligence (insofar as this can be measured by means of IQ tests), but a greater range of measured intelligences among men (i.e. greater male variability). AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. IQ tests are designed starting from the assumption that men and women should come out with equal average IQs, and so the tests are tweaked until they do. As some point out, this makes the accepting of different ethnic groups getting different average results look rather bad. But that probably risks soapboxing. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it just shows what nonsense IQ tests are. --Tango (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine empress regnants

How many Byzantine empress regnants were there? That includes the one that co rule with their husband. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also were the children of Byzantine emperors and empresses titled in any way. I notice the phrase Byzantine prince or princess but the Byzantine never gave such titles. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Was List of Byzantine emperors unhelpful? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was unsure if any were left out. Also I have a question about Eudocia Angelina. Was she ever married to Alexios V Doukas during his brief reign as emperor?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 February 2009

The article on Alexios V Doukas states that she was. - Eron^Talk 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Alexandrian and Augustan empires

I'm looking for an anachronistic map showing overlap of these two at furthest extent; Rome and Persia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.163.38 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question is a little unclear, since the maximum expansion of the Roman empire is more usually considered to have occurred in the second century A.D., rather than under Augustus -- and the empire of Alexander the Great, the empire of the Ptolemies with its capital city at Alexandria, and the various incarnations of the Persian empire are all different things... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This map shows the Roman Empire at its greatest extent (under Trajan). The article Persian Empire lists several candidates for that title. Alexander's empire is here. The Seleucid Empire, Alexander's Persian successor, is shown here in yellow. - Eron^Talk 01:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just looking for an anachronistic map of the greatest extent of both Roman and Persian empires, showing where they overlap. My Penguin Atlas of Medieval History is an old book with black and white pictures, but it shows one with both empires. I know that Wikipedians like to make maps that show anachronistic accumulations of empires at different periods of their existence, like showing the British Empire having both the Thirteen Colonies in North America and Australia, along with India and South Africa, in the same map. There are also Roman maps depicting the furthest Rome ever expanded. Was Persia bigger under Alexander's conquest, or smaller? In any case, I wonder if there are any anachronistic, "furthest extent" (all territories ever occupied) images of Persia. Ideally, I'd like to see a map with both Rome and Persia under an anachronistic, furthest extent format and I know they'd overlap, but I want to see it with my eyes rather than my head. I'm not a great graphic editor and you guys probably have better paint/editing tools anyways. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.163.38 (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the overlap would be between Rome and the Islamic Caliphate, as a version of Persia. Is this right? Wouldn't one then include Holy Roman territories as "further Rome"? Would Russia be Roman too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.163.38 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Islamic Caliphate would be a bad version of Persia. The Caliphate was an Arabic empire with a homeland in modern-day Iraq. It was absolutely not Persian/Iranian in any sense of the word. The problem is that there are several unrelated states which all get called Persia. There is as much continuity between Achaemenid Empire Persia, Seleucid Empire Persia, and Saffarid Persia as there is between, say, the Roman Empire, the Papal States, and modern Italy. However, if you want to get an idea about the sizes of the Roman and Persian Empires at approxiametly contemporaneous points, the specific Persian Empire you want is the Sassanid Empire, which was not Persia at its largest, but it was still pretty big, and it reached its height at around the same time as Rome reached its height. A map containing both the Roman and Sassanid Empires at their peaks would not be all that anachronistic. Persia at its greatest extent in terms of land area was probably the Achaemenid Empire, but that reached its peak while Rome was still a whistle-stop on the Tiber... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The caliphate was somewhat Persian in culture; Iraq was Persian long before it was Arab. But anyway, to include the HRE and Russia as "further Rome", why stop there, why not make a map showing all Christian and all Muslim territories? Also the "Persian empire" and the "empire of Alexander" are not really the same, Persia was simply one of Alexander's conquests. And he was hardly an emperor, he was a conqueror who left a big mess for his successors to deal with, and the whole thing immediately fragmented into numerous different states. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So then, the HRE was only a Romanized Germania and Russia was only a Romanized Scythia, each claiming legitimate inheritance? What ever happened to the Hellenic culture of the Persian areas? I ask because there are still Nasrani (Nazarenes/Judaeo-Christians) in India who hold to St. Thomas...wouldn't there also be a Greek subset of India which remained to the present? Would Russia owe more to the Alexandrian world of Hellenistic peoples in the East, or its descent from Scythia Minor and the Black Sea Greek colonies, or the Byzantines? Would the vast difference between the usage of Latin and Cyrillic alphabets be because the Romans had their way, but the older, Oriental Hellenic tradition is what Russia got and gave to their bordering peoples? The reason I used the title "Alexandrian and Augustan", is to distinguish between the older Oriental and newer occidental worlds of the Greeks/Europeans. I think this is the true source of the European interest in Aryan theories, tied to the colonial period, on a Neoclassical basis, to revive and continue Alexander's conquests. The Alexandrian world seems to be the infrastructural blueprint for the Augustan, but not because of the Aryans, only because the Greeks adopted their secular government, just like they adopted the Jewish religion, which made a Roman and Christian world out of a Persian and Jewish. I think these are the origins of our "West", but it ultimately rests with credit for the Greeks, being continued by the Western/Roman Germans and the Eastern/Persian Russians, in one form or another until the 20th Century. It could be the differences between Centum and Satem in the languages. I think the ultimate legacy of the Greeks, was the ability for Indo-Aryan languages to be assimilated into the European family. Greeks colonized that region in the ancient era and the descendants of the Greeks revived these conquests in our own era. Otherwise, I can't really see the legitimacy for Aryan theories. This is my version of one, based in historical events, rather than extrapolated from "trajectory" ideas of diffusion. Am I in hot water? 68.231.163.38 (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Centum/Satem division was due to a sound change of roughly ca. 2000 B.C., presumably in the general area of Russia. This was a purely phonological change of assibilation of velar consonants with secondary palatal articulations. The Centum/Satem groupings only emerged from linguistic work done in the 19th century, and have no particular cultural or historical political significance. And a form of Hellenistic culture did persist in the revived Persian empire, especially in the Mesopotamian cities under the Parthians. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

February 28

Can free newspapers be stolen?

I have a friend who follows a minority religion (in his neighborhood). In front of his building he has a stand with free issues of a monthly paper. Large quantities have gone in the past couple of months, and while bad times often bring new converts, this is unlikely to be the case here. If he catches whoever has been taking the papers (even if he catches them on video, he wouldn't be able to tell what they plan to do with the stacks they apparently are taking each time), can the police get involved? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(We can't give legal advice, so I'm going to give some legal guesswork instead!) If someone is allowed to take one, I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be allowed to take many. Your friend could try putting a "one each" sign on the stand to make it clear what permission is being given to take them. Then I guess it probably is theft (there may be an issue over whether your friend actually possess or is in control of the newspapers once they are in the stand - I'm not sure that's necessary, though, I think ownership is enough), but I'm not sure the police would do anything about it. The best way to find out would be to contact the police (or a solicitor). --Tango (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't see any reason that there might be reasonable limits on the depletion of "free" stock? I can see lots of good reasons that one could imagine purposefully taking the entire contents of a stock that is implicitly expected to be a "one each" sort of deal could be illegal. A reasonable court, like a reasonable person, would surely recognize that there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between taking one and taking a much larger number. Perhaps no one would want to decide when that particular scale changed (does it change after one, after ten? does the total number originally there matter?) but stealing all of an almost full stand is surely over wherever the line is. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I recall from years back that the Mayor of Berkeley was charged with stealing free newspapers. The article linked to note though that this really varies by jurisdiction, as the laws are often not specific enough to make it clear that this is the case. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether the newspapers are being "stolen" probably depends on the analysis of who "owns" the newspaper while they are on the stand. If the analysis is that the newspapers are a complete gift to whoever takes them, then the question is whether the gift is complete upon it being placed on the stand, or whether it is complete upon the person taking it *from* the stand. If the latter (I lean towards that view, becuase the stand is the original owner's property; and the good has not been delivered into the hand of the recipient at that time), then you could argue that the donor's intention was for each passer-by to take only one.

If the newspapers are still owned by the donor while they are on the stand, and if it is implied that each passer-by should take only one (or some reasonable variation on that), then it could be argued that taking a whole stack is contrary to the intention of the donor, thus no gift, thus it is larceny.

As above, all of this is legal guesswork. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely up to the proprietor of the establishment how he wishes to distribute said items. As an analogy, think about the soda dispensers in fast food restaurants. You get a cup. You fill it yourself. If you drink it all during your meal, its usually OK if you refill your cup during your meal. However, if you pay for a drink during a meal, and then go over to the soda dispenser, and fill up a five-gallon bucket with the soda, that would seem an unreasonable breach of the trust set up in the "serve yourself" arrangement. Its an expectation that when you buy a soda for that meal that your purchase price covers your drinking that soda during the meal, and that you don't get to walk in off the street and fill up a cup without paying, nor do you get to fill a 5-gallon jug when you paid for one cup. Refills during the meal may be reasonable, but other absurd extensions of that trust are not. Likewise, implicit in giving away a newspaper to read for free is that people take what they need. People don't personally need to read more than one paper. If your friend is concerned, perhaps he could move the newspaper dispenser to somewhere where people would need to ask for one. He could still give them away for free, but if he controlled the distribution, it may cut down on people walking off with the whole stack. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with analogising with "free" dispenses in a restaurant is that the latter is a ride-on to a contractual relationship, the meal. Giving away a free newspaper is almost certainly not part of any contractual arrangement. An implied promise to read the newspaper is probably not sufficient to constitute consideration, and in any case, such a term is unlikely to be implied into the putative contract.

From a purely legal viewpoint, the rules governing contractual versus non-contractual relationships can be very different. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a knotty problem. There doesn't seem to be much doubt that "free" newspapers belong to whoever produces them (as with paid-for newspapers) until the point of distribution. If you broke into a warehouse and took a pallet of "free" newspapers from there, it would surely be theft. In the UK, most "free" papers are delivered from door-to-door, and they must surely become the property of whoever receives them in that way. A producer who puts such newspapers out on a news-stand for passers-by to pick up (a rather lazy and low-cost method of distribution) must surely be taking the risk that some passers-by will take several papers. If someone took ten such newspapers from a stand every day to be passed on to ten friends, or even a hundred for passing on to a hundred people in a hospital, then it seems unlikely that a case could be made out for theft. If a rival publication systematically emptied all such news-stands that weren't its own, to take the contents away and pulp them to use in its own works, then I suspect most legal systems would be able to find something unlawful in that; but if the intention of the person concerned is relevant, then a prosecution relying on unlawful intention could only be pursued with evidence of that intention, and in the circumstances of a prosecution I should think it would be very hard to find. Xn4 (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's the publication of a "minority religion" wouldn't it recommend your friend's faith more if he'd try to find a less aggressive means of curbing the misuse of his newspapers than getting the police involved? A couple of "inspiring" posters saying things like "We believe in being frugal, do you?"or "Only truly lost souls are encouraged to take more than one per person." might indicate to the pilferers that their action was discovered and met with displeasure. (He should be able to come up with something much better to write.) If it's pranksters they would be encouraged and then would deserve most anything he threw at them, but someone who took them e.g. as padding for moving boxes or another use might be discouraged. If he fears it's religious zealots of another creed he might get together with his congregation to concoct a message that would make them feel they were going against their own convictions with their action. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is why he hesitates to escalate the situation. He suspects that one person has been picking up a couple dozen copies each time he walks by, but contacting the police might bring bad publicity upon the premises. As others have said, it is difficult to discover the intent of the person in this case short of detective work, but who will do that? Imagine Reason (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that a technical solution would be better here than a legal one. There could be a box with two sections, for example, which keeps most of the papers in the upper (locked) section, but drops one into the lower (unlocked) section five minutes after the lower portion has been opened. Thus, someone who intends to stock up on fuel for their wood-stove would need a lot of time and patience. I'd bet someone already has such a device available for sale. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Even without the five minute delay, it would probably help - someone is much less likely to take several one at a time than to just grab several off the top of the pile. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of the case of the banana feeder. There was an attempt to feed a starving population of monkeys by leaving bananas out for them. Unfortunately, the first monkey there would take every last one, even though there were far more than he could eat (or even carry). They then tried a timed release mechanism, but that same monkey would guard the machine and grab them when they came out. Greedy little capitalists, aren't they ? StuRat (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This would indeed solve the problem, but the disadvantage--take-up ratio will fall even lower than is the case--seems to outweigh the benefit. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In 1993, there was a kind of fad of stealing all of the free student newspapers on US university campuses as a protest against a particular newspaper. For example, an African-American student group at the University of Maryland decided the school newspaper was racist. So they followed the truck delivering the free newspapers and stole all of them from the racks before sun-up, replacing them with a note that, "Due to its racist nature, The Diamondback will not be available today -- read a book!" I don't know if anyone was ever charged in any of these incidents. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like dishonest misappropriation with intention permanently to deprive the rightful owner. I.e. theft. So the police should be willing to get involved. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the Ganges River drying up?

I heard that the Ganges River is drying up. If it is, is the Indian government doing anything to save the River? Northern India would be in a lot of troubles if the Ganges River were to dry up. Sonic99 (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The WWF has published a study on large rivers which are at risk here [21]. There is a separate case study on the river Ganga, but the site is currently being reorganised and can´t be accessed. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

According to our Ganges#Ecology section, "A UN Climate Report issued in 2007 indicates that the Himalayas glaciers that feed the Ganges may disappear by 2030, after which the river's flow would be a seasonal occurrence resulting from monsoons.". StuRat (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, 2030 is not a long time from now. If the Ganges River dried up, the Northern India would be in chaos because there would be no water to grow their foods. The Indians better do something fast like reducing their population immediately or else. Sonic99 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is still expected to flow seasonally, so the secret may be to drain off large amounts into reservoirs during the times when it does flow, to provide water for the rest of the year. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

World War II. Home Defence. Stopline Red.

Today I walked the Thames path from Lechlade to Radcot Bridge, passing on the way numerous concrete pill boxes which, I gather, formed part of Stopline Red, the last deperate bid to keep invaders from the Midlands. Can anyone tell me more about this defence line and the strategy it embodied?Kent1940 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of articles which may help - British hardened field defences of World War II and British anti-invasion preparations of World War II. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, GHQ Line and the articles linked from there. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empresses

One more question who would be the direct heir of the Latin Emperors of Constantinople. I notice they don't use the title anymore but I am unsure who is the direct heir of Louis I of Naples. Would it be the heir to the House of Valois-Anjou which would probably be a French or would it be a King of Naples. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Louis also inherited the title of King of Jerusalem, and you can see his successors there - it doesn't seem to be a direct descent but the current claimant would be Juan Carlos of Spain. I don't know if the same line of descent applies to the Latin Empire though, and in any case there should be numerous possible claimants just like there is for Jerusalem. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What title did the wife of the Eastern and Western Roman empresses hold beside Augusta, Mater castrorum, Mater patriae, basilissa? I need the entire list both Latin and Greek. Please no English ones such as Empress of Rome.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have trouble finding an answer to this because (as usual) you are dealing with a very long period of time. There was no single list of titles that they all used. If you want a list of all the ones that were ever used, I suppose that might be possible, but in many cases the sources simply don't say what titles the empress had, if any. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Defense of a kingdom in 8th or 9th century Britain

I know that William I brought the "motte and bailey" castle to England in the 11th century, but what did they do before that? Did the many small kingdoms have some sort of central defense area or strategy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evermaore (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We have an article, Anglo-Saxon Military, but it doesn't really cover defensive structures, I'm afraid. --Tango (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of earthen embankments such as Offa's Dyke seemed somewhat prevalent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To put it mildly, those centuries weren't exactly the golden age for military Britain. Their defense tactics included surrendering, mostly, as well as some giving up without a fight here and there. Wrad (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Alfred the Great was an exception to this. See Battle of Ethandun for a good description of a typical battle for him. Wrad (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Earthen embankments and ordinary fortresses, often defences built/patched up using Roman sites as a foundation. A random search on JSTOR turns up this paper about 8th century fortresses. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As Palace Guard notes, old Roman structures including forts, milecastles and so forth were adapted to suit the new societies; Hill forts were sometimes used, as were simple wooden keeps. Linear defences (such as Offa's Dyke) were significant. Commonly, settlements would have had timber palisade and ditch (or earthen bank) defences. Motte-and-bailey constructions are often referred to as the first "castles" but that is only when you define "castle" as structures that look like motte and baileys. If "castle" means fortified military constructions, then they go back much further. Google books has Osprey's Fortifications in Wessex c. 800–1066 by Ryan Lavelle. Another Osprey title which might be of interest is British Forts in the Age of Arthur by Angus Konstam ISBN 9781846033629. No preview on google books, but you might find a copy through your local library. Gwinva (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel and the Holocaust

Apologies for the title, but I thought it might attract the most attention :) I'm working on an MA History essay on the commemoration of traumatic events by nations, and part of it is how the State commemorates to create/reinforce national identity. That's my theory anyway; I have evidence for other states, but The Holocaust is such an influential event I can't really ignore it. It's only a shot essay, but I still need some information on how Israel has used the Holocaust to promote its national identity, or at the very least how it's used it to its advantage. That's if it actually has, and my brilliant idea isn't very brilliant in actual fact. So, can anyone help poor ol' History MA student out? There are just so many books on the Holocaust that narrowing it down is getting a tad difficult, and any direction/advice would be greatly welcomed!Skinny87 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yom HaShoah, which is the traditional day of Holocaust Rememberance in Isreal, is probably a very good start for you. It is moderately referenced, so you can find stuff beyond Wikipedia as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You might take a look at this book. Marco polo (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, check out our article on Yad Vashem and follow the links. Marco polo (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion Israel is probably too easy a case to mean much. They make the Holocaust an explicit reason for their national existence and a lot of other policies. In most cases the action of commemoration is going to be more subtle, I would expect. More subtle instance would be, say, the way in which Ukrainians use the experience of Chernobyl as a nationalizing issue (as is argued in this book). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

March 1

Starvation in US during Great Depression?

Did any people actually starve to death in the US during the Great Depression (1929-38)? Are there any reliable numbers on this? Elinde7994 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this source, there are no verified deaths from starvation in the United States during the Great Depression, but hunger was widespread. In conditions of hunger and malnutrition, hunger often contributes to death without being its ultimate cause. For example, hunger and malnutrition severely weaken the immune system and make a person more susceptible to disease and less able to recover from it. Marco polo (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

partnership or no partnership?

Time and again, I pass a Wells Fargo branch. Sharing the same space would be Starbucks Coffee. I know Starbucks shares a partnership with Barnes & Noble. But what about Wells Fargo? What's going on with that? Anyone know?72.229.135.200 (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fighting back against hip-hop

How has hip-hop managed to drive punk and heavy metal off Toronto's FM airwaves, posterable vertical surfaces and to a large extent Future Shop shelves, not to mention the YouTube landing pages? What can the latter genres do to reclaim their place, and how long do they have left to do so before white musical culture is reduced to the likes of Green Day and Britney Spears? NeonMerlin 08:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly ridiculous, as there is only one mainstream FM station in Toronto that ever plays hip hop. Is this a clumsy attempt at trolling? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But there are none that ever play heavy metal, except insofar as you count Korn and Linkin Park, or punk (I was recently disabused of the notion that Green Day and Sum 41 were punk). Even if you adopt the broadest definitions of those genres, no station plays them anywhere near as regularly as Flow plays hip-hop. NeonMerlin 08:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, the way I prefer to think of it is that only the lowest common denominator is influenced or dependant or radio programming for guidance. From a pure marketing cost-benefit point of view, radio is forced to pander to people without musical guidance. People with better direction will find alternate methods of distribution!NByz (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Radios are forever plagued by playlists. Personally, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about the state of, uh, white musical culture based on what you hear on the radio, any more than I would draw conclusions about the state of black musical culture based on what you hear on the radio. It's simply not designed to give you a balanced selection of the best and most innovative current music available. Lowest common denominator is exactly right. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You asked a very similar question last month, see here in case you've forgotten. The answer I would give you now is the same as the one I gave you back then. For those in positions of power in the mainstream media, whose choices dictate what we see and hear on the TV and radio, hip-hop is basically seen as cool whereas heavy metal is not. FWIW, I agree with them. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't exactly how it works in Canada. The CRTC is responsible for spectrum management in Canada and it is fairly particular in its mandates. Stations can't just play everything they want. There was actually trouble getting a license for an urban station in Toronto which some attributed to racism after the refusal of the Milestone Radio application. There was an order-in-council directing the CRTC to license two stations in TO that reflected the city's diversity. CFXJ-FM was licensed because of that. The other was Aboriginal Voices. Here's the CRTC decision on Flow.[22]

How long have they got? Wasn't that a Kids in the Hall sketch? "According to a computer model, three years." --JGGardiner (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

is warren buffet jewish

is warren buffet jewish pls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.0 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ART

Is the first edition of a painting print more expensive than the tenth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.177.203 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the painting and the size of print runs. --140.247.11.19 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But, on anything valuable, I would generally expect a first edition to go for more money, yes. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Our article "Edition" has some information. It seems not to be as simple as 1-2-3. -Milkbreath (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Poldark

Hello,

Have only seen the fantastic series, not read the books. What happens to George Warleggan? Poldark? Demelza? Dwight and Carolyn?

Many thanks if someone can answer this without typing a novel of their own in length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgflikchik (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

how can I invest in a "race"

how can I invest in a race, such as Jews, etc. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.0 (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry I need to elaborate: I just mean in financial terms, same as Vice Fund (google it) invests in vices.