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 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. [1] 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: [2]. --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 [3] although this 1991 source [4] suggests they unconstitional but they're being used in this modern internet age [5] and haven't yet been ruled completely unconstitional but some have [6] 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[7][8][9][10]. --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

[11] 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)

[12] 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 Statehood Monument on Market Street, San Francisco, quotes Senator Seward (iirc) saying THE VNITY OF OVR EMPIRE HANGS ON THE DECISION OF THIS DAY (i.e., on the question of admitting California as a State). —Tamfang (talk) 22:05, 2 March 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)

See the recent BBC Radio 4 series America, Empire of Liberty, and Denys Arcand's film The Decline of the American Empire. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:37, 3 March 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 [13] 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)

Not fair. How about number of photographs of as many US civilians die out side USA in a day? Is there any such count? 122.169.127.46 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the established religion, people authorized to kill are special; therefore the Govt has no cause to complain if their deaths are emphasized over others. To treat them as no more important than the deaths of octogenarian tourists would be failing to Support Our Troops. —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many "special" groups which are underrepresented in the press, like children who die of diseases (you generally only hear about them when someone is begging for money for those diseases), or minorities who are murdered, or accident victims. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 4 March 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 [14] 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: [15]. 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 [16]. 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)

Back in 1990–3 I worked for an immigration lawyer in San Francisco. Clients included aliens who operated businesses here (not necessarily owners); so long as they were in business they qualified for an "E" visa, which was not a step toward citizenship. (Unlike "H" it had no time limit.) But I dimly remember there was at least a proposal that aliens (from only some countries?) who made a big enough investment would get a green card, which is a step toward citizenship. —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that deal may have been meant for people leaving Hong Kong in anticipation of the Communist takeover. —Tamfang (talk) 18:04, 4 March 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)

I know The Invention of Morel is a neat 100 pages because it's sitting right next to me, but I'm pretty sure all these are well under 200 pages: The Awakening, The Red Badge of Courage, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, The War of the Worlds, Death in Venice, Siddhartha. Also, look into short stories. A good short story writer can say more in thirty pages than some people fit in a novels. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Jane Austen's Lady Susan is really short but not all people like epistolary novels. ;) --Cameron* 19:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Slim classics? Any individual book of the Bible. Depending on your definition, all of the New Testament put together. Dickens might surprise you with the relative brevity of A Christmas Carol. Kipling packed an overview of the foundation of Britain into Puck of Pook's Hill, and of course there is 1066 and All That for more abbreviated history. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything by William Shakespeare, my copy of Hamlet, his longest work, is only about 20 pages. Also short stories. those by Edgar Allen Poe are classics and well worth reading, as are Stephen Donaldson's, which will likely become classics when they are old enough, and the longest is only 100 pages. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Collected short stories of Saki or Lord Dunsany. Any novel by P. G. Wodehouse. —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Juvenalia in general is not a bad bet, as kids tend not to drone on in black and white; in addition to the Austen works (e.g. Love and Friendship [sic]), there is the c. 1900 The Young Visiters [also sic], wickedly observant. Short stories in general are obvious candidates for brevity; top of my list for living writers would be Alice Munro. Don't overlook poetry -- many narrative poems are shorter than short stories, and deliver a punch; try Evangeline. And don't overlook non-fiction: a love story (love-of-books story) is told via letters in 84 Charing Cross Road; it's stretching the word "classic" but is short and wide-ranging. To a certain extent, anything substantially old and still in print satisfies the definition of "a classic". All the best. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Juvenilia. —Tamfang (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2020 (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)

In this link from the speech to Congress last week, you can see the president with an open binder with the speech inside. Though some politicians like David Paterson have to memorize entire speeches in his memory but he's a special case as he is blind. --Blue387 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 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 [17], 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)

[18]. 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)

I once read in a semi-reliable publication that the difference in male and female race times among elite runners was roughly proportional to the difference in male and female heart sizes. I.e., both groups were limited by the amount of blood they could pump, and men simply had bigger pumps. --Sean 20:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds plausible, but the difference in heart size is probably roughly proportional to the difference in lung capacity, leg length, etc.. It's very difficult to pin it down on one thing. --Tango (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it's all roughly proportional, but the point was that at the extreme of training and dedication, it comes down to the capacity of the machine. That's leaving out non-size structural differences like the pelvic angles mentioned. --Sean 15:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For running, the difference between male and female pelvic angles might be relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Men and women are each individuals with individual strengths and weaknesses. Howzzat? Wrad (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No one's asserting otherwise, it's no reason to ignore differences in the average specimen. --Sean 15:22, 2 March 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)

It is not "Oriental Hellenic tradition [that] Russia got", but rather the fact that the Russian emperors was followers of the Eastern Orthodox church, which has little to do with Hellenism. • With respect to the ambiguous use of "Persia" (abused beyond belief on WP), and to the propensity to name entire nations after the dominant tribe within that nation, Jayron32 has said what needs to be said. • With respect to whether Persia was bigger under Alexander's conquest, or smaller,... it did not change size. It became a 1:1 governate under Peucestas immediately following Alexander's arrival there in November 331 BCE. • The Greeks had nothing to do with "the ability for Indo-Aryan languages to be assimilated into the European family", regardless of how that phrase may be interpreted. • The fallacy of European Aryans derives not from "[Neoclassical attempts] to revive and continue Alexander's conquests", but from the erroneous belief that (a word like) "Aryan" was used by prehistoric Europeans as a name for themselves. • With respect to "What ever happened to the Hellenic culture of [post-Alexandrian Iran]?": the Seleucids were too few and weren't around long enough. In any case, they were too busy beating each other's brains out. Their successors, the Parthian Arsacids, were Hellenistic, and said so. The Arsacids' successors, the Persian Sassanians, defined themselves in Iranian nationalist terms, and were thus decidely anti-Hellenistic in most things. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:00, 2 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)

Wouldn't it be better to get people from the other religion to help draft the message? Even better if they are organised, perhaps ask them if they could remind their congregants that such things are unacceptable. I'm sure most would be happy to help since even if they don't agree with your religion, they wouldn't agree with the theft (and I suspect many would consider it theft) Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 2 March 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)

You don't say who funds the printing of your friend's newspaper, but if it's supported by commercial advertising at all then there's a whole other kettle of ball games to consider, since the advertiser's contract with the publisher will include certain commitments about how, and in what quantities, the paper is distributed. Large-scale removal might get the publisher in trouble with advertisers who feel they are not getting the service they have paid for. The opinion of the law on this matter will depend on the jurisdiction, so this should not be construed as legal advice, but if the unnecessary taking of many newspapers might cause somebody actual commercial harm, then it would be sensible to make this clear in any complaint to the police. Karenjc 23:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A similar case is [19] [20] [21]. The interesting thing is that most of the copies were eventually returned with a page removed (the page containing and advertisment the people who took it found offensive), the intention had been to just remove the advertisment (which was just a quarter page) but I guess the people were lazy. While the action was called theft, many people have noted it's questionable if that term is applicable. Do note of course there are two issues, is there criminal action, and could the party who took the paper be subject to civil action? In this case, it doesn't appear we found out, the people who took the magazines were served with trespass orders banning them from student association property (there was also a threat of banning them from the university although I don't know if the university would have cooperated) and were billed for the losses but that appears to be it. This does raise an interesting issue, if your friend moved the papers to inside his store then he could surely similarly ban anyone who took multiple copies but this likely wouldn't be an option if the paper is outside your store. However it would depend on several factors, for example if the friend is legally allowed to put the box containing the papers there and since the box is his property and he may be able to ban someone from using it. The advertisment issue is another interesting issue. If you were subject to losses, whether because you had to pay advertisers or because advertisers withdrew contracts or expected contracts didn't materialise or whatever, you may be able to sue the party responsible for your losses since it's resonable that this person should have realised their actions would cause these losses. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OP, back to basics: Why would your friend want to convert other people to his religion? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The OP never said his/her friend wanted to convert people, simply that bad times usually means more converts but he/she doesn't think the large number of people taking copies is because lots of new converts Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 2 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 [22]. 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)

There are plenty of other cases where a state will commemorate an event to foster a feeling of national identity. For example: Guy Fawkes Night (UK), Bastille Day (France), Anzac Day (Australia/New Zealand), German Unity Day (Germany), Grito de Dolores (Mexico) and all those other independence/revolution commemorations around the world. Astronaut (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, with your interest in military history and WWII, investigate the USSR's commemoration of what it dubbed the Great Patriotic War (term). Otherwise, a more recent topic is national commemoration activities in the framework of conciliation in Rwanda a decade-plus after the fratricidal genocide there. And may I note, the opinion expressed by User:98.217.14.211 about the Holocaust etc. is both superficial and an oversimplification; the Holocaust in Israel is pervasive throughout the society and its history. Focal points such as the national remembrance day and national remembrance authority are only parts of the picture, while entire books and probably a good number of full-blown doctoral dissertations have dealt with aspects of commemoration in the "collective memory" etc. Perhaps your assignment calls for a more discrete topic. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:11, 2 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)

Of course people starved to death in the U.S during the great depression. People starved to death every year the U.S. or any other country has existed. 1 per 100,000 died from malnutrition in 2005, for ifor instance. [23]Give me a break. Edison (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Malnutrition is not the same as starvation; the figures you give include deaths from vitamin deficiencies and disorders such as kwashiorkor, which is associated with a diet with enough calories but not enough protein (and common in situations such as old people in homes[24] where the cause is more likely to be neglect or other biological disorder than poverty). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Starvation, per the article, is extreme Malnutrition. If it is bad enough you die, it is extreme. People also starve who are too poor to buy food, too proud to ask for charity, too much of a hermit to benefit from the mercy of others, or who are denied food as victims of abuse, infants, elderly, prisoners or other captives who are denied adequate nutrition. Edison (talk) 19:49, 2 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)

Starbucks, which doesn't franchise, will enter into licensing agreements with companies who occupy real estate they covet, like airports or colleges. Their company fact sheet lists at least two dozen companies with whom they have 'alliances', although Wells Fargo is not among them. Wolfgangus (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The sheet also does not list Commonwealth Bank of Australia, with which Starbucks has an arrangement. Those listed are probably the most prominent ones only. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I found http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/14/business/fi-39045 in a Google search. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:17, 2 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.[25]

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)

Seriously. Between Internet Radio, MP3 Players, Satelite radio etc. etc. there's lots of ways to get free music in any genre you wish. If you don't want to expose your ears to various kinds of music, then don't. No one forces you to listen to radio stations that don't play what you want them to, and you have plenty of options to find music you do. No heavy metal stations in Toronto? Find heavy metal music via other means then. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The root of your problem is what is concieved of as mainstream music and alternative music. These days hip hop and r&b are mainstream music, running alongside pop music. Metal still sits with indie, punk, post-rock, prog and the like as alternative music that isn't part of what is being pushed by the biggest companies. There's still a big market for alternative stuff, but it's not as big as the market for mainstream, so mainstream gets more airplay, while alternative gets less airplay, or play on smaller stations. Internet radio is a better bet for you. I suggest my favourite Australian station which mixes alternative with indie hip-hop - Triple J. Steewi (talk) 23:44, 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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.0 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there is such a way that is already established. If you wanted to do something similar to Vice Fund for a race, I imagine you'd invest in companies who would benefit from consumption patterns of your specific "race". For example, investing in, say, a company that produced high-priced menorahs would be a nice "Jewish" investment—on the whole, one might expect that if Jews, on the whole, were having good financial prosperity, they would be spending some of that income on a higher-priced menorah. Or something like that. Of course in engaging in such an approach you are necessarily making a lot of guesses, some of which are likely to end up being somewhat offensive as they will play on various stereotypes.

It's of note that one of the biggest "Jewish" investment schemes as of late went belly up recently and pulled down a scandalous number of Jewish charities and probably companies with it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but investing in the companies in the state of Israel is not exactly the same thing as investing in the "Jewish race" in the way he means about the Vice Fund. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There are State of Israel Bonds, if you want to invest in them, but otherwise your request would not appear to be operationalizable (as a 1950's behaviorist might say...). AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry Im being dense, is there a point youre making about behaviorism - though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (as a 19th century Freud possibly said) --85.181.144.0 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See my past comment at Talk:Operationalization -- some behaviorist and logical-positivist types basically said that if you can't come up with a procedure for concretely measuring somthing, then it's completely meaningless. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying a bit, but that was the gist... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes "the Jews" a "race" that can be "invested in"? Do you mean "investment" in the sense of making a profit in return for providing funding? This question is for the Original Poster User:85.181.144.0 and all the previous and prospective respondents here who didn't clarify, or question, this basic premise of the initial proposition. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(clarification continued) What other "race" besides the Jews? Would the "target race" have to have a lot of money and be easy to profit from? By "investing" are you talking about a "get-rich-quick" scheme, so ruling out the effective historical methods of Colonialism, by which your investment requires a lot of hard work to extract wealth out of an impoverished, underdeveloped native population ("race" – like Black Africans) whose property contains valuable resources? I was thinking about maybe the Vatican which is supposed to have a lot of money (though Catholics are a religion, not a race), or Warren Buffet (who has a lot of money though he's not a Jew, according to the reply you got to your earlier query). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are Islamic funds, such as the Dow Jones Islamic Fund; these are established because of the difficulty in making conventional investments that comply with a traditional understanding of Islamic law. In addition, there are country funds that are set up to invest in a particular country, and I believe that these include Israel funds. I'm not aware of any other kinds of investment vehicles that target a particular race, ethnicity, or religion. Of course, you can invest in particular securities that are associated with particular ethnicities (menorah makers and Israel bonds already having been mentioned as examples). John M Baker (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

is it possible to do great evil just by writing checks, while remaining 100% legal?

Let's say you have a huge amount of money for some reason but you're evil. Can you do anything really evil with all that money, if you'd like to just write checks and have other people do the evil -- IF you want to remain 100% legal? I mean, how evil could it be if there's no law against it, right?

I'm NOT asking for legal advice, and in case you didnt' guess I don't actually have the funds in question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.0 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are funding a criminal activity, you are an accessory to the crime, or worse! See inchoate crimes, especially solicitation and facilitation. If your definition of "evil" is wider than the criminal, then it's easy. Giving all the money to someone who doesn't deserve it is pretty evil. Donating it to an extremist politician could do a lot of damage while being legal (subject to electoral donation laws in your jurisdiction). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You could probably buy up loads of companies and liquidate them, resulting in massive job losses. I can't think of any law against that and it would probably be deemed pretty evil by most people. In fact, some private equity firms have done very similar things, and have been called evil, although they did it with the intention of making money and the job losses were just a by-product. You could buy up lots of food and destroy it, causing mass starvation. --Tango (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You should also keep criminal conspiracy laws in mind. - Eron^Talk 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In countries without limits (or with big holes in limits) to how political parties and candidates are funded, you can choose to fund only the worst, most extremist and hate-filled parties and candidates. With your backing they're sure to be elected, and they're sure to screw things up and plunge the country, or the world even, into a pit of despair. Don't you get the feeling that people are doing this already? 87.113.100.227 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Something is only "illegal" if the laws, and the courts, of a country say it is. So just buy yourself a country (if you're only an evil billionaire then just buy a really small country) - say find a small island republic and give each citizen a million dollars, on the understanding that they evacuate one of the country's smaller islands, and agree to a velvet divorce, where you (and your henchmen) remain on the small island and it becomes a new country. Then you write the laws to suit yourself, and so nothing you do can be illegal (bar pesky international laws). Again, doesn't it seem like this has been done a bunch of times already? 87.113.100.227 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But how much evil could you do without falling under the jurisdiction of other countries? --Tango (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's jurisdiction and there's condemnation that many moves don't seem to fall under, so it beats me. The answers here are already saying it's being done already, "legally" too. If other countries change their laws (like the Swiss bank traps now being set) you'll need a clever international accounting firm to negotiate this terrain. Legitimate governments take turns to fund arms supplies in third world countries, and corporations like the Nestle scandals dump their unwanted products on third world people, or Big Pharma testing people there, creating heaps of problems, so you may find yourself in a queue or club of some kind. A small number of African countries might take the money and run, leaving you to be President, writing all those checks to continue the evil dictatorships as you like. In Australia a corporation just sacked all the workers to send their jobs off shore and wrote themselves millions of dollars in self-payment checks, so y'know, there's a textbook everywhere you look. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So it's probably a question of "how huge is huge". If you only had a million bucks, that wouldn't stretch very far. But if you had $60 billion, you can buy Switzerland. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

no way could anyone buy Switzerland for $60 billion. For $60 trillion, sure -- maybe even $6 trillion (though I doubt it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.145.125 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Its GDP is about $0.5tn, so if we assume that remains constant (in real terms) and make some completely unrealistic assumptions about how the value of a country works, we can use discounted future cash flows to get a present day value. With a discount rate of 2% (a number picked out of thin air, but its in the right order of magnitude), that gives a present day value of $25tn. (Assuming the online calculator I used works.) --Tango (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How about getting a job as CEO of a large financial corporation, tell your minions to go only for short term gains, when the bubble bursts "retire" on a fat pension and watch the world's economy collapse. Oops, it's all been done before, so maybe it won't stay legal for much longer. Astronaut (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You could move to Australia where you might get all the time you need: "There is no overnight solution to this, but we think it's a serious issue and we're dealing with it."—Federal Treasurer on executive salary issue[26]

If you're really dead set on evil-doing, why bother buying out a small country's populace? Just hire some mercenaries, stage a coup, and kill anyone who disagrees with you. It's bound to work eventually. The legality issue can be conveniently solved when you rewrite the laws after the fact. --Fullobeans (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered investing in sin stocks, like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, porn, legal prostitution, gambling, and defense contractors ? [27] StuRat (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Buy _ALL_ produced items of the next Apple product, iPhone 2 or what it might be, film yourself destroying them all and put it on youtube... some might not think it's evil... but the Apple fans' delicious tears will surely feed you for years to come. — CHANDLER#10 — 05:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the Simpsons, you can just write out your check to the Springfield Republican Party... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just make a whole bunch of donations to an organization like Westboro Baptist Church. You can bet they'll put it to some pretty evil use. There's no shortage of Fred Phelps types in the world. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

how could I go about calculating EVIL return on investment?

This is related to my question above. Let's say someone wants to spend a lot of money on doing evil while remaining 100% legal. Well, I got a lot of suggestions above, but it is really hard to think of a way to quantify what would get that person the most evil for their money. So now I'm wondering how such a person could calculate the returns, in terms of evil, of the activities they are pondering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.145.125 (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You would probably want to aim for what would probably be called a strong pareto minimum (see Pareto efficiency), where no further harm could be done without providing anyone a benefit. SDY (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess evilness is about all causing suffering, so you want to maximise the net suffering you cause. I don't see how you can really quantify suffering. You could just try and cause as many deaths as possible, that makes the maths easy, but it's not a good definition of evilness.. --Tango (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't need money to be evil, you can use other peoples money. For instance go into government and get contaminated blood factor distributed on grounds of cost. That'll cause lots of people to die slowly and horribly. There's lots of opportunities. Pass laws entitling people to money but have lots of bureaucrats stopping them getting it. That'll waste lots of lives. Health and safety regulations offer loads of ways to case misery in the interest of safety. Or keep people alive as long as possible despite their wish to die because of their suffering - you don't want to encourage murder. I could go on and on ... use your imagination and you can be a pillar of society and respected by all while you do your great work. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could buy all the world's oil companies, and then fire all the employees. The ensuing chaos of all oil pumping stopping at once would do some really nasty things. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2

Japanese atrocities in the People's Republic of China

Has anyone ever been judged (Japanese officer or politician, or something like that) for the terrible and unforgivable atrocities they did against China? .... example of atrocities Yoshio Kodaira --201.254.95.71 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal is quite short but affirms that people were put on trial for war crimes and links to other articles. This is not to minimise your question. Background is in Nanking massacre and Japanese war crimes with further links. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese war criminals were tried after the war in a large number of locations, with the most prominent of the trials held in Tokyo. The Tokyo trials included the most senior of the accused war criminals, under the name of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

A number of tribunals were convened in China for the trial of war criminals in China - mainly members of the occupying forces. The most prominent of these was the Nanjing trials, as Julia mentioned above.

By the way, there was no such thing as the People's Republic of China (founded 1949) at the time of the Japanese atrocities.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TVO documnetary Saddam Hussein

I remember that on TVO, there was a documentary that talking about Saddam Hussein and his life and family. I remember one part that there was a part where they showing a naked lady taken away from her father because her father betrayed Saddam Hussein? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.55 (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, and what was your question? Do you want us to help you track down the documentary? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Five Chinese Funeral/Mourning Rites

Can any user please list for me the five Chinese Funeral/Mourning Rites? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is not a single "Chinese culture". Are you referring to the Chanyuan Qinggui funeral rites by chance? If this is a homework question, any answer you find here will likely differ from what is in your textbook. -- kainaw™ 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to Huitian's monumental work Wu-li Tung-kao (Comprehensive Study of the Five Rites) on mourning rites which was written in about the middle of the 18th century. This is not a homework question - I am a pensioner! Simonschaim (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same Qui Huitian mentioned in Ancestors: 900 Years in the Life of a Chinese Family? I came up pretty much empty with Google Books but Google Scholar had a bit more: see this pdf – on page 169 there is this snippet: "The Five Rites that Qin dealt with, in accordance with the categories of The Civil Service of Zhou: Major Zongbo, fell into the Rites of auspices, omens, army, guests, and of celebrations." They seem to be classification categories rather than specific individual ceremonies. I can't see a funeral link, though, so ask again if this still doesn't help. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all thank you for the infornation up to now. It is the Qui Huitian mentoned in the book "Ancestors". What I have in mind is the CEREMONIES (and not just classifications) in the same manner as given by T'ung-tsu Ch'u in his book "Law and Society in Traditional China" p.101 and David Buxbaum in his book "Family Law and Customary Law in Asia" p.45, with regards to the "Six Marriage Rites". What are the CEREMONIES for the five funeral/mourning rites? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, his name is Qin Huitian, the book is most likely listed as "Wuli Tongkao" (五禮通考) in your local academic library, and his surname is Qin. Huitian is his given name.

the Wuli Tongkao, "Comprehensive Study of the Five Rites", refers to the five areas of rites in classical Chinese culture: the auspicious rites; the marital rites; the rites of fealty; the martial rites; and the rites of death (my translations).

What I'm calling "rites of death" covers not just funerary/mourning rites, but rather any inauspicious occasion requiring the attendance of the Prince. Major funerary rites are part of this chapter.

The easiest way to find out about the rites described by Qin is probably to read the original, (or to get someone to translate it for you.) This is a modern work and so the language is fairly accessible.

If you are simply looking for a list of funerary rites, these will likely differ from source to source. I've seen schemes which divide the rites into three sections, or five, or six, or seven...--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Finding map coordinates for international borders, past and present

Ukraine and Slovakia share a border, though I don't know where to find info as to how this might have changed during or after WWII. In particular, there's a locale, Izky (alternative names: Iska, Iski, Isky, Iszka), coordinates 48°39'N/23°23'(or 23°22') E, that's variously cited as being in Slovakia and Ukraine. This map places it in today's Ukraine and reasonably near Slovakia, but what about the historical border? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Zakarpattia Oblast (Subcarpathian Rus) was transferred from Czechoslovakia to the Soviet Union in 1945. Your map shows the village as being within this area. Fribbler (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

UK Postal Service

Is it possible to go along to the local sorting office and ask them if a letter is there for me? I know that one is in the post, sent to me recently by someone in my area, so it should be in the sorting office. Is it possible to just go along and get it from there, rather than waiting for the postman to bring it to my house?--92.41.246.101 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the UK postal service is as automated as the US postal service, you cannot. Humans don't have much to do with the mail service. So, they cannot go in and pull mail out of the automated system. -- kainaw™ 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Once it reaches the local sorting office it will be delivered the same or next day, so there isn't much to be gained by collecting it in person. You can always try, though, the worst that can happen is they say "no". Make sure you take ID and proof of address (a utility bill, say). --Tango (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Note, incidentally, that the correct name is the Royal Mail, not the "UK postal service". Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"UK postal service" is a description, not a name. --Tango (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Assassinations

How many internationally recognized heads of state have been assassinated in the past 200 years? I know the US has lost 4 presidents in that manner, but what about other countries? I presume you will need me to define the question better, but am not sure how exactly.65.167.146.130 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

List of assassinated persons is probably a good place to start counting. - Eron^Talk 17:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

...and by my quick review, it shows 138 people who could arguably be considered heads of state who were assassinated worldwide since 1800. I included Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Kings, plus the odd Emir, Emperor, Tsar, etc. I did not include any former leaders assassinated after their term, but I did count a couple of Presidents-Elect. - Eron^Talk 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

are there any publically evil ("flamboyantly evil") people out there?

There have been a lot of public, powerful people past and present who are villains at least in current western opinion. But none of them go out and SAY that they are evil, that their goals are evil (a la Dr. Evil of Austin Powers, who does make such statements). Are there ANY powerful evil people who are "out of the evil closet" and make no secret of the fact that their goals are sinister and that they are out to do EVIL?? I mean there are thousands or tens of thousands of large-scale philanthropists dedicating their lives and bank accounts to charitable goals, and making no secret of it -- is there (or has there ever been) even ONE evil person doing the opposite (dedicating their lives to doing evil) and frankly letting the world know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.157 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, people rarely believe they are doing evil even when they are doing it. One could safely argue that the actions of Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin, to pick just three, were evil - but I doubt that any one of them would agree. They had their own justifications and reasons, however twisted or misguided, and they believed that what they did was for some greater good.

I think to find naked, self-declared evil you need to look a little further down the food chain. I would expect that several of these folks probably quite admitted quite cheerfully that they were being evil. - Eron^Talk 19:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I know about Hitler through Saddam Hussein, and I also know about serial killers. The former doesn't answer my question because they were not publically evil, and the latter don't fit because they are not "public, powerful people". I am looking for a single public, powerful person (past or present) who publically behaved like Dr. Evil does: avowing, and following through, on admittedly evil intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.157 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who fits that description. I can't imagine that any existed, outside of comic books and James Bond movies. - Eron^Talk 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot depends on your definition of evil. I'd suggest Aleister Crowley as someone who consciously tried to do the opposite of "good". --TammyMoet (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about conscious or not, I'm talking about publically avowed or not. There are memoirs that confess to pangs of conscience after the fact, but I'm really looking for Dr. Evil type public statements from someone powerful WHILE they are doing the evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.157 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, evil doesn't have much depth. Hence cartoons villains are so ridiculous—instead of, say, taking that stolen oil tanker and selling it for cash, they want to beach it on the rocks to kill the seagulls. That's not just evil—it's dumb. Real evil is, as Arendt argued, banal—it is the absence of good, not a force opposed to it. Uday Hussein, for example, seems to have lacked even the semblance of good intentions (one can argue that Saddam, for all his deficits, at least thought he was achieving some sort of Pan-Arabic strength), but did he espouse evil? No. He espoused nothing. He was a creature of greed, excess, and cruelty. He had no ideology from what I can tell. He was certainly not doing what he did as part of an organized plan.

I suspect the only place you'd find an elaborate justification of "evil" per se is in the work of nutcases—serial killers and the like. Most people don't think about themselves in those terms, for fairly obvious psychological reasons. --140.247.253.176 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried finding stuff on Victor Bout? Well-known to governments and his own trading circles, now relatively public with a documentary showing his moves. He'd fit your the question about returns on evil as well. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

did you even read my question? the wikipedia article you just linked says "Viktor Bout has always professed his innocence, saying he is just a businessman. He was interviewed by Peter Landesman for the Süddeutsche Zeitung (24 October 2003).[25] He also appeared on Moscow radio station Ekho Moskvy, saying "I have never supplied anything to or had contacts with the Taliban or al-Qaeda."". A far cry from "I do what I do because it is evil, and I like being evil" which is the kind of thing I'm looking for...

Picture of a Nazi person

Does anyone know who this person is? http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4696/67gr5.jpg --Emyn ned (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but it comes from the Google LIFE photo archive so you could search on there for Nazis. --140.247.253.176 (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you assuming he's a Nazi? Unless there's some clue in the uniform, he could just as easily be a regular non-political conscript. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a regular Wehrmacht officer (i.e. regular German army) and NOT part of the SA or SS or any other Nazi party paramilitary organization. My guess is that this is a Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) of some sort. Compare to this google search: [28] The facepunch.com link claims its a Obersturmbannführer, but that was an SA rank, and the equivalent to a Wehrmacht Oberstleutnant. This page shows another Oberstleutnant, and the uniform matches very closely. Note the 3 bars on the collar insignia, which I believe is the rank indicator, and the stripe at the second button, the Eagle over the breast pocket, etc. etc. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Structuralist/intentionalist Holocaust sources

Where can I find, online, extracts from works by structuralist and intentionalist authors which show their opinions on the Holocaust? Thanks, --AdamSommerton (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is not sufficient information in the article you have linked, then perhaps clicking on the names shown as supportive of each perspective will give you on-line sources. You might also consider googling each of the names to find materials beyond WP. // BL \\ (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)