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

March 4

Imprisonment of people judged in The Hague, Netherlands

People judged by the ICC, for example, where do they go, are they in solitary confinement? --190.49.115.132 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

People who are undergoing trial at the International Criminal Court are held at the ICC detention center. People convicted at the court ar transferred elsewhere to serve their sentences. - Eron^Talk 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit more checking and it looks like other tribunals at The Hague, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, use the same detention facility. Still no luck on figuring out where those convicted go to serve out their sentences. To date, there have been no convictions from the ICC, but there have been several from the ICTFY. - Eron^Talk 06:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

After more digging, it looks like there is no one place where persons convicted at the various tribunals in The Hague are sent to serve their sentences. Those convicted by the ICTFY have been sent to various prisons around Europe, including prisons in France, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. - Eron^Talk 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Metafiction - Paul de Man

Does anyone have a citation for the following passage on the ‘Metafiction’ article page?

“According to Paul de Man all fiction is metafictional, since all works of literature are concerned with language and literature itself.[citation needed]”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichyPrior (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I encountered an Ommundsen, paraphrased by Virginia Lowe in her essay "Little Fur Coats of Their Own: Clothed Animals as Metafictional Markers and Children as Their Audience" in Writing the Australian Child, edited by Clare Bradford, UWA Press, 1996: "all works of fiction are metafictional, in that they all, in one way or another, draw attention to their constructedness." She credits Wenche Ommundsen, Metafictions?: Reflexivity in Contemporary Texts, Melbourne University Press, 1993. I was unable to get into Ommundsen's book to get a direct quote. Googling on "'de man' metafictional" produced an unreferenced line from Literawiki that is suspiciously similar to the line in Wikipedia: "However, some chritics [sic], such as Paul de Man, argue that all literature is in fact metafictional, since all literaterary [sic] works are concerned with language and literature itself." The other 1,709 hits I leave for others to winnow (many repeats and great variety leading nowhere in the first few pages). --Milkbreath (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy Quote

Can someone please give me the full version of robert kennedys quote about small ripples adding up to to create a large splash or somthing? It is in refrence to small acts creating large change. I checked wikiquote and Braniy quote and both dident have this quote.

Google + "kennedy ripple" = [1] --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Kishoreganj District

According to Nilphamari District (and this map), this (nortwestern) district includes an upazila called Kishoreganj, but the Kishoreganj article redirects to the (northeastern) Kishoreganj District. Are there two different places called "Kishoregang" ? Should the Nilphamari District article rather send to (northwestern) Kishoreganj Upazila ? Perhaps we also need a disambiguation page? I didn't make changes myself because it's often difficult to find reliable sources and maps, and there are also transcription problems. Apokrif (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Other sources, such as Google maps, confirm that there are two places in Bangladesh called Kishoreganj, though the northeastern one is often spelled Kishorganj. While we have articles on the northwestern upazila, the northeastern district, and the northeastern upazila called Kishoreganj Sadar, we are lacking articles on the main towns of those two upazilas, each also called Kishoreganj or Kishorganj. It looks as if we should have a disambiguation page. Marco polo (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created one. Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

New Jewish Publication Society of America Version

Hi. Does anyone know of a free online source with this Biblical translation? The only one I can find is the slightly antiquated 1917 version. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the new version is still under copyright... AnonMoos (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You can get the Torah in this translation (not the entire Tanakh) through the Torah Portion links on this page. --Cam (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What percentage of porn stars are on drugs?

How common is it for porn actors and actresses to be on illegal drugs, tobacco and alcohol? I heard it was really common. Any statistics or reports, anecdotes?--I Want To Do This (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

90% was an estimate I heard, but I don't know really.--I Want To Do This (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You probably need to be a bit more specific. Seriously, what percentage of the general population are 'on alcohol'? 80%? 90%? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago, a friend of mine was in a college class in which love was defined as a drug, because it was [if I remember her words rightly] a phenomenon that produced a change in brain hormones and in actions. If we include that, it's going to change the percentage. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that would be pretty unhelpful to the OP. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

White Male Masculinity

Hello :) I have a movie on how black females see themselves as, I have a movie on how black males see themselves and I have a movie on how white females view themselves. I'm having a terrible time trying to find a movie on how white males see themselves. I want to show it to my Sociology class, but I can't find anything. It doesn't have to be a full length movie... 10-15 minutes max probably but I'm running out of ideas. Any suggestions?

Thanks a million in advance! --Zach (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know the names of the movies you are using for the three points of view you have listed. // BL \\ (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Diner (film) is a very touching and funny exploration of the lives of a group of young white males in 50s America. By the way, I'm a bit shocked that a teacher of any kind, even a sociology teacher, doesn't know how to use the apostrophe. Oops, it just occurred to me that "my sociology class" could mean you're a student rather than a teacher. You should still know how to use the apostrophe, though. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he's a foreigner. Don't suppose that anyone here is American.--Mr.K. (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, America isn't the only country that speaks English... for a start, there's this little place called "England" - you may notice a similarity between the names, that's not a coincidence. --Tango (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mee-ow. LANTZY^TALK 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to find a film that addresses how white males see themselves is when their masculine identity is threatened. And nothing threatens white male masculinity like the idea of guys getting it on. The first film that comes to mind is actually a scene from Gods and Monsters where Ian McKellan, playing a depressed James Whale, grabs Brendan Fraser's crotch just so Fraser will beat him to death. It almost works. However, this leads me to the overall concept of masculinity and gender roles in film, and a documentary was made about it in 1995 called The Celluloid Closet that addresses how Hollywood has portrayed gender and sexuality in the history of film. Check out Celluloid Closet. It's actually really good. --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are looking for a film in which the whiteness is identified explicitly as part of the men's identity, and therefore something they have to construct, or a film set somewhere where everyone is white and so that aspect is taken for granted. If the latter, and you don't mind a feature film, what about The Full Monty, set in industrial England? A bunch of men, mostly working class and one sort of middle class, are laid off or otherwise without work. Their identity as providers to their womenfolk and children is threatened. They adopt a novel solution, stripping for money, and some find it challenges their conception of themselves. ("Real men don't do this!" -- "Oh yes they do!" is one of the unspoken subtexts.) Very funny, to boot. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

99% of films are about how white men see themselves. But I suppose that isn't helpful. So I suggest Fight Club. LANTZY^TALK 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would dispute your first assertion very strongly. It may be PC to claim that Hollywood – which is presumably what you're talking about, omitting every other film industry in the world – is negligent in not making enough positive representations of women and ethnic minorities, but the merest of thoughts would tell you that is not the case. There are films about how women and minorities see themselves literally all over the place. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See our article on hyperbole. LANTZY^TALK 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just beware of believing that whatever answers we give you will necessarily represent how all white males see themselves. Some exult in their individuality, as do some women and some non-white people. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For questions of white male culture rather than the individual, this is a nice read. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it doesn't represent all white masculinity, but Fight Club is considered representative of a good proportion, and more representative than most movies. If you're picking a single movie, that's a good one. Steewi (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I always thought Swingers (1996 film) was probably the best "White guy" movie ever made. Fight Club was a little too much "beat the shit outta people for no good reason" for me; sure that's probably some guys psyche, but I always thought the themes of Swingers was more universal in its representation of the inner lives of men. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good answer. I'm not sure Fight Club has anything to do with real (i.e. most normal) people when compared to something like Swingers. —Kevin Myers 06:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond, my home internet was down last night and had to wait until I got in this morning to check back. First up, excuse the apostrophe usage, my error. I was writing quite fast to post this and after a quick edit, I forgot to take out the apostrophes. Also, I agree, don't always assume English is someone's native language.

The name of the movie I have about how black females see themselves is called "A Girl Like Me," you can find it on Youtube. The other two I have were sent to me and don't have titles to them. I will check out Swingers and see if it's what I'm looking for. Thanks everyone! --Zach (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OR here, but at least men under 25 down to 14 or 15 actually do relate to Lantzy's Fight Club film. Does that suggest another issue, a generational gap within the white male thing? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between the United States and Canada?

Please excuse my extreme naivete, but I really don't know why the U.S. and Canada have such different "clout" in the world - militarily, politically and culturally. In my view they are approximately equal sized countries with a high level of economic development and equal opportunities for personal growth. Why is it then that the U.S. is "the" world power but Canada is rarely in the news. The U.S. election was such an important world event but not many know who the Canadian Prime Minister is. I hope you get the drift of what I am asking here... The U.S. military strength is well known, everybody watches U.S. TV shows and U.S. movies; U.S. has the world's most advanced space program, the U.S. is the prime target of the terrorists (Ok that's not a good thing, but still), the U.S. dominates the world's most significant geopolitical alliances, the U.S. patent office is the most crucial for filing patents, the list goes on. I used to think that the prominence of America in comparision to other developed nations is due to its size. But Canada is larger; what did Canada do differently due to which it pales in comparision with America. Please understand this is the view of a distant Indian national who just follows the news, so please correct me if I am mistaken in any of my assumptions. Thanks. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a big broad question.. you might look at History of the United States and History of Canada to start with. Friday (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

o.O --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Canada is physically larger, but the United States has about ten times the population. And that's just for starters. The fact that Canada is so close to the United States, and so closely coordinated with the United States on the international stage, leads it to vanish into the shadow of its neighbor. However objectively powerful Canada may be, it is always shouting over the roar of the United States. This leads to the paradox that countries poorer and less powerful than Canada attract far more attention. But just because Canada is quiet doesn't mean it isn't influential. Canada's relationship with the United States gives it a special, subversive kind of influence that no other country enjoys. But why not study the issue for yourself? We have a big-ass article on Canada – United States relations. LANTZY^TALK 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'll give me some latitude in answering this Q, I'd say it's because most of Canada is too far north to support a large population. If Canada had a comparable population, it would have comparable clout. Perhaps global warming will change this, though, as Canada stands to be a big winner, with most of their major cities inland and thus protected from rising oceans, warmer climates opening up vast areas for agriculture, and the opening of the Northwest Passage to shipping. For a similar example, look at Alaska versus California. Alaska is bigger, but has much less of a population and economy because of the climate there. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I think two of the larger differences are the population (306M versus 34M) and GDP (14T versus 1.4T). The US has had enough financial clout to pursue hegemonic policies. The same option has not been open to Canada. Physical area - roughly equal - is not a good indicator for the issues your question concerned with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC x2)Actually, the populations are quite different. Canada has 1/10th the population of the U.S. and less people living there than there are in just California (33 million in Canada and 36 million in the Cali.) By economy, Canada has a per capita GDP (PPP) of 38,000 USDollars, while the US has a per capita GDP (PPP) of 47,000 US Dollars. By GDP (PPP), the U.S. has the largest economy in the world, at just under 14 trillion US Dollars. Canada has the 13th largest economy, at 1.2 trillion US Dollars, just behind Spain. Just on those factors, it is easy to see why the US gets more of the worlds attention than Canada does. And though, as you note, Canada is larger in area, it is only JUST larger in area (by about a 1-2% difference). By population, I would say that Canada actually has an economy and an influence GREATER than its place. Consider that it is a member of the G7, and as I noted, the 13th largest economy, despite having 36th largest population. It certainly has much more worldwide clout than does, say, Vietnam, the 13th largest country by population. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And the US - by far the largest economy in the world - control's the world's primary reserve currency and has a military budget larger than the next sixteen countries combined, with bases in dozens of foreign countries. Many consider it the hegemonic power of our time. NByz (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Population and wealth are definitely the main factors, but it's also worth noting that the US gained independence from Great Britain in 1783 following a violent revolution, which was in turn followed by a series of wars (the Barbary Wars, the Quasi-War, and the War of 1812) to confirm that independence, and a bloody civil war to establish national unity. Canada, meanwhile, attained independence from Britain gradually and peacefully, becoming fully independent only in 1982. It's not as though the history of Canada is all wine and roses, but the United States' violent beginnings, violent westward expansion, isolationism, and history of aggressively defending its interests have given rise to a particular cultural mythos that Canadians simply do not identify with. The US has only really been a world power since World War II, but it was self-important long before that, and this is reflected in the nation's culture and foreign policy. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the reasons Canada became unified was to present a common front against American expansionist ambitions. There were many Americans for whom Manifest Destiny extended north as well as west. LANTZY^TALK 18:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First: agreed with the "only ...[a] world power since WWII". The policy of isolationism and a weak navy composed of coastal-defense ships and monitors (the U.S. had Civil War monitors still in servce at the time of the Spanish-American War in 1898...) assured that the U.S. didn't rise before then; they couldn't compete with anyone abroad without a navy!

Second: It may be of interest to people here that right after WWII, the U.S. and Canada were one and two when it came to the title of "wealthiest nation in the world"...and Canada also was somewhere in the top five in size of their navy and size of their air force. I can't remember where I read that, but... food for thought. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that you read it right here at the ref desk, Ed? Deor (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL now that you mention it, I have part of that on my user page...wow. Epic fail. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh golly, I'm famous! And here I was assuming I only crack myself up. --Fullobeans (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Canada is the little country (in population and military might) to the north of the U.S. which is beloved in the U.S. for having Mounties such as Sergeant Preston, for saying "oot" instead of "out," for having the Francophone Quebecois, for having various provinces which few in the U.S. could locate on a map, for warming up the Arctic air a bit before it comes southward, for being part of the Commonwealth, for having an extremely long undefended border with a superpower, and for having soundly defeated the U.S. in its early ambitions to dominate the hemisphere, in the early 19th century, when Canada and the U.K. crammed the words "54' 40" or fight" down the throats of the U.S of A. and its notion of Manifest Destiny, later revived in the mid 20th century by Germany with respect to Austria and Czechoslovakia. In many fictional works such as the "future history" series by Robert Heinlein, or It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis (1935), Canada was a refuge for rebels from authoritarian dictatorships in the U.S. The U.S. maintained military plans for invading Canada in a hypothetical war against the U.K. into the 1930's as "War Plan Crimson or "War Plan Red"." Canada likewise had until 1929 a bold plan to invade the U.S and seize several northern state capitols to buy time for relief expeditions from the Commonwealth in the vent of war with the U.S. 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I really doubt that Canada is "beloved in the U.S." for defeating them. How many Americans think they won the War of 1812? All of them? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I speak for my own reaction to reading about the U.S. bombastically running off to defeat the Indians, the French, the Mexicans, the British, and the Canadians because in the 18th and 19th centuries "God wanted the U.S. flag to wave from sea to shining sea" and from farthest south anything desirable existed to farthest north anything desirable existed, except for the failure of the jingoistic "54'40" or fight sloganeering against Canada. And yes, the U.S. did woin the war of 1812. The Battle of New Orleans was the icing on the cake. Except for the little vandalistic matter of the burning of some gonernment buildings in Washington D.C by a British force. Edison (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Fullobeans (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers. I wasn't aware of the vast difference in population and GDP. Cheers! --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Other pairings of superficially similar countries with vastly different impacts on the world could include Australia and New Zealand, England and Wales, and indeed India and Sri Lanka. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Australia co-opts successful New Zealand actors and performers as Australians. A specially cringeworthy example is the "Australian" opera baritone Teddy Tahu Rhodes being promoted here at the moment. If it weren't for that middle name, they'd get away with it. B***s, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

He is based in Australia, which makes him an Australian resident. But I agree, that no more makes him an "Australian singer" than Don Lane was an "Australian entertainer" (except in the sense of “an entertainer who worked mainly in Australia”; and my apologies if Lane did take out Australian citizenship, but to my knowledge he never did - although our article calls him an Australian). Russell Crowe, on the other hand, chose to become an Australian citizen, so I've never quite understood the Kiwis' grumbles about our claims to him. Nobody ever denies he was born and grew up in New Zealand, but when making a quick reference to him, it's not always appropriate to say "the New Zealand-born and -raised but now Australian citizen, the actor Russell Crowe". It’s not inaccurate to refer to him simply as “the Australian actor Russell Crowe”. Now consider John Farnham, born in England. He was famous from the late 60s, and nobody ever disputed the tag “Australian rock singer”. But he only actually became an Australian citizen shortly before he was named Australian of the Year in 1988, and only then in order to qualify. I never heard the British complain that they weren’t given enough credit for him. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

First woman in the Swedish academy

Who was the frist woman in the Royal Swedish Academy of Arts? I do not know, and it would be interesting to know. This would be sometime in the 18th century. --85.226.44.201 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Still looking but so far, there's Wendela Gustafva Sparre in 1797 Ulrika Pasch in 1773. Here's an incomplete listing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is Ulla Adlerfelt and Charlotta Cedercreutz, and they seemed to have ben before Pasch, but there is nothing about which years they were elected.--85.226.44.201 (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bannister Fletcher's History of Architecture

I should apparently buy a copy of this book, but it seems there are many different versions and I'm not sure which to get. Would it matter much if I were to get an older version of the book? 148.197.114.165 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's reasonable to suppose that older editions will lack additions made in later additions. These may, judging by its contents, include architects & projects. And so the question is, do you particularly mind a contemporary shaped gap in your education? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And the 20th edition - the current version - is being pimped as a thorough reorganisation - "The timid modernizing, the anxious realignments of the past fifty years are over". And the editor, Dan Cruickshank, is an estimable sort of a chap. I'm sold on it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The earlier versions also seem to be a lot cheaper, so would it be viable to buy one of them, and another book on more recent events, and does anyone know of such a book? 148.197.114.165 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fletcher's tome is certainly not the only source of info on newer architects & works; and I'm kinda hoping you have access to an academic library which would have the 20th edition, so could work out what was missing from an older edition. I think there's a risk that the mindset of the 70s or 80s or whichever decade you end up in might not be quite the same as the contemporary analysis, but there's a strong "best driving out the good" argument to be made, which is that any edition is so very much better than no edition ... and you'll not be relying solely on one book to understand the history of architecture. How far wrong can you go in settling for the older book if this is the case? Whilst you;re about it, btw, I've heard that the very best way of fixing all this information into your head is to write detailed NPOV wikipedia articles, which would be excellent! --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a 19th century ? version, which is a wonderful period piece, with robust dismissals of baroque architecture & loads of beautifully clear drawings that I don't imagine have survived into modern editions. But it would not be an ideal introduction if you are new to the subject. It sounds as if intermediate editions between this & the 20th may have the worst of both worlds. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

St. Patricks Day trivia

How many men of Irish Ancestry signed the declaration of independence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midaberg (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There were seven: Thomas McKean, Benjamin Rush, and James Smith (all of Ulster Presbyterian origin), Thomas Lynch, Jr. (whose ancestors were expelled from Ireland following the Irish wars), Charles Carroll (the only Catholic signer), George Taylor and Matthew Thornton (who were both born in Ireland). Interestingly, there were eight of Welsh extraction: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Lewis Morris, William Floyd, Francis Lewis, George Walton, Button Gwinnett, and Joseph Hewes; a Dutch-American, Abraham Clark; and even a Finn, John Morton. The rest were of purely English or Scottish stock. In other words, all the colors of the rainbow, from ecru to eggshell. LANTZY^TALK 00:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As a footnote, we should mention the great, Irish-born Charles Thomson, who, though not a "Signer", did sign the broadside declarations issued by the Continental Congress in his capacity as secretary. It's also interesting to note that colonial prejudice against Scots (and presumably Ulster Scots) was not insignificant. Given the number of signers of Scots ancestry, it's no surprise that Congress deleted Jefferson's complaint about "Scotch & foreign mercenaries" from the text. —Kevin Myers 02:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish Flag/ New York City

What building is the Irish flag flown on in New York City during St. Patricks Day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midaberg (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably thousands of buildings. There are many many many Irish and Irish-descent people in New York, and many of them will fly the Irish flag on St. Patricks day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a crossword puzzle question, is there an official bldg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midaberg (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be the Empire State, which changes the color of its lights to reflect different holidays. Or the U.N., which I imagine flies it every day. Irish embassy? Bennigan's? Tomdobb (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, the flag at right was displayed as often as the Irish green-white-orange tricolor... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Hell

Of all religions of the world, past and present, which threatens the worst fate for non-believers? --79.79.253.232 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of religions make no distinction between believers and non-believers. Buddhism, for examples, reserves only a special fate for those who are enlightened. Only a very small subset of people would become enlightened. Everyone else, believers or not, go through reincarnation. Likewise, in Taoism, everyone gets judged in the underworld after death, except those who've achieved immortality. And you achieve immortality by meditation, taking funny drugs, and breathing excercises. For the great masses who get judged, whether you get eternal damnation or just a shadowy existence in the underworld depends on your deeds in life, not how much you believe in one thing or another.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(econ):For the afterlife, as in hell fire and brimstone, then possibly fundamentalist or puritan Christianity is a contender. The article has Bible and Q'uran references. For the past along these lines, Dante's Inferno or first canticle of his Divine Comedy describes the fate of hell-bent people (who also didn't impress Dante). Writer's revenge comes into it then, but is that a religion yet? Islam has some pretty snappy solutions for some present life transgressions. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost by definition, it doesn't get worse than Hell's inner circle. Edison (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not quite true that all forms of Buddhism do not threaten unbelievers with a bad fate. Nichiren said the type of Buddhism he taught was the "true and correct form of Buddhism," and "attributed the occurrence of the famines, disease, and natural disasters (especially drought, typhoons, and earthquakes) of his day to the sovereign's and the people's adherence to all other forms of Buddhism." Though these consequences may not be quite so dire as spending eternity suffering in hell, they're still pretty severe (at least as far as life on earth is concerned). -- noosphere 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone on the Science Reference Desk once invented a religion [2] with "horrible" consequences for those who don't follow its tenants. Since it apparently doesn't have any followers, it condemns all of humanity to an unspeakable fate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

March 5

Lookin for American Merchants Syndicate of Chicago around the time of 1917 AD

Found grandfathers old stock and wonder about the history of this company. Scripopoly.com does not show any of these shares and am interested in knowing if this became the Chicago Board of Trade or the like.

TNX,

[email redacted]

Do not understand your instructions an inquiries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.79.153 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to consult the CCH Capital Changes Reporter to see if this company is listed. You should be able to find it in a good financial library. John M Baker (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Akrasia in ethics

Hi!

I'm studying akrasia right now, and understand the problems it raises in philosophy of action (e.g. the difficulty in explaining one's doing B if one thinks A is preferable to it), but need to know more about it in strict relation to ethics. That is, is there a philosophical problem with, say 'I know it's wrong, but I'll do it anyway'? The Wiki page doesn't give much advice here. Thanks 129.67.127.65 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure there's a philosophical problem with it. I'm also not sure what you're asking. I mean, is it an ethical failure to say, for example, "I know it's wrong of me to eat the last piece of cake 'cause 129.67.127.65 didn't get any yet, and I know he'll get mad at me afterwards if he finds out, but I really want it"? Sure it is. People violate their ethics all the time, and often rationalize it before, during and afterwards. (In this instance, it might go like this: "he won't know I took it, he won't get that mad, extra calories aren't good for him so I'm really doing him a favor, it's just a piece of cake, it wouldn't be as good tomorrow anyway.") -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotation from Plato?

In various books about Risk Management (eg Effective Opportunity Management for Projects by David Hillson) I have seen the following quotation attributed to Plato: 'The problem with the future is that more things might happen than will happen'. Can anyone give me chapter and verse for this? Maid Marion (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no idea, but that's a strange thing to say. My feeling is that the future becomes more and more certain whereas the past becomes less and less so. There's an enormous number of things that might have happened for all we know compared to what has happened and it gets worse all the time. Dmcq (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with the statement, I'm afraid it's almost certainly misquoted, because if you put it into Google, you will find that the above book comes out at nunber 10 with no other meaningful hits, which you'd expect if it were a real quotation. I've looked through normal quotation sites to no avail. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. Like Jarry, I am very sceptical of the attribution to Plato. Looks like one of those things that get repeated at 10th hand, and suffer changes at each stage until they bear little relation to the original.Maid Marion (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quantitative easing

Moved from Miscellaneous desk

What is the opposite of quantitative easing? What are its consequences? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But presumably it is decreasing the money supply by the action of a central bank selling assets; the effect would be deflationary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be called "quantitative tightening" or "monetary tightening". Remember, a reduction in the rate of easing might also be referred to as "tightening". The central bank could sell assets in the market or require larger reserves (or more conservative capital requirements) from private banks to achieve this. The effect would be to increase interest rates, appreciate the currency, reduce consumer spending and reduce the rate of inflation. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The opposite of "quantitative easing" would be to describe it in plain English terms rather than in a deliberately obscure jargon. The common language term is "printing money", which is readily understood to mean incresaing the money supply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? The term "tightening" is widely used in media and not obscure. Also, there are other measures of money supply and easing usually refers to increasing one of those (as explained in the article you linked). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

did the jews think their God directed them to commit genocide, and then proceed to do so?

I heard that according to Jewish history at one point their God directed them to commit genocide, which they then proceeded to do. Is this true? --85.181.151.106 (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. specifically the Amalekites or Midianites... Thanks!

See, Amalekites, particularly this passage from Exodus:

"14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” 15 And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The Lord is my banner, 16 saying, “A hand upon the throne of the Lord! The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." (Exodus 17)

and Midianites, specifically this sentence: "For this reason, according to the Torah, Moses was ordered by God to punish the Midianites."

See? that wasn't so hard. Tomdobb (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't bite. They did say thanks. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Some more Biblical genocide quotes:

Deuteronomy 7:2, "And when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."

Joshua 10:40, "So Joshua smote the whole land; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."

Leviticus 26:7-9, "You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new."

Exodus 34:11-14, "Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)"

1 Samuel 15:2-3, "Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Psalm 21:10 "Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men."

Psalm 136:10, "To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever." (Here God committed the genocide directly.)

• • How is this different from, say, Spartacus, who led a slave revolt? Nobody every complains about him. Wrad (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Psalm 137:9, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (I believe this was talking about taking revenge against the Babylonians.)

• • This one is a bit misleading. The psalm doesn't make it clear how the author feels about the destruction, it just states how the people who destroy Babylon will feel. Incidentally, those people were the Persians, not the Jews. Wrad (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a site which lists more: [3]. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You will I hope note that many of these quotes are not about Israel killing people but about God killing people. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

do you mean some of these quotes are from non-Jewish sources? (external observations of what God does, not Jewish understanding thereof). --92.230.67.1 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the passages are God telling the armies of Israel to kill, not God saying he would kill, or he would send an angel or a plague to kill. Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy - 020:017 - But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Numbers 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. Numbers 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. Numbers 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. This genocidal conquest was cited by later perpetrators, such as the Europeans against the natives of the Americas "An introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Gravett, page 216. Edison (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- could you answer the question below as well? At what point did the ability to cite this part of the Bible cease forever, in Jewish thinking. Thanks.

what guarantee do we have it won't repeat?

How do we know practicing, religious jews worldwide won't one day suddenly believe their god wants a modern-day people genocided? Or, for that matter, that just this hasn't recently happened? 85.181.151.106 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that members of any religion won't one day suddenly believe their god wants a modern genocide? or for that matter, how do we know an atheist won't initiate a genocide for some other reason? Answer: We don't. In all likelihood, someone will commit genocide, as it happens disturbingly often. Tomdobb (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just point out that many Christians also believe in "old Testament 'justice'", so this issue isn't unique to Jews. However, Israel really isn't in a position where it could commit a large-scale genocide and survive as a nation, even if it wanted to, as it would then lose support from the US. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I was really looking for an answer on religious grounds. I believe that people of Jewish faith follow not only the bible but also something else that is commentary. So does that commentary tell them not to genocide anymore, ie that their God would not want them to in the future? I think that is a reasonable thing for their commentary to say (however they justify it) and am looking for the citation. Please don't remove this question as a troll since I ask it in good faith. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.151.106 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your question has a rather unpleasant air to it, since it assumes that a faith needs to have a previous exhortation (however ridiculous or unpleasant) nullified by some higher authority, otherwise there remains a risk that the faith will continue to follow that exhortation. This is an entirely unwarranted assumption. And for some reason, you are focusing on Judaism. I wonder why? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am currently interested in Israels actions as possibly explained by Jewish religous understanding, thats why. Specifically, I think they may believe they have received instructions to genocide Palestinians, hence not open to a Palestinian state. However, I may be wrong and this is not a troll. You asked why I was interested.--92.230.67.1 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry, the above line includes a logical addition that may not be obvious to you. When I say I am interested in whether they might believe they have received instructions to genocide a modern people I really mean perhaps they might believe that God wants a people to die out. To you the two sentences might not be as equivalent as to me. Again this is just a hypothesis I am interested in exploring, not a troll, so if you know of any religious grounds (as in the Torah or the other work that is the interpretation of the Torah) I am interested in hearing it. Thanks, and I know this is a difficult topic to keep cool under. I am just interested in facts not in starting an argument, this is why I only just post my question and not my understanding or what I am investigating. Thanks for your patience and understanding.--92.230.67.1 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In the first place, what do you mean by "a people" and "they"? Things don't come about through the actions of some unspecified mass of people, you know. There are millions of individuals, each with their own views. Then there is the government, of course, who are the ones with political authority. Most importantly, the very idea that any mass group of people "might believe that God wants a people to die out" is, as I have said, a completely ludicrous and unfounded suspicion, utterly unworthy of serious consideration. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your question deserves comment from an actual rabbi or torah scholar who is more representative of jewish views. As you may be aware for example, biblical translations vary from religion to religion, even within the same religion there's controversy over Hebrew-to-English translations (for example it's hard to decide if Jonah was swallowed by a big fish or if it was a whale). There are in fact many examples where the Jewish elders and sages throughout history have given different rulings and interpretations on parts of the Torah and Jewish law (in some cases over how a commandment is to be applied, e.g. not mixing milk with meat). It is also worth adding that although mainstream Judaism is non-extremist, there are small sects within Judaism, mainly within Israel itself, that could be considered extremist such as believing in the execution of homosexuals or being zionist extremists that take it even further and believe in the destruction of the Palestinian peoples. The Jews I interact with regularly are not in any way involved in this line of extremist thought - while almost all seem to be pro-zionist, they do not seem to believe in the ahnialation of the Palestinian peoples, in fact many wanted peace in Gaza and were alarmed at the bloodsheed recently there. Frankly speaking, when it comes to extremists I'm more prone to think of the Muslim religion (which has numerous extremist groups). Rfwoolf (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Put yourself in Israel's shoes. They just escaped a brutal slavery by the skin of their teeth. They have no country. They have to find one or die. This wasn't a case of a powerful, established country beating up on a minority, this was a wandering minority fighting for its own survival. That isn't the usual idea of genocide. Wrad (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont know what youre really arguing but genocide is a cowardly act so it follows that weak countries would carry it out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.67.1 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying this was about survival, not hatred or killing for sport. Most people are willing to defend a person's right to fight and kill for their own survival. I can't think of a case of genocide in history where the offending people didn't have a country of their own and were truly fighting for their survival. Wrad (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The holocaust is an obvious example to the contrary. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The holocaust is the ultimate proof. It was the world's most powerful military nation trouncing minority. That was definitely not a case of Germany either a) not having a country, or b) fighting for their survival. My statement stands. Wrad (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I bet Germans thought they were fighting for their survival faced with the "Jewish Problem". Can anyone confirm whether this victim mentality was really part of Germans' thinking? this very early NAZI article (which rejects extermination) says "cleansing actions that adroitly respond to Judah's declaration of war". So it seems they thought Jews had declared war on them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.67.1 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no matter how you twist it you still won't be able to show that the Germans didn't have a country. Wrad (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This query seems based on a set of peculiar and misinformed beliefs by the OP. Practicing-religiously observant Jews are a minority in Israel as in all countries, fundamentalists (literal believers of the Bible) even fewer. They do not run the government or its policies, though the laws of halachah are accomodated in quite a few aspects of daily life, e.g. marriage and burial, some Jewish holidays as national holidays, kosher food in the IDF, public transportation limited and El Al planes don't take off and land on the Sabbath (though those of foreign airlines do) at Israel's main international airport, etc. Foreign policy is not set by either the Old Testament or the Talmud (the rabbinic commentary relating to religious practice). Why is Judaism seen as particularly obedient to the word of God, compared with other major religions (Christianity and Islam, if I'm not mistaken)? These far-fetched fears of Jews being spurred to commit genocide by something in the Jewish religion can be laid aside, or is there something here that doesn't convince you? How about looking at what other peoples might be moved by their gods or demagogues to commit genocide? And hey, let's think: what guarantees do the Jews have that the genocides against them won't repeat? -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

as for your last question, education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.67.1 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? So the Jews can't be educated in the same way, is that what you're saying? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

your last question was "what guarantees do the Jews have that the genocides against them won't repeat" and my answer is "education". ie the school system. I can spell it out further if you're still not seeing the connection between education and a reduction in genociding of jews (not by jews).--92.230.67.1 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm Chinese -- but I really don't understand why people get so much more worked up when a question touches and concerns the Jews compared to most other ethnicities. Sure, the OP is probably a little misguided/confused, but is there really the need to assume bad faith/bite/wear one's religion on one's sleeve (the last comment refering to some of the unconstructive comments further above)? The question can be answered rationally from a purely theological perspective, whatever the subjective motivations of the OP, and not involve modern politics. Deborahjay's answer about how few religious fundamentalists there are in Israel (and, I might add, by percentage fewer than those participating in this thread) is probably the most helpful.

One comment I might add is that, from a non-US, non-Israeli perspective, both the US and Israel are much, much less secular than most other countries. When reading judgments by the Israeli Supreme Court, I am often struck by how often religious texts are invoked - not as a part of the legal reasoning, of course, but obviously these religious texts have a much stronger cultural role than, say, the Bible in contemporary (non-US) Anglophone cultures.

Given this, I am not particularly surprised that the OP would feel that Jews are more likely to be influenced in their political decisions by a holy book; no doubt there would be many out there who believe the same about muslim nations, even though in most of those nations, too, fundamentalists are only a small minority. In such situations, it is really not the role of the reference desk to attack people because of their (perhaps misguided) beliefs. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

More likely than whom? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

More secular nations; other states - that, at least, is the assumption that seems to underlie the OP's question. I am not qualified to assess whether that is true. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummm....I'm surprised that no one's brought this up (either that or I missed it). Isn't the question "what guarantee do we have it won't repeat?" based on the assumption that a genocide had occurred? How much historical evidence is there that these Biblical stories are actually true? You can't repeat something if it never happened in the first place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Amalekites article does say they were exterminated... but I don't know how useful it is to draw parallels between the modern concept of a genocide with something that happened many millenia ago. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And where are the citations for other peoples at that time (and since) behaving in that way towards the Jews and others? The ancient history of the Jews, as recorded in the Old Testament, is being singled out with cherry-picked biblical quotes as "evidence:" but are no questions asked about whether those other peoples can be trusted not to rise up and slay their neighbors, let alone plan and execute a mass extermination? That is the definition of genocide, unless people misuse that word when referring to any killings of one people by another. What about the fact that in the intervening millenia, the Jews have been the victims of History's instance of genocide of unprecedented scope and proportions, and not done the same to anyone since those biblical times -- but others have, to them and others? -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here we go with the sensitivities. Would you get so worked up about it if the question was "the Chinese exterminated the [insert ancient ethnic group]. Is this because of their religious beliefs? And do such beliefs have any current influence?" I believe the OP has a right to ask such a question - which can be analysed rationally - about any or all religions, regardless of their private motivations. And - no. A genocide is not the same as a "mass extermination". See genocide. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in Israel's policy-making we must have dozens and dozens of articles on that. I don't think that most religious Jews in Israel believe that the Amalekites precedent requires that they commit genocide against Palestinians and even if some do, they aren't decisive. If you are bothered by Israel's policies and are curious about them, we do have plenty of articles. I'd suggest you start with Israeli–Palestinian conflict and work your way out from there. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

karl marx's influences on america

what are the Marxist ideas that have directly influenced The american society and government today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lego872 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you. See further our articles on Marxism, American Government and Western Marxism. Livewireo (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been American Communists (and I assume non-Communist followers of Marx), and Communism was the biggest US foreign policy concern, so I'd say pretty much all of them influenced the country. Can't say as to anything being more "direct" than anything else. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You could look up Werner Sombart's classic explanation of why Marx's ideas haven't had as much influence as some expected. AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The ten planks of the Communist manifesto call for the abolition of child labor, the introduction of a graduated income tax and Free education for children in public schools.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation

Moved to language desk

Ershad's reaction to Benazir's death

What was Ershad's reaction to the death of Benazir Bhutto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.46 (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This Ershad? I've not found a quote yet, but you could dig further using a news search. For example, Google News advanced search allows you to search by date so you could check for any comments he made to the press in the days/months after her assassination (Dec 27, 2007). The official Bangladesh government reaction is at International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Economics: Self-Fulfilling crisis (e.g. Global recession, Food shortages, etc)

What is the name of the phenomenon where, for example, in a food shortage, consumers rush to the shops and stock up on all the food, thereby purpetuating or even causing the food crisis?
Similarly, in a global economic meltdown, people stop spending and start saving, thereby shrinking the economy and purpetuating the global economic meltdown?
Also, can you think of any more examples? Rfwoolf (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it just seems to be called a Self-fulfilling prophecy, or at least a google search turns up a couple of academic papers which call it that. Another example would be a respected economist predicting a fall in the value of a particular commodity or the shares of a company, or predictions of a bank collapsing causing customers to close their accounts. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice examples. I'd be interested to see if anyone else that knows economics might be able to identify any economic definitions for this. Rfwoolf (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bank run has some good information on this topic. Livewireo (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Panic buying calls it a self-fulfilling prophecy. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It was introduced to us as "self-fulfilling expectations" in economics/finance class. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think of examples (involving participants who are free to act on their beliefs) where this doesn't work. In the stock market, if everyone believed that a certain share was undervalued, they'd buy it and drive its price up with the result that the share was, in a sense, undervalued. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that's why technical analysis tends to work in the short term (or, at least, looks like it does) - everyone uses the same systems so they all buy at the same time so the price does, indeed, go up. Of course, it goes straight back down again when they sell their shares to realise the profits, so you need to be among the first to buy and the first to sell in order to make any money. --Tango (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My A-level Economics teacher used to call this the Oedipan theory - although I'm not sure if that was his coinage since I've never seen the useage elsewhere. It's nothing to do with the Oedipus Complex, it relates to another aspect of the same story: it was prophesied that Oedipus would kill his father and bed his mother, as a result of which he was abandoned as a baby. However he survived into adulthood and - not knowing his father and mother - he killed the one in a quarrel and took the other as his mistress. The prophecy led to its own fulfillment since if it had not been made he would not have been abandoned, and would have known his own parents. 79.66.184.171 (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

LDS temples

Having run across Draper Utah Temple just now, I was curious: why are there so many temples in such a small area of northern Utah? Of course there are far more Latter-day Saints there than anywhere else, and the older temples were built when there wasn't the best transportation; but I don't understand the reason for needing another one in today's world — why couldn't locals go up to Salt Lake City or Jordan River? Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

They are all too crowded. More people want to go than there is room available. Wrad (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As a non-LDS, I'm really not that familiar even with what types of events are held at a temple, although I remember that marriages and baptisms are done there; can't they (forgive the words; I don't know how otherwise to say it!) just stay open longer hours? Or is there something in D&C that says that they can only be conducted at certain times, etc.? I read D&C some time ago, but I don't remember encountering anything of this sort. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read Temple (LDS Church), so now I understand what is conducted there, but I'm still confused otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

They actually do extend the hours, but they can only do so much before the seams start bursting. Wrad (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Extending the hours beyond a certain point won't help much. Most people would rather go either in the morning or in the early evening. If they had sessions at 3am, you wouldn't have very many attend, so really extending the hours wouldn't help much. Also, since just about everyone who works in a Temple is a volunteer, it's hard to find too many people who'll work an overnight shift.Tobyc75 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise that the workers were volunteers; I had in mind doing things like baptisms for the dead with third-shift workers. [Again, please pardon my wording; I don't mean to be disrespectful] No more confusion now; thanks for the answers! Nyttend (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

meaning of passage

what does this mean: "No one who understands the situation will be able to deny that the cause of these defensive measures lies primarily in the Jewish people itself. Even with the greatest degree of impartiality, one will conclude that one is dealing with a group of people that is on average highly unpleasant. That may not stop one from looking at the question clearly." This is from this link. It's from very early Nazi germany, when they're deciding what to do about the "Jewish Question". My question is what in the world did this guy have in mind when writing the part I put in bold?? To put my cards on the table, I am Jewish and surely do not share any of the opinions that the writer has. 92.230.67.1 (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He is implying that no matter how one looks at the Jewish people as a whole, they are "highly unpleasant." Livewireo (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ("on average"). But my question is, what is "highly unpleasant" about them? I'm guessing he doesn't mean that they're smart and hotter than non-jews, which is my opinion of them. (Though maybe it's because I'm Jewish :) ). What could he mean? 92.230.67.1 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find a logical basis for the beliefs of bigots is a futile exercise. Asking it of those who don't share the view is embarrasing, and of those who do, unpleasantly revealing. People have believed, and far too many still do believe, all sorts of nonsense through the years, from the inherent superiority of the "white race" to the inherent superiority of the male of any race. Please do not come to the Ref Desk looking for "justification" of deliberate ignorance. There is none. See Nazi propaganda for some of the ostensible rationales. // BL \\ (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The author is probably referring to the various stereotypes and prejudices that underlay antisemitism. See racism in general. If you are looking for specific antisemitic rants, Google might be a good place to start (or not). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The author is using a logical fallacy we have an article on: proof by assertion. Proving that a huge and diverse group of people is, on the whole, unpleasant is completely impossible, especially given that "unpleasant" is a completely subjective term. But if one writes with confidence that something is true, unwitting readers will accept the statement as fact, or at least consider it plausible. The majority of people subconsciously assume that anyone who seems well-spoken, well-written, or logical must know what they're talking about, and they don't feel compelled to ask for references for every allegation (and no, I don't have a reference for that allegation). So when someone says that "even an uneducated preschooler could not deny that the information on Wikipedia is biased," we say, "Geez, how freakin' biased must that website be?" Or, to use an actual example, consider the fact that the vast majority of people college-age and older believe that Wikipedia is unreliable and useless as a source, despite the fact that, used properly, it can be invaluable as a starting point for research. There has been many a thorough examination of Wikipedia's merits in the past decade, but a great many of the site's detractors simply heard the words "Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and it is therefore unreliable," and took this as fact. Every instance of vandalism or inaccuracy those people encountered on Wikipedia was then taken as further proof of that fact (see: confirmation bias). As rhetorical devices, allegations like this work best when they're presented in passing, as the basis for a more fully developed argument. A popular formula is: "We all know that a and b are true, so let's start talking about c, and how a + b + c = the end of the world as we know it." If you spend some time with the more blustery tv and radio personalities (Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage are among the best), you'll find that they sometimes speak in these types of statements exclusively, for minutes at a time. It can be fun to watch a skilled talker develop a compelling argument without providing any substance; a politician with a good speechwriter can be like a handbook on rhetoric. It's less fun to reflect on how genocides have so often been instigated by clever language and willful ignorance. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The author doesn't specifically state what is "unpleasant" about Jews. As PalaceGuard008 and Bielle have already said, he's probably referring to the various stereotypes and prejudices found in antisemitism and Nazi propaganda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

US colonies during the interregnum

I am looking for information on how English colonies in North America changed during the Commonwealth period (1640-1660)Dpeifer (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that English Revolution in the Colonies is the most relevant article. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also start with Colonial history of the United States and then click on the links to the histories of each individual colony. Unless you're interested in general British policies toward colonization, I think you'll find it necessary to research the colonies independently of one another, since they were all still very much in their infancy during this period and were fairly autonomous of one another. --Fullobeans (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the article fascinating. One thing is not clear to me from readng the article. What were the reasons most of the colonies supported Charles II? Were there economic concerns? 75Janice (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)75Janice

It is not clear that most of the colonies did. Only 6 are mentioned in the English Revolution in the Colonies article (out ohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&action=edit&section=28f 18 or 20 New World colonies at the time) as declaring for Charles although that list is likely incomplete. The colonies were based on royal charters (or commercial ones still proceeding from the king), the great and good got their land grants based on the charters and controlled the local legislatures. Except for the Puritans, mainly in Massachusetts, colonists in general didn't have much reason to support Cromwell. For instance, Massachusetts and Connecticut provided safe haven for two of the regicides even after the Restoration. (See Edward_Whalley#Withdrawal_to_the_colonies) Rmhermen (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some interesting connections between the Commonwealth and Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 Virginia. The WP page on Bacon's Rebellion is rather lacking, but a google search on it and terms like "new model army" turns up lots of stuff. There's a book called 1676: The End of American Independence that makes a case for Bacon's Rebellion being a kind of echo of the English Civil War. I won't get into details, but there are curious connections between Bacon's army of rebellion in Virginia and the New Model Army. See also the book The Many-headed Hydra, especially the section starting on page 135, "Virginia 1663-1676", which mentions connections between unrest in Virginia in the late 17th century and the Commonwealth, New Model Army, persecution of non-conformists, etc. And as an aside, a couple interesting things that have roots in Bacon's Rebellion are the Right to keep and bear arms as later enshrined in the US Constitution, and the increasing trend of importing African slaves for hard labor rather than poor and/or lower class people from England as indentured servants. Pfly (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

March 6

Plato

This is not homework question. What is the major ethical problem that Plato attempted to solve and what is his solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.130 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this question does present an ethical problem... --84.221.69.16 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A tongue-in-cheek answer would be:

• • • The problem? How do we make ourselves as a society and as individuals reach the highest good we possibly can?
    • Plato's answer: By putting a philosopher like me in charge of everything. Wrad (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For the details, read The Republic. Algebraist 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For the summary, read The Republic (Plato). --Fullobeans (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Plato's problem was of course a major question in ethics that stumped every ancient Greek philosopher until Plato published his famous 255-page solution that filled the entire issue of the Athenian Journal of Philosophy for Fall, 396 BC <wink>. 76.195.10.34 (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

His major ethical problem was "How can I call these books 'Dialogs' when one guy does all the talking?" His answer was to insert phrases like "Apparantly so, Socrates" and "Tell me more, Socrates" every twenty pages or so. :-) B00P (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Have to wonder about Plato's own ethics, maybe they are the same as lawyers where the best argument wins, making him like the Sophists he attacked. He essentially, beat them at their own game by having the better argument and pulling-power, and as above using Socrates' name as authority. Now whether it was his game or he was doing parody, is still up for argument. See Sophists. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bob was there, too. —Tamfang (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Attack against Sri Lankan cricket team

Please, after reading the article I don't understand some points. If the security was presidential-style, why did it happen?. And another question, why does Pakistan fight terrorists with the ordinary police and not with the Army? Police officers only have an AK-47 (I guess). With respect I say that Musharraf was totally right, if it was the Elite Force of Pakistani Police... then, poor people those who are protected by them. --190.49.110.4 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The people being protected all survived, didn't they? So it seems the protection was successful (although at a high price). Terrorists are usually fought by police - police handle domestic security, the army handles foreign security. --Tango (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Some are saying that the fact they survived is more due to the bus-driver keeping his cool than to the official protection... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

While the Sri Lankans were (reportedly) offered "presidential style" security, it is apparent they were not given it. The article indeed discusses the security criticisms, where a number of individuals state that the number and quality of the escort was inadequate. (Although to temper the criticism, one might say that the escort did their job: the cricketers and officials survived the attack with moinor injuries; 6 policemen gave their lives.) While many countries use army units in planned encounters with terrorists, most escorts of civilians are provided by the police. Generally, the police used for such escorts are highly trained and well armed. Gwinva (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly... for example Mexico fights drug dealers with the Army in the North. --190.49.110.4 (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The obvious answers are that some significant part of the Pakistani military is out of the control of the government, and is supportive of certain groups called terrorists. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't some police play dead? Whatever the reasons, real fear, commonsense or collusion, it brought a human quality to the situation, for me anyway. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the section, the biggest (there were others) problem appears to have been that umpires were abandoned. So even if the players were given Presidential style security, the umpires weren't... I guess the umpires were just taken as the Presidents entourage. The other issue to remember is I think being attacked by people with "AK-47 assault rifles, hand grenades, RPG/LAW launchers, claymores and explosive charges" in a urban domestic situation is always going to be problematic Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of John Donne's Holy Sonnet #8

Could anyone please explain John Donne's 8th Holy Sonnet? Reproduced here (public domain):

If faithful souls be alike glorified
As angels, then my father's soul doth see,
And adds this even to full felicity,
That valiantly I hell's wide mouth o'erstride.
But if our minds to these souls be descried
By circumstances, and by signs that be
Apparent in us not immediately,
How shall my mind's white truth by them be tried?
They see idolatrous lovers weep and mourn,
And stile blasphemous conjurers to call
On Jesu's name, and pharisaical
Dissemblers feign devotion. Then turn,
O pensive soul, to God, for He knows best
Thy grief, for He put it into my breast.

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkleg (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My reading is that it's a poem of atonement, saying (lines 1-4) that the narrator is basically faithful and has done valiant stuff in the world, and if that's enough to get him glorified as an angel (i.e. if it gets him admitted into heaven after his death), then his father's soul will be happy. I don't know whether "father" means God, or literally the narrator's earthly biological dad (who may be deceased, perhaps recently, which would make this a poem of grief). If, on the other hand, those angelic souls can see the various forms of human sin present in people even when it's not readily apparent, he asks how he will be judged (lines 5-8). The narrator lists various forms of hypocrisy present in fallible humans (9-12) and decides to turn to God for understanding (12-13), and expects to get the understanding since that same God is the one who created human fallibility in the first place (13-14). I had to look up "wikt:descried", which I interpret in this context as meaning "perceived". 76.195.10.34 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never read this one before, and there's nothing about it on Google Books. But my reading goes: The narrator is a faithful, religious guy who sees himself as living in a sinful world, and he's worried about whether he'll be judged on the basis of his own merits or the merits of the world in which he lives. So, translated: "If all faithfully religious people go to heaven when they die, then my dad's up there smiling, because he sees how I rise above this cesspool of humanity and he knows I'll get into heaven. But what if nobody's watching me, and when I die, I become just another soul fresh from a corrupt world? What if nobody sees my perfect life and clean conscience, just my twitchy eye and habit of looking at my shoes when I talk? There I'll be, standing at the pearly gates with a crowd of slutty hippies, foulmouthed Wiccans, and Hollywood press agents who converted on their death beds. *headdesk* Well, ol' soul of mine, better take it up with God, because he's the one that had you born into this mess in the first place." --Fullobeans (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's beautiful. Have it printed on your heavenly t-shirt Fullofbeans, er, Donne, and you"ll be shown in on the strength of such heart-felt prose. Just don't mention my name, because it's probably mud in that precinct ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I read it in a similar way to 86. Donne's father died when he was small, so it's not a poem of grief so much as a musing on what his father might think. It begins in lines 1-3 assuming that all faithful souls are glorified like angels, and thus his father (a faithful man) must be one of those looking down. So what does he see? A son who valiantly straddles hell's mouth: a victory which must delight (bring felicity) But (in 5/6) Donne stops and reflects that these watchers must judge a man's mind (or inner being) by other circumstances and appearance. And what does that display of the sincerity of a man? (How shall my mind's truth be judged?). From above, they have a good view of profane devotion: lovers who think so much of each other that it is idolatry, and ungodly people (vile conjurors, not stile) who seek the protection of God's name when it suits, and those Pharisees - or religious types - who appear devoted only because they're good at obeying rules. So, pensive soul (his father?) if you can't judge what's going on in my life, then turn to God: he made my soul, and he knows it, and can judge it. Gwinva (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Private music lessons vs. university course

What is considered superior education, private instrument lessons with an instructor or a university performance course? Voyaging^(talk) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If both are taught by great teachers, it depends entirely on your skill level and what you hope to accomplish. You probably won't benefit from a college course if you're lousy at your instrument. You'd be much better off with a private instructor who can gauge your progress, help you with your weak points, and introduce new knowledge as you're ready for it. If you're already proficient at your instrument, though, it could be immensely beneficial for you to buckle down and learn all of the technical aspects of performance, all at once. To get the same knowledge from private instruction, you'd have to do some research (and probably pay more money) to find a teacher who actually knows what they're talking about, and then you'd have to design a course of study to make sure you covered everything. Additionally, if you're talking about a university program that includes multiple classes with multiple instructors, well, there are obvious benefits to learning from multiple people. Every teacher's got their quirks and hangups, so it's good to get a second, third, fourth, and seventeenth opinion. If you spend a long time with one private instructor exclusively, you're putting a lot of faith in their ability to give you a well-rounded education.

It's also important to know what you're going to do with your education. If you'd potentially like to teach or apply for music industry jobs, then "I have a degree in performance from _____" sounds a lot better than "I play the guitar." If you just want to make music on your own or play in a band, then all that matters is that you sound good. If you want to make a living as a studio musician or concert cellist, you should probably be enrolling in a performance program and taking private lessons, because you'll need the knowledge and versatility guaranteed by your college credentials, as well as the fine-tuned sound and skill set attained through good private instruction. And if you're on the fence, take into consideration your own musical interests and learning style. I've known a slightly terrifying number of talented musicians who dropped out of Berklee because they knew what they wanted to play and how they wanted to play it, and they didn't see the merit of working their butts of to get better at doing things musically that didn't interest them. Of those who did graduate, most of them were in love with their instrument (heh heh), its versatility, and its possibilities, and their drive was to master it as fully as possible.

As for what's "considered superior," there are musicians who will laugh at you for going to school for music, there are musicians who will bow at your feet, and there are musicians who will say, "You mean some people don't go to school for music?" Depends largely on what genre of music you're playing. Most instrumentalists, though, will have had private lessons at some point in their lives, because it's a surefire way to take up music and make some progress even if you're an angry antisocial death metal drummer. But most people will care exponentially less about where you got your skills than they will about how skilled you are. So "superior," in this case, is "whatever type of education inspires you, pushes you, and challenges you to continue becoming better than you are." --Fullobeans (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

trying to find this book.

I am trying to find a particular book I don't know the title or author. The subject of the book is about a man who had a grocery cart in the streets of London and built it up to the largest Department Store in England. It goes from around 1900 to 1990. It tells his and his families story. It is a work of fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra2009 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As the Crow Flies? Oda Mari (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Top Ten Classical Music pieces

What are the top ten classical music pieces (is pieces the right noun? I know I can't call them songs) that every educated person should know? With my extremely limited knowledge of this, my favorite is Beethoven's 9th symphony and some pieces that I can't identify from Mozart. Your answers will help me jumpstart my new collection of classical music. --Emyn ned (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What are the ten best pop songs? Or the ten best foods? There is no answer, it's subjective. But if you are just looking for well-know pieces to try out, here's a few suggestions. I'm not saying that they are better than anything else, but they give you an idea of what's out there.

• Mozart Eine Kleine Nachtmusik
• Bach Toccata and Fugue in D minor
• Tchaikovsky 1812 overture
• Vivaldi The Four Seasons
• Stravinsky The Firebird
• Mendelssohn Violin Concerto
• Any opera by Wagner
• Faure Requiem Mass

DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Classic FM's annual "Hall of Fame" poll (next one due in a couple of weeks time, at Easter) currently has (brackets = 2007 positions):

1. (1) Vaughan Williams: The Lark Ascending
2. (3) Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No. 2
3. (10) Vaughan Williams: Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis
4. (5) Beethoven: Piano Concerto No. 5 'Emperor'
5. (8) Beethoven:Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral'
6. (4) Mozart: Clarinet Concerto
7. (2) Elgar: Cello Concerto
8. (7) Bruch: Violin Concerto No. 1
9. (6) Elgar: Enigma Variations
10. (9) Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 'Choral'

Enjoy! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in this list or this (rather avant-garde) list, which contain mostly more modern classical music (where "modern" means 1900 on) rather than the (generally rather older, but still very fine) works listed above. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're mostly looking to increase your knowledge of classical music and find some stuff you like, I'd say sign up for a Pandora account and create a station that plays music like Beethoven's 9th. As for a classical "top ten," I suspect it would be a bit overloaded with Mozart and Beethoven. If you're not sure how much Beethoven you know, sit through Immortal Beloved; it's two hours of thinking, "Oh, right, he wrote that one, too." Some other household names that haven't been mentioned are: Chopin, Rossini, Lizst, Handel, Haydn, and Schumann. And 20th century classical has its own all-star cast. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all! --Emyn ned (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you sign a "gag order" promising not to write bad reviews?

Apparently some doctors have started asking patients to sign gag order-like agreements that prevent them from writing negative reviews about them on websites.

Leaving aside the morality of this and whether or not a doctor can actually make you sign one, if you did sign one, wouldn't you be signing away your first amendment rights? Would the contract be legal?

I know gag orders made by a court probably have different standards, but this isn't from a court, this is just a contract between two individuals.

Thanks! — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The article you linked quotes one 'attorney Jim Speta, a Northwestern University Internet law specialist' as questioning the enforcability of these waivers. Algebraist 15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The First Amendment does not apply to private actors, only the government. Free speech only exists in the public sphere. Private individuals and/or actors can contract not to have what we regard as free speech. An example is nondisclosure agreements in lawsuit settlments. Nevertheless, I can't fathom how any court in the U.S. would enforce such a contract because it is unconsciousable. A patient seek medical treatment are not in equal bargaining positions. So I see a brake on the practice from general contract law and ethical rules governing physicians. Such agreements are adhesion contracts, typically. Take it or leave it without any negotiation. Courts may enforce such contracts but the contract is scrutizined much more closely. Personally, it infuriates me b/c patients may refrain from reviews believing in the validity of the contract. There may be circumstances where such a waiver is valid but they will be few and far between. How many consumers, though, are expertise in contract law. It has a chilling effect.75Janice (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

If such contracts are valid then you could well get into the situation where all doctors use them, giving patients no choice but to sign one in order to get treatment. That suggests to me that they probably aren't valid - once everyone was using them, they almost certainly wouldn't be, so I can't see why they would be valid now. There are already defamation laws that protect doctors, as well as anyone else, from false criticisms, that should be enough. --Tango (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Although not directly about medical issues, NDAs are pretty standard in the IT industry. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

An NDA, however, protects trade secrets. I don't think that if I signed an NDA with company X, it could forbid me from posting on a public forum "Company X is downright rude and unprofessional." It seems to be a whole different sphere. — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Such an agreement may founder due to the legal idea of consideration; that is, the patient has given up something of value (their opportunity to speak) - for a contract to be lawful, they have to have received something of some value in exchange (not necessarily "fair" value). If, for example a physician formerly offered a given procedure for $500 without the "no talk" clause, and now offers the same procedure for $500 but with the "no talk" clause, then the physician has sought to deprive the patient of something of value without making a consideration in return. So a court may find the contract, or that part of it, to be invalid. A similar (although admittedly more watertight) example is a "no compete" agreement, wherein a departing employee agrees not to work for his former employers competitors for a given period. Such an agreement deprives the employee of the capacity to fully earn their living (they can't pick any job they want; they may find it difficult to find any job that they're qualified for which isn't covered by the no-compete); for this reason no-compete agreements often specify a terminating benefit to compensate for this loss. If they don't, the employee has given up something of value, but hasn't received a consideration in exchange, and so the contract is likely to be held to be invalid. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely the doctor is giving consideration in that, in return for the signing of the waiver, he agrees to treat the patient? Algebraist 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If, before the waiver, he charged $500 for the procedure, then that $500 is the cost of the procedure alone. If he now charges $500 for the procedure and the waiver, he's getting the waiver for free, and so there's no consideration. If, however, he were to give a $50 discount for the waiver, then there is a consideration, and his case for enforcing the waiver is much stronger. Of course he may choose to structure his billing such that this difference is obscured (and he's under no obligation to offer the waiver-free service, at least to patients beginning a new course of treatment); whether a court agrees that a consideration has been made in such circumstances is uncertain. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See Contract of adhesion, which Wikipedi has chosen to call by the milder term Standard form contract. It is a "take it or leave it" contract entered into by parties with unequal bargaining power. "If the good which is being sold using a contract of adhesion is one which is essential or very important for the purchaser to buy (such as a rental property or a needed medical item) then the purchaser might have no choice but to accept the terms. This problem may be mitigated if there are many suppliers of the good who can potentially offer different terms." The consumer might have to sign away some valuable right to the other side. The side with the standard form contract may be in solidarity with all of his peers, so that the consumer cannot get the needed services from others. One response is for the legislature or congress to pass legislation outlawing such contracts of adhesion as being against societal interests or "public policy." In the case of a doctor refusing to treat you unless you sign an agreement never to criticize his work, courts or legislatures might see it as "unconscionable" or contrary to the interests of society to be informed about doctors whose services are seen as lacking. Time will tell. This certainly does not constitute legal advice. Edison (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all looking like legal advice to me. I think that 63.138.152.238 should be reminded that it would be inadvisable, to put it gently, to take action or fail to take action based on the opinions of strangers on an open forum such as this one. // BL \\ (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the uncertain legalities aside, there are plenty of avenues for consumer advocates (and the very ratings sites targetting by these measures), can do about this. It seems the doctors' strategy in the first place is to use the waivers as a means of getting the review sites to takedown the offending reviews. But as the review sites aren't parties to the waivers, they're not subject to them. So they may feel legally strong enough to decline the doctors' takedowns, which means the doctor has to go to court to get the review removed (which brings all that legal uncertainty, above, into play). Bar an unlikely gag order, the first doctor who does that will find himself on CNN, which won't be comfortable. Secondly the review site can post a list of doctors with this kind of clause in their contract, and (on the review page for a given physician) say "this physician imposes a gag on their patients"); and lastly they can do what Google does when it gets a takedown (e.g. from the Church of Scientology) - it doesn't just remove the item, but it replaces it with a "this item removed due to a legal notice by XYZ". Frankly a lot of negative online reviews (such as those at Amazon) can be put down to churlishness; if the review is missing but the implication that it was negative remains, that's probably worse than the actual negative review ("he's a mean doctor with cold hands") would have been. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know the answer because I am not the judge, appellate judges, jury, legislalture or executive. One additional concern became clear to me reading these posts. The doctor-patient relationship is pretty sancrosanct at law. Privilege exists. Courts state that privacy rights, particularly bodily autonomy, are constitutional concerns. This tradition makes this scenario difference from trademarks and commercial contracts. The Uniform Commercial Code uses the word "unconscionable" as the cases used the same term. They are not standard form contracts when they oveturned. Something more is present. Terms that shock the human conscience and unequal baragaining positions are present. Standard form contracts are enforced everyday. Commercial and trademark cases may present unconscionability and money may be involved. When doctors ask patients to sign such forms, patients are being asked to give up autonomy regarding their bodies. The legal and political battles will be interesting. Until there is a resolution, the legal factors can be discussed but no one can know the answer in a particular case.75Janice (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

Where did all the Open University programming go?

During the 1970s and 1980s, one could watch quite a lot of Open University course material broadcasts on BBC1 and BBC2 (generally stuffed into early morning or late night slots). I enjoyed watching a wide range of material; even though much of it went above my head, or depended on prior or ancillary materials that I didn't have, I still got a lot of interesting value from it. It was proper undergrad material presented with full academic rigour - culture and belief in the 16th century, introduction to oceanography, non-Euclidean geometry with kipper ties and cardboard diagrams. But that stuff is all gone now, with much of the late/early slots being filled with material for high schools. What's left of OU broadcasts on BBC-TV (and listed on http://open2.net) is regular factual programming co-produced with the BBC: popular, lightweight, non-academic stuff that (I guess) has some relationship to OU courses but that is accessible and unchallenging to pretty much any BBC2/BBC4 viewer. So my question is twofold: firstly, where do OU students get proper academic OU programs now (on DVD? over the internet?); secondly, can a non-student such as myself access this programming without enrolling for, or auditing, an OU course? Thanks. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, yes, I'm aware that a lot of universities put their lectures on Youtube and the like; the OU material I'm talking about wasn't just videos of a lecturer talking in front of a whiteboard, but rather proper (well, if rather cheaply, made) documentaries about academic subjects. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want lots and lots of lectures for absolutely nothing, many US universities put out video lectures and study material of entire courses for free (for instance, MIT has something called OpenCourseWare, but they are hardly the only ones). This material can also be found on iTunes U (it's a section in the iTunes store) and on the website Academic Earth, which collects these. It doesn't cost a dime, you don't even have to register for anything. Belisarius (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a partial answer to your question here, half way down the page. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sic transit gloria kippertie. Thanks for finding that. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As a student of the OU I can confirm that I get my course material in book/dvd/audio-cd form, but there is also a lot of content avaialble through the online 'studenthome' site (you need a login to get to the course materials). I'm not sure about archived stuff, but certainly current ou course material is heavily delivered through dvd based on the literally boxes full of dvds i've received over my OU studies. ny156uk (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nachlassen durch technik ;( And I guess that your login doesn't let you see all the material for every course, either, but you're stuck in a little ghetto of the course you've paid for? Anyway, thanks for your informative answer. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish someone would create a tv channel for all the OU stuff, then I'd get a channel that I'd want to watch. Currently I seldom watch tv as its all so slow and unintelligent. The top 25% of the country's ability range is a large audience. 89.241.34.62 (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason why Flag of Tenerife was modelled on the Flag of Scotland?

They're shockingly similar. Other than that, Tenerife is a reasonably good holiday destination... god damn I'd like to go there again... I mean seriously that sort of climate is just perfect.

Which leads me on to ask... why did people ever decide to inhabit Northern Europe in the first place, anyway? The weather sucks really, really hard and the days are too short most of the year, except in summer when they're too long.--Night of Islands (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Flags: the Flag of Tenerife and the Flag of Scotland both show the Saltire cross of Saint Andrew; Andy is the patron saint of Scotland, and this page explains his connections to Tenerife. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Andy is also patron saint of Russia (and a bunch of other places); his flag is still the insignia of the Russian Navy. -- 87.115.143.223 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when Northern Europe was first settled the weather was better, or perhaps it was simply a case of other places already being occupied. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen how hard it is to get anything to grow in Tenerife? Great as a holiday destination, not so great if you have to feed yourself. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does Robert Mugabe appear to have blue eyes?

I've noticed in several photographs that he does appear to have this trait... not seen in Africans unless of mixed European ancestry.

Also, why does he have a moustache like Hitler?

Thanks,

--Get 'Em Out By Friday (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See look here: [4]

Also, there is [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=90605 this thread], but it's on... THAT website.--Get 'Em Out By Friday (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm colour deficient, but to me they don't seem to be that blue. In any case I'm keen to know what colour they are Rfwoolf (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't seem to be at all blue to me, and I am not colour deficient. If you take a look at this [5] photo of Desmond Tutu, for example, you will see the same, or similar, colour. I believe it to be a lighter brown that merely comes with aging. As for the moustache, Hitler's went further out to the side; Mugabe's is limited to the nose-to-lip channel. // BL \\ (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but say that this reminds me of Sycorax#Ethnicity. Wrad (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

According to The Independent [6], he grew the moustache to annoy a warder when he was in gaol. That doesn't explain why he kept it when he was released, though. Warofdreams talk 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe he has a relatively common condition in older people called arcus senilis, it might also be what Desmond Tutu has. The nose lip channel previously referred to is called the philtrum Richard Avery (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

His eyes would appear to be, in RGB terms, grey rather than blue (which would fit with Richard Avery's diagnosis). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew I remembered this question cropping up before. Fribbler (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

March 7

Shouldnt UK government order credit card companies to lower their interest rates?

Currently in the UK, the interest rates on credit cards are something like 30 or 40 times the bank base rate. Why isnt the goverment ordering these interest rates to be lowered, so that people with cc debts are able to pay them off more easily and to spend more? And, rather than doing this "quantitative easing" by a circuitus method, wouldnt it be a lot more effective to spend the same amount of money by sending every adult in the UK a cheque for about £2000 and asking us to go and spend it? 78.146.195.92 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Credit card interest rates are high because they are quite high risk loans - lots of people fail to pay off their credit card debts and the banks lose money, to compensate for this they have to charge lots of interest. If the government set a limit on credit card rates the credit card companies would just not give credit cards to people that they couldn't justify giving such a low rate too, so it would actually decrease the availability of credit, not increase it. The problem with just giving people money is that they may well not spend it - people's jobs are in danger, they're struggling to pay mortgages, they're scared that they much be in serious financial difficulty very soon, so the sensible thing for an individual receiving £2000 to do at the moment is to save it (or use it to pay off debts). Spending it would be great for the economy, but generally a bad idea for the individual. This is a major problem with recessions - the worse it gets, the greater the incentive for individuals to save, not spend, which causes it to get even worse. A carefully targeted government stimulus (perhaps funded by quantitative easing) is supposed to get people spending by putting money into just the right parts of the economy where it will move around lots rather than just sitting in a bank account. I don't know if it will work, but that's the theory. --Tango (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

By that logic the best people to give lots of money to, to stimulate the economy, are people who have secure jobs and are already extremely rich. Maybe we've finally found a justification for Republican monetary policies. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite an answer, Tango. Hmm... Didn't the US try giving everyone some money? They're still in recession (AFAIK). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

They might have given some tax breaks, which effectively boils down to giving people money. I don't think it was a significant portion of their stimulus plans, though. --Tango (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've found our article on it: Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. "The study suggests that the rebate payments were an effective stimulus". - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that as Britain moves into recession, the chances of people defaulting on their debts increases, which means credit card companies need to charge higher rates to cover this increased risk of default (especially as, unlike mortgage lenders or car financing, credit card loans are unsecured). You can see a similar phenomenon in mortgage rates, which have fallen significantly less than by the amount central bank rates have been cut. The British government has tried asking credit card companies to reduce their rates[7] but seems reluctant to impose regulations on bank lending. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What other countries have networks of public footpaths and bridleways apart from the UK?

In Britain there is a dense network of paths through the fields and woods of the countryside where you have a legal entitlement to be able to walk or ride. I imagine that nearly all of them are are hundreds of years old. I enjoy walking through them. In the USA, by contrast, I understand that there are none apart from perhaps long distance paths and the large national parks; which puts me off ever wanting to live in the US. Are there any other countries that have similar networks of public footpaths as the UK does? 78.146.195.92 (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In Norway, Sweden and, according to the article below, also Scotland, Iceland and Finland, you can walk and camp almost everywhere you want as long as it is not someone's garden or cropland, regardless of who actually owns the land. See Allemannsretten. Jørgen (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know (and I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong), the United States has no legal provision comparable to the preservation of Rights of way in England and Wales—private property is private and may be forbidden to trespassers. But I think you're underestimating the areas that people are permitted (or even encouraged) to walk through. Certainly, "long distance paths and the large national parks" are not the whole story; there are a wide variety of types of U.S. public lands, and there are trails established even through private property that one can traverse. I may be lucky, but I've walked anywhere I wanted to, within reason, without getting a buttload of buckshot. Deor (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I've been surprised to see that in some US states the great majoprity of land is publically owned, am I right in thinking that (even if you live in a small US town) if you want to go walking in the US, this would typrically involve driving a considerable distance to an area where walking is allowed? Whereas in the UK the network of footpaths connects with all towns, cities, villages, so once you have cleared the suburbs you can begin walking along a footpath. Hence in the UK you have the pleasure - except if you live in the middle of an urban area - of being able to walk out of your front door and within minutes being on a footpath through the countryside, without requiring a lot of planning or preperation beforehand. Personally, I would not want to live in any country where something similar could not be done. What about Australia, New Zealand, France or Italy please? 89.243.78.197 (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

See greenways. In the US, these are often old train right-of-ways, where the tracks have been removed and replaced with a foot and bicycle path. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It will greatly depend on where exactly you live - the U.S. has tens of thousands of miles of trails and if you value that you can easily arrange to live near one. This may mean that you have to travel farther to find employment, though. Rmhermen (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, if I may say so even people living in small towns in the US must really feel trapped if they cannot walk through the adjacent countryside, but can only drive along the road. Isn't it customary to take dogs for walks as it is in the UK? I get the impression from the huge volume of US films and tv programmes we see here that it is not even possible to walk along the side of road without being stopped by the police, or having things thrown at you by drivers. Is that true or just a myth please? 89.240.206.60 (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Any chance this is all a snide plot (see conspiracy theory) by the automotive industry of the US of A to reduce the lower extremities to limp dangly tentacles to the greater glory of the Detroit Trinity? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what programs you're watching but I don't know of any anecdotal evidence of anyone having something thrown at them simply for walking on the side of the road. And I do live in a small town in the US. I know my neighbors (some better than others, of course) and have permission from all of them to walk on their land, even with our dogs. We have ~10 acres, our neighbors each have at least that. Not that we really needed to ask. Most people around here don't mind if you simply go for walks on their property. We walk our dogs on the side of the road quite a bit, especially during the warmer months. So, long story short, if you stop assuming that all of the US is just like what you see on CSI or West Wing, I won't assume that Brits aren't all like what I see on Are You Being Served? Dismas|^(talk) 03:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and it's not really related to hiking but Vermont has a network of trails dedicated to use by snowmobiles. See VAST. Dismas|^(talk) 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read a bit about footpaths in England and, as a citizen of the US, I am jealous. Sure there are various kinds of public trails and walkways in the US, but if I understand the English footpath network right, there is nothing like that in the US. In some places, as pointed out above, it is considered acceptable to walk across your neighbor's private property, but in many many places there are instead signs saying "Private Property, No Trepassing", and lots of fences. This topic always reminds me of the Woodie Guthrie song This Land Is Your Land, which in some versions includes the lines As I went walking I saw a sign there, And on the sign it said "No Trespassing." But on the other side it didn't say nothing, That side was made for you and me. Apparently when Pete Seeger sang the song at President Obama's inauguration he included those lyrics, to my delight. Pfly (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Small correction: he sang "on the sign it said Private property/ But on the other side it didn't say nothing/ That side was made for you and me" [8]. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So is the meaning of the Woodie Guthrie song to Americans that it is wrong to have an excessive amount of private property, that there ought to be some land set aside for people to walk on and enjoy? (Some of the villages in england have areas of communally owned land called commons that originally in mediaeval times were used to graze the villagers livestock - hence expressions like the Tragedy of the commons - but which are now used for walking on, playing cricket, and being an attractive grassed area usually in the centre of the village. If I was a philanthropist then after world hunger and world peace had been solved, I would buy up land to donate to common-less villages - including small towns in the US - so that the inhabitants could enjoy the open space.) More recently, is the critique of the song not understood, that it is assumed to celebrate the huge amount of land that America has? 89.243.46.238 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Americans need to do something like the Mass trespass of Kinder Scout that occurred in Britain in the 1930s, that resulted in the law being changed to give people public access to private land (if big enough etc etc). I'm not from that part of England, but I think Kinder Scout is near large cities. Before reading the article, I was not aware that even access to public footpaths had been restricted then. 89.242.111.236 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The "right to ramble" is one of the more surprising things about British life to an American. You'd never hear of such a thing in the U.S., where private property is highly regarded. I don't know what the situation was in Britain, but in the U.S., it's not as if a few rich people own all of the property outside of cities; it belongs mostly to farmers and middle-class exurbanites. I can assure you my parents would be none too pleased if the government were to decide that anyone could just ramble through their 3/4 acre property. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know the details, but it does not apply to small areas of land such as 3/4 acre, so your parents would still have their privacy, and get the additional freedom to walk through and enjoy the countryside around them. I've only got a vague notion of this, but one scheme that has become common in recent years is where farmers get paid by the EU for leaving fields fallow, if they agree to allow the public to walk over it. I do not know what the details of the legislation relating to giving public access to large area of moorland, mountain, etc are. There is no right to roam over agricultural fields etc., except through the mostly ancient public footpaths. I'm shocked by the impression I'm getting - that walking more than a few yards in America is regarded as being alien or eccentric, a view reinforced by the invention of the Segway. 89.242.99.255 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So is the meaning of the Woodie Guthrie song to Americans that it is wrong to have an excessive amount of private property, that there ought to be some land set aside for people to walk on and enjoy? I only meant that my experience in the US with finding lots of "Private Property, No Trepassing" types of signs and lots of fences in places that would make excellent walking paths reminds me of those Woodie Guthrie lyrics. I don't know what the meaning of the song is exactly. I suspect it is more a protest about private land ownership in general. Pfly (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Globalisation

Movements such as the left-libertarian, right-populist and religious-fundamentalist groups, which have been facilitated by globalisation, have been argued to have in common which of the following?

a) They are concered with maintaining traditional values and lifestyles b) They are respones to new risks generated by the new global society c) A repertoire of protest and publicity for their causes d) a and b e) b and cUQ68 (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Which test is this from? // BL \\ (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a terribly coherent one, I'd say. —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A multiple choice question? That deserves a prize in the "least disguised homework question" stakes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's so obviously a homework (well, test) question I almost think it might not be! --Tango (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think “the left-libertarian, right-populist and religious-fundamentalist groups, which have been facilitated by globalisation,” as opposed to say, the world’s poor in general? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

history of brasil 1955 to 2008

reference book written in english  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.21.155 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In Brazil, there is listed A Concise History of Brazil by Boris Fausto (Cambridge: CUP, 1999) under "Further Reading". I cannot speak to its value, bias or accuracy. I'd be surprised if there were histories available yet on the years after the 1990s; we don't have a perspective yet to treat them as other than current events. // BL \\ (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of history books that cover the period of the post-1990s. Whether they come up to 2008 just depends on when they were published, but I am sure there are books that move into the 21st century and still consider themselves "history." Recent history is often done with a little more caution but it's hardly eschewed completely... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, please, out of the "lots", help us out with a few titles. I am sure the OP will be appreciative of your efforts. // BL \\ (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not my sub-field, so I don't know anything off the top of my head, but the notion that works of history don't or can't come up to the present is incorrect. Whether something is "history" or not is not defined by its scope or time period. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A Google News search can help with the more recent history. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not "history." Journalism and recent history are not the same thing. They have different audiences and methodologies, and are entirely different genres. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but the thing is that history books take considerable time to produce (and you never know when they are going to be published). If books covering recent events are available, they're more likely to be approach them from a journalistic point of view, so that's the best you'll get. --Anonymous, 05:22 UTC, March 8, 2009.

A person on my rented property

I have a question. I have a roommate, and for a long time we've had a mutual best friend. However, this best friend recently fooled around (sort of, as much as possible) with a girl I had a major thing for, which was definitely my last straw in the relationship (he knew this, I introduced them).

As a result, I don't want him to ever to step foot in my house again. However, he is still best friend's with my roommate. Do I have the legal ability to tell this man to leave my property if my roommate disagrees? I do know that renters do have many of the legal rights as a normal property owner would have. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So which country do you live in? 89.243.78.197 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

USA, Pennsylvania. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, look! What's that at the top of the page? "The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead." Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not legal advice. Please refrain from patronizing me. I'm asking what's legal. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are asking for legal advice. You have a problem, and you're asking what your legal rights are.

On a non-legal note, however, if your "best friend" -- which I would take to mean, at the very least, that he's a good friend -- "sort of" fools around with someone you have a crush on, you might want to consider that the other party was a willing participant. Grown-ups really don't get to call dibs on people, and you don't get to tell people who they're allowed to fool around with. And now you want to sic the law on your friend?

Dude.

If he's being a dick about it, that's one thing, and you can (and should) call him on that, but if your response to someone hitting on someone you have a crush on -- not even your girlfriend of wife, mind you, someone who is under no obligation to you -- is to look for a legal solution to a personal problem, that's probably not going to improve things any. (Or, to look at this differently: if you really, honestly can't get along with someone, and your roommate still insists on bringing that person over all the time, your most immediate problem probably isn't with the guy you have the beef with.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you must know, there was a mutual masturbation session. That's not just hitting on. And really, no dibs, but seriously some respect? After being told I couldn't even see his potential gf's for jealousy? And you're right it was mutual, and I'm pissed at both. But I'm not arguing that part. I want to know if I can tell my roommate that I don't want him around, and I can say "I can enforce this" without him saying "tough cookies it's my apartment too." Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So, he's got a double standard. That makes him a kind of a dick, but personally, I'd avoid going down that road myself. As for your roommate, well... it is his apartment, too, right? I mean, he lives there with you and presumably pays his share of the rent. If you live with someone, in the end, you have to put up with them or move out (or ask them to move out, if you're the one holding the lease). Seriously, if you go all legal on his ass here, there's no way for you to do this without coming off as petty... at best. It sets an ugly precedent, too, because if you establish that this is how you do things, you'd better be prepared to be dealt with like that yourself. All this will do is drive a wedge between you and your friends without actually resolving the issues that make you want to do this. It's great if you want some extra drama in your life, but it sounds to me like you've had your fill as it is. Up to you, of course, but I really wouldn't do this. (And I'm not putting down how you feel, because obviously you're hurting. That sucks, I know. But that's life for you, and you can't throw down ultimatums like this without doing even more damage to your friendships and your reputation among your friends.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

a) This is a request for legal advice, so we can't help you and b) you haven't given us enough information to help even if we could - what is the legal status of your roommate? Are you subletting to him, him to you, is he on equal terms with you, is he the owner? It will make a big difference. I think if you can't agree on something like this, you would probably be best just not living together. If you really want to take legal action to deal with it, you'll need to talk to a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a harsh truth: it doesn't matter what the law says. You're not going to use the law to solve this problem; even if the law did allow you do, you'd be entirely mad to go down that avenue. Say, hypothetically, that you could forbid this person in law; you tell your roommate, and he ignores this. So what are you going to do about it? If you try to remove the person yourself, by force, you're taking an enormous legal (and physical) risk, to little net benefit to yourself. The landlord absolutely doesn't care, and the cops are very unlikely to help either. You could get a court order, which makes the cops care, but even if you have grounds (which you very probably don't) that'll cost you thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to find out. And, bluntly, you never want on-duty cops inside your home unless you absolutely have no choice - can you be entirely confident that someone at that party you had last month didn't leave a reefer under someone's bed? Lots of things might well be enforceable in law, but the cost of finding out is so high that most people don't bother - that is everyone except lawyers (who get their own services for free) and crazy people (who care more about "the principle" than their own best interests). You need to either solve this problem by negotiation, live with it, or find somewhere else to live. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Having faced similar roommate problems, let me explain that it is not true that a legal right and justice are the same things. Sometimes they are but most times there is no correlation. The reality to is even if you a legal right, a judge will be so annoyed with you for wasting valuable resources that you will never ever win. Time solves these problems as in you are extremely unlikely to be in your current living arrangements in the near future. Young people tend to be transient.Jhussock (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)75Janice

I don't know if such things exist in your jurisdiction, but you may want to seek out tenant's associations or other such community-based or government-supported support groups for help in resolving your dispute. As has been mentioned many times above, start by talking to your flatmate! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't tenants' associations more about helping with relations between tenants and landlords, or maybe tenants and neighbours, not tenants and their roommate? It's up to you to deal with what goes on inside your own home. --Tango (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the jurisdiction and the particular body. A tenant and a sub-tenant is a variant on a landlord-tenant relationship; it is not a domestic relationship. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions about photo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antananarivo_Street.JPG

This is a picture of a town in Madagascar. It wonderful in having a lot of detail to pore over. What is the name of the blue tree at the top right please? What are the names of the fruits at the bottom right and left? I can see oranges and probably mangoes, but there are others I do not recognise. In the lower middle of the photo there is someone wearing what looks like a gold suit and white hat, with hands in their pockets standing on the kerb of the road. Is there any significance in wearing gold? Thanks. 89.243.78.197 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The tree in the background looks a lot like a jacaranda. Richard Avery (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear 89.243, thank you for bringing this photo to my attention, and for asking your questions. They seem to me to exhibit exactly the sort of curiosity and thirst for knowledge that Wikipedia was set up for. I don't know about the gold suit, but hope I can help on the fruit. The stall on the left is harder to interpret, but the one on the right appears to be selling ripe yellow-orange mangoes, unripe yellow-green mangoes, and (in the foreground) round orange fruits that could be citrus (even plain old oranges), or could be something more interesting such as persimmons. One way to check your guesses, after looking at our articles, is to go to Google Images and type in the word you think it might be, e.g. jacaranda. That should help you confirm or eliminate candidates. Good luck in cultivating your enthusiasm for learning! If you want any help, feel free to put a note on my talkpage. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a jacaranda, too, but our article on jacaranda doesn't mention it growing in east Africa. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I was wrong, the article mentions Zimbabwe. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar, as a sort of island-continent, has its own highly distinctive flora and fauna, so the presence or absence of jacaranda elsewhere in the geopolitical entity of Africa has little bearing on what might be expected to pop up in Antananarivo. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seal of American Samoa

I've been doing some research for an article, but there is one thing I have been unable to find on Wikipedia, Google, or its official website, so I come here! I'm trying to find the date the motto of American Samoa, Samoa, Muamua Le Atua, was adopted, which would be the same date the Seal of American Samoa was adopted, but I can't find that year anywhere. When would it be? Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The seal was adopted by the legislature on March 5, 1973, approved by the territory's governor on March 26 and dedicated on April 17 of that year.[9] I couldn't find specific information about the motto's adoption. --Cam (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! Reywas92^Talk 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The motto was adopted officially in 1975 through A.S. Code tit. 1, § 1102. Shearer, B. F., & Shearer, B. S. (1987). State Names, Seals, Flags, and Symbols: A historical guide. pp. 34, 37 fn #78. —eric 04:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sign-language paredolia and mondegreens

Do speakers(deaf or hearing) of sign languages ever find themselves noticing "signs" in meaningless gestures or random motions, just as hearing people sometimes hear words of their language in meaningless noise(such as the "Satanic messages" in music played backwards)? Can there be mondegreens in sign language as well? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Federal spending

How much money does the federal government spent under the Clinton adiministration, and how much under the [George Walker] Bush administration (+ comparing to the income from taxes)? Gridge (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

The article United States federal budget may be of use to you in answering this question. MarquisCostello (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WJ Clinton (1993-2000): $4.34 billion a day, and a deficit of $109.6 billion a day. GW Bush* (2001-08): $6.56 billion a day (+51%), and a deficit of $685.6 billion a day (+525.2%). Ya gotta love those fiscal conservatives! * does not include clean-up costs.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain those daily deficit figures ? What I don't understand is (1) how can the deficit per day be greater than the spending per day and (2) how you reach daily deficit figures of $100 billion or more, when the annual US federal budget deficit is of the order of $500 billion (from United States federal budget; "From FY 2003-2007, the national debt increased approximately $550 billion per year on average"). Gandalf61 (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

March 8

Info on Hal Bevan Petman, artist

Hello, I am not sure how to use your site. I wrote the material given below some yrs ago, but have not rcvd any response so far. Is it not visible to readers? Romano Hello, I am looking for information on the British portrait artist Hal Bevan-Petman. I would welcome any input for my research. Some basic stuff is available on a website I started up recently but I require: Photos of the artist,and information on his wife Beryl. Of course, input on portraits around the world would be great! Please look up my website www.halbevanpetman. com Romano====

I went back to the October, 2008 Archives where your question first appeared. I recall doing some checking about for iit at the time, but, if I came up with anything other than your own web site, I didn't provide an answer. We can read your request just fine. We just haven't had anyone who had an answer for you. Perhaps you will have better luck this time. // BL \\ (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Same (non)results as Bielle. Some entries on artnet and similar sites, very few details (all of which you already have in your website). Sorry. Maybe there is a Pakistani reference desk? My browser does not show all the scripts in the language box (not that I could decipher it, anyway). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Kassan, Uzbekistan (ca. 1942)

I've not succeeded in verifying the name of Kassan (or Kasan), a locale in Uzbekistan, in which Jewish refugees who had fled Poland at the outset of WWII were permitted to resettle in approx. 1942. Some "arrived by freight train from Kuibyshev" and it was possibly on the order of a "large town." Apparently many of these refugees (possibly numbering in the dozens, hundreds, or thousands) remained there or in the surrounding region until their repatriation to Poland at the end of the war. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

By googling around a little, I found that Kasan and Koson are two alternative spellings. Apparently, Koson is the Uzbek name (see uz:Qashqadaryo viloyati and uz:Koson) and Kasan is the Russian name (see ru:Кашкадарьинская область). — Kpalion^(talk) 10:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, this seems quite likely! Now, as this is my first acquaintance with the Uzbek language, I hadn't thought to ask: is there perhaps another variant spelling with an initial Q? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Deborah, yes, highly likely, see the twin towns Qorasuv and Kara-Suu, in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan respectively. Transliteration is not at all obvious, since both words are more often written in Cyrillic, yet the root-name is from Turkic languages. This example means "black water", but the same confusing divisions holds true throughout Central Asia. Stalin had a fun time drawing borders to separate people! You might get a more precise answer on the language desk, of course. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, for general edification, the Kuibyshev you mention links to a dab page with about ten places to choose from. It takes some detective work! BrainyBabe (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Religious fanatics

I wanted to ask what can be done about this ridiculous attack on critical thinking and reason, which techniques are best to appeal to the public about this issue???Bastard Soap (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to be far more specific. What attack on critical thinking and reasoning? What issue? That there are people who you characterise as religious fanatics? Mor Info Pls. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(After E/C) Are you referring to some specific evidence of "religious fanaticism"? If not, and you want a general approach, please understand religious belief is not, by defintion, subject to "critical thinking and reason"; if it were, then it would no longer be belief, but fact. It is also likely true that no believer considers him/herself to be a "fanatic", but merely more observant than most. // BL \\ (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You can look at the classic little book The True Believer by Eric Hoffer; however, his subject matter was by no means confined to fanatics of the religious type only... AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean is there something that works with these people? That makes them realise how retarded and unreasonable they are? I'm talking about shit like spreading of aids because "condoms are bad", the murder of 50 people over a friggin cartoon and things like that. Is there any hope of eradicating such nonsense?Bastard Soap (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've toyed with the idea of inventing a religion as alternative to contemporary religions, one that emphasises peace, non-violence (except in the case of self-defence), the rights of others to live as they please, etc.. It might take a while to catch on though. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's always good to understand where they're coming from. People respond well to being understood. Wrad (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand them, they are to mentally weak to accept the true nature of the world, and prefer to believe they can speak in the name of god and justify their ridiculous opinions with divinity, but that doesn't really help me pull their head out of their ass when they have been thought that it's a virtue to be an unreasonable fucktard and to make no compromise? 92.251.35.30 (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, starting from a position that

a)you understand 'the true nature of the world'

b)religious belief is a sign of mental weakness

c)they personally are mentally weak if they don't agree with you

d)them not compromising is them being an unreasonable fucktard

e)while you are able to consider their opinions ridiculous because you accept the true nature of the world

probably impedes constructive discussion. If only because it will tend to make them defensive and unwilling to cede any ground. People are far more open to compromise when they don't feel under attack.

For example, being raised in a religious household with a brother who was hostile to the religion from an early age: he would talk about people blindly adhering to doctrine, etc, because every conversation he had with them he cast himself as a hostile outsider. People responded to that by closing ranks and defending their views. My experience, questioning as an insider with no hostile edge, was that just about everybody disagreed with some areas of doctrine and were certainly open to discussing others. And they would talk about acting to change some of it; these some areas they would automatically defend if they were being attacked by a hostile outsider. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

March 9

Why Is Only Saturday Named After a Roman God?

As the article on Saturday notes, Saturday is the only day of the week in which the English name comes from Roman mythology; the English names of all of the other days of the week come from Anglo-Saxon polytheism. Why did Saturday alone receive this distinction? Saturn doesn't seem like an obvious choice of namesakes at all. I assume we got "Saturday" from the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) settlers of Britain (it's akin to Old Frisian sāterdei, according to Merriam-Webster), so why would there even have been a Latin influence on something as basic as the days of the week? And if there were a Latin influence, why did it not extend to the names of the other days? John M Baker (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

According to our article Saturday was named after the planet and not the god directly. Of course, you are right that it is the only one sharing a name with the Roman gods. Sunday and Monday are of course named after the Sun and Moon, while Tuesday (Tyr), Wednesday (Odin), Thursday (Thor), and Friday (Friga) are all named after Norse Gods. Not sure there's a reason for this beyond "just cuz"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pushing it back a level doesn't make much difference. Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter are all planets named after Roman gods, but none of them have their own days. Also, I note that the article's assertion that the day is named for the planet is uncited, so I'm not sure how much credence to give it. John M Baker (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably because of England's Norse heritage. Other Romanized (not sure if I spelled that correctly) countries in southern Europe might use names of Roman gods. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not "might", "do". For example, the French for Tuesday is "mardi", named after the Roman God/planet Mars. --Tango (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

John M -- The week was spread to northern Europe through the Roman Empire, so of course it wouldn't be surprising for Latin to exert an influence. None of the West Germanic languages use the name of a native god for Saturday (high German uses a very altered form of the word "Sabbath", while the other languages use a form of "Saturn day"), so maybe no god was considered equivalent to Roman Saturnus, or was assigned to the planet. The North Germanic languages use forms related to "Laugardagur" for Saturday... AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that there is excellent information in the article on week-day names, to which I've added a link from Saturday. If I'm following the discussion there properly, actually all of the weekday names are translations from Latin, but with cognate Norse gods substituted for the original Roman gods (a somewhat strained cognate in the case of Mercury/Woden), and apparently there was not thought to be any cognate for Saturn. The assertion in the Saturday article, that the English names of all of the other days of the week come from Anglo-Saxon polytheism, is apparently a bit misleading, particularly in the cases of Sunday and Monday. John M Baker (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it curious that when the Catholic Church held sway over all of Europe, they didn't declare that it was blasphemous to use names for days (or months) which were named after non-Christian gods. I'd expect they would have provided us with names like Johnday, Josephday, Maryday, Mosesday, Solomanday, Adamday, and, of course, Jesusday. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

StuRat -- look at Franz Werfel's strange (but kind of interesting) semi-classic science fiction novel "Star of the Unborn" for a hypothetical Christianized version of the names of the planets (I can't remember them all, but Venus was Mary Magdalene, and I seem to remember that Jupiter was John the Baptist). Some of the names of the Roman calendar months originally had connections with Roman pagan religion, but they also survived the coming of Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Quakers used to avoid using "pagan" names for days of the week and instead just called them First Day, Second Day, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Once these names take hold, they stick. When the Bolshevik atheists came to power in Russia, they didn't change the Russian name for Saturday just because it's cognate with "Sabbath" (Суббота - Subbóta). Nor that of Sunday (Воскресенье - Voskrésenye - which literally means "Resurrection"). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a mystery. Saturn, the deity, is glossed in Old Norse sources with the North Germanic god Njörðr, so one would think Njörðr would be the nearest equivalent. Njörðr's importance is well attested among the North Germanic peoples, and his female "twin" is attested in Tacitus' 1st century work Germania; Nerthus. Therefore Nerthus would have been known to the Angles—who later became the West Germanic Anglo-Saxons that formed England—and the North Germanic Danes. So why didn't they gloss Saturday as "Njörðr's day"? While the connection may be obvious with the late gloss in mind, I've never seen the Njörðr-Saturday thing mentioned by anyone anywhere, so this is just my personal commentary. Jacob Grimm wrote a bit about how the name may point to a similarly named, unattested figure potentially from Germanic mythology in volume I of his Teutonic Mythology, and this likely deserves some more attention. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't people buying stocks in mass?

According to the indexes, stock prices have dropped more or less in half. I would think this is a great time to buy stocks, considering that the recession is bound to end some time. Correct me if I'm wrong: Do people wait to buy stocks because they want to wait for it to be at the cheapest price? In other words, are they pouncing only when they think the market is at the bottom?128.163.224.198 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People who invest are investing. People who do not invest are, in general, not investing. Asking why people don't invest really has nothing to do with the stock market or the economy. It is mainly just the person. If you give one person a thousand dollars, he might invest it. Another person might off credit cards. Another might race off to Vegas and lose it all on the first night. -- kainaw™ 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People are not "pouncing", as you put it, despite the low index, because of several reasons. One, no-one can foresee how this current crisis will turn out, or when the market will recover. It may still fall further in some markets. It's a fairly risky time to be investing. It is precisely your confidence ("recession is bound to end some time") that many people lack. Plus, "some time" could be quite some time.

Two, the reason the stocks fell in the first place, if you remember, is because people had to sell, for various reasons including due to their exposure to subprime mortgages. Many of these issues have not been resolved: it is still not easy to find debt financing, for example. As a result, those people who sold out are often still not in a position to buy-in.

Given this, there *are* safer forms of investment which people may prefer. At the moment, a term deposit in a bank is not a bad idea. Others are investing in gold and other commodities. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter what anyone says, investing is a form of gambling. Thus it should only be done with discretionary funds - money one doesn't need for other purposes. With the current financial crisis, many people are worried that their jobs (thus incomes) may disappear, so they hold on to their cash. For those who do have extra funds available, you are correct that this would be a good time to invest, but, as PalaceGuard008 points out, some have lost their discretionary funds, while others are in a "wait-and-see" mode. On the other hand, as per Kainaw, those with extra money at hand and who wish to invest see this period as an opportunity. Then, again, why do you expect everyone to act rationally in the first place?

Let me ask a counter-question. When, in the last six months, have you heard a call for George W Bush's proposal to take half of the Social Security Trust Fund and invest it in the Stock Market because that will give beneficiaries larger retirement accounts?

The Stock Market will come back. The question is "When?" After the 1929 crash it took 25 years for the Dow-Jones to return to pre-crash levels. New Deal regulations and the federal government's quick response to this crisis should shorten the recovery period considerably, but it is not surprising that many people are taking a cautious approach - which is the proper attitude under all circumstances. B00P (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking the stock market is not a zero sum game so it's not 'gambling'. The reason people are not buying stocks is much like people have noted. Confidence at the moment is very low - people invest in different 'cycles' - some day-trade, some want a return in 12-24 months, some longer, some just want to buy it and leave it for 20 years. Each person has a different level of confidence in the current price. I've no doubt there are plenty of people picking up stock at these prices and then expecting in 5 years when they return to them that they'll be worth X-times-more. That person is happy tieing up their capital in something that is highly volatile currently and so maybe can only be sold at profit in 3 or 4 years. The person who has 10k they don't need now but might need in 12 months is less likely to invest - but in a positive stable market they might consider it worthwhile to invest for that period. It's all about individual choices all adding up to make up the market sentiment. Beyond that institutional investors will have a huge impact too and they have similar worries but on differing scales. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Crash has a salutary lesson for the "I'll get in at the bottom" investor. A lot of those who really lost a lot of money were not those who were invested in the market at the beginning, but those who invested at a "shelf", which they thought was the bottom of a u-shaped depression but was in fact just a temporary station on an ongoing decline. Such investors even caused little rallies (and whatever happens to the modern market, you'll see the same things). The trouble is that you can't tell the difference between the market bottoming out and a temporary shelf, and you can't tell the difference between a genuine beginning to recovery and a (destined to be short lived) false rally caused by others' mistaken optimism. Serious investors study the "value" of the company, which they compute using a bunch of metrics including its P-E ratio; but with the profits of so many companies negative, that's hard to do. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

All investment is a judgement on the balance between risk and reward. If people are not, in your opinion, investing, it is very likely to be because they judge the risks to out-weigh the rewards at these prices. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question very simply, you could have said exactly the same thing three months ago, and it would have sounded just as convincing. However since then stocks have plummeted even further. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made above, but I have this to add: Stocks represent ownership of a fraction of a firm. Therefore, their price reflects investors' perceptions of the value of the firm. That value is relative to its earnings and its expected future earnings and to the dividends that investors might gain from those earnings. As firms' profits have shrunk or turned into losses, the perceived value of those firms has dropped accordingly. Investors might still bid up the price of a firm that they believe is temporarily loss-making if they believe that it is likely to regain profitability. However, a huge question mark hangs over the future of many firms and the economy as a whole. As the economic data steadily worsen, investors fear a severe recession in which many firms might go bankrupt and see their value evaporate. This fear leads many people to shun a market that seems much more risky than it did just two years ago and to try to find a safer haven for their savings. Marco polo (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

accented poetry

When a poet writes poetry that counts accented syllables (iambic pentameter, etc.) does the poet consider the secondary stress as part of the rhythm? For example, would the word "universe" be considered a dactyl or something else?

Normally each accented syllable is counted. "Universe" theoretically could be a cretic foot, but typically it would be combined with an unstressed preceding syllable to make two iambs ("the UniVERSE") or with an unstressed following syllable to make two trochees ("UniVERses"). John M Baker (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the female form of the Kayser-i-Rûm?

What is it in Ottoman Turkish? Kayser-i-Rûm means the Emperor/Caesar of Rome. It was claimed by Mehmed II who conquered Constantinople. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that Ottomans had any real concept of "empress", as this term has been used in in European languages. The Ottoman sultans fully indulged their rights under Islamic law to take four wives and/or an indefinite number of slave concubines, but none of these women were really considered partners in helping the sovereign to rule or had a formalized publicly-visible social role (as was often the case with European royal wives). In fact, the only woman who regularly appeared in public at all was the mother of the reigning sultan, who occasionally decorously appeared on high balconies overlooking certain ceremonies. AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that also. But I was wondering if there is female form of the title. Were the Mother Sultans a mere copy of the Roman and Byzantine title Empress Mother? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're seeking equivalences where the predominant characteristics of societies meant that such equivalences didn't really exist. The role of the queen-consort in European societies was consistent with the fact that women at a lower social level had a publicly-visible "hostess" role (meeting men whom her husband invited to their home), and supervised most of the economically productive activities in the household other than heavy agricultural field work, etc. The lack of any real public "queen" or "empress" role in the Ottoman sultanate was consistent with the fact that upper-class women in many Islamic societies were often kept strictly secluded from public view, were not present at social events involving men outside their family, etc. It was not considered a good thing for women to rule in either type of society, but at least a few prominent European women could influence events in a somewhat open above-board and quasi-legitimate manner -- while women exercising political influence in the Ottoman system was always considered illegitimate pernicious boudoir-harem-eunuch intrigues and corruption by definition. AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For the puroses of this discussion, it might be useful to know the existence of Sultana (title). The article Islamic honorifics needs improvement. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Participants in a survey more/less likely to trust it?

Are people who participated in a survey more or less likely to trust the results than people who could have been selected to participate but weren't? NeonMerlin 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that it makes any difference. Let us suppose the survey is to determine the relative popularity of odd and even numbers. If you participated and chose "odd," but "even" was more popular, would you be more likely to trust that result than if you hadn't participated? In fact, you might be more dubious, as you know how you voted. On the other hand, if you had voted "even," you would be more likely to trust the results, and for exactly the same reason. However, this is only my opinion; in order to find out, I suggest that you take a survey. <!> —B00P (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer depends on several factors. Call the dependent quantity the participant's trust of the survey, which is really the participant's view of the reliability of the survey. Assume that the reliability of the survey depends on - and can be deduced from - the process and conduct of the survey. Then: one, the act of participation would give the participant some insight into the surveying process. I'll assume that the surveying process is honest and is not a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the reliability of the survey. In that case, the participant will either gain no information or a positive amount of information about the process of the survey (i.e. no disinformation).

If the amount of insight is none or negligible, then there should be little or no neglible effect on their trust of the survey.

If they do gain some information about the process (and thus reliability) of the survey, then this information will tend to move the participant's assessment towards the true position: i.e. the actual reliability of the survey.

The second factor, then, is how the participant's a priori assessment of the survey's reliability compares to the actual reliability of the survey. If the participant trusted the survey less than they should (i.e. their subjective, a priori assessment of the survey's reliability is lower than the actual reliability of the survey), then the additional information will move their assessment of reliability will now be higher than before, and they will trust it more.

Conversely, if the participant trusted the survey more than they should (i.e. their subjective, a priori assessment of the survey's reliability is higher than the actual reliability of the survey), then the additional information will move their assessment downward, and they will now trust it less.

When I participated in the Australian Bureau of Statistics's repeated panel data survey of household income, I could see something of the scale, comprehensiveness and relative rigour of the process; at the same time, by participating myself I also gained more knowledge of the weaknesses of the process. Balancing the two, I would say I came to trust the published statistics a little more than before. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that some of the surveys in which I've participated have made me no longer trust any survey results. The would say they "just have a few question", but 100 questions later I was just picking choices at random to make them go away. Then they would ask stupid Q's like "what's your favorite reggae radio station ?", when we don't have any in our area. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Christians of Bangladesh by division or district

Which divisions or districts of Bangladesh has the most population of Bangladesh?

You mean largest Christian population, I assume? Only about 0.3% of Bangladeshi's are Christians; that's around 1 000 000 overall. Check out the article Christianity in Bangladesh - considering the Portuguese traders settled around Chittagong and Dhaka, I figure those two areas might have the largest Christian diaspora. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I did check the article but it says that the Roman Catholics have dioceses in Dhaka, Rajshahi, Mymensingh, Khulna, Dinajpur and Chittagong. So, I am assuming that these six cities of Bangladesh have Christian population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.50 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

food rationing in the US?

Sorry to ask but I'm from Europe and this is a notoriously hidden topic when seen from afar. Is it true what a blogger states today that there are 30 million people in the U.S.A. having their food rationed? --Ayacop (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the blogger you read was trying to refer to the thirty million Americans who are receiving food stamps.--Rallette (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, "having their food rationed" makes it sound like there isn't enough food to go around, and people are being forced to eat less. This isn't the case at all. StuRat (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sending flowers to a new baby

Are there any health risks to the mother and newborn if you send congratulatory flowers? Gallaghp (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There can be, due to allergies, which unfortunately makes this a medical question and probably unsuited for further discussion. Thorough Googling would probably help you out, though; I can't imagine you're the first person to have ever wondered about this.--Fullobeans (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A query on the possible harmful effects of flowers (or plants) upon postpartum moms and their newborn infants might be posted more successfully on the Science Ref Desk. Note that there, too, actual medical advice is not dispensed. (I'll add from personal experience: In that situation, I most appreciated receiving a decorative, reusable box filled with dried fruits and nuts. The baby appeared oblivious but presumably had no objection.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the hospital might have some objection to flowers in the maternity wing. I second Deborah's idea of fruit. Dismas|^(talk) 13:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If allergies are a concern with flowers, they may also be with nuts. On the other hand, I think people with nut allergies are only affected if they eat them, and will know not to do it. --Anonymous, 05:08 UTC, March 10, 2009.

Allergies can be strange things. If someone has a severe allergy to nuts, the smell of nuts can be enough to trigger breathing difficulties. Eating nuts is not the only danger; touching surfaces that have been touched by someone who was touching nuts, and then touching their own face or eating something with their hands. With a severe nut allergy, there's a seemingly endless list of ways to go into anaphylactic shock. But if you know the mother well enough to know she probably doesn't have a severe nut allergy, then go for it. If she's sharing a room with someone with a severe allergy, hopefully this should be mentioned when the nuts arrive (sealed in packaging) and she can save them for later. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sending flowers is nuts. Sending dried fruit is a blooming good idea!! ;-)) Richard Avery (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Subcamp of Dachau at Königssee vs. Königsee

The Dachau concentration camp was in Bavaria, and I'm trying to determine the location of a particular subcamp ("kommando;" i.e. forced labor camp). A period document relating to Dachau subcamps' staffing, written by one Obersturmführer Wilhelm Ruppert, cites such a camp at Königssee, which is indeed in Bavaria. My problem: The "Catalogue of Camps and Prisons in Germany and German-occupied Territories, Sept. 1st, 1939 – May 8th, 1945" issued in July 1949 by the International Tracing Service HQ at Arolsen (now Bad Arolsen), cites a "CCKdo. of Dachau" at "Koenigsee" (vol. 1, p. 208). It's in the Berchtesgaden kreis, so the location is promising... but per that spelling, we get Königsee and Königsee (Plötzky), the former in Thuringia, the latter in Sachsen-Anhalt. I'm told that the ITS was quite rigorous in its documentation, so how might I reconcile all of these? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As you probably already expected, Königssee is frequently (mis)spelled Königsee. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; I've just sent a query via e-mail to the ITS via its website's Contact Us feature. Clarifications will be duly posted on relevant WP pages here and in the German Wikipedia too. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another World War II Topic

Its in conection with the 6th Australian Division

In the article its states; During the campaign, Brig. George Vasey's 19th Brigade (minus the 2/11th Battalion) was defeated by the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler brigade, at the Battle of Vevi. The 2/4th and 2/8th Battalions became the only Australian Army units to face elite Waffen SS soldiers in combat.

I am sure this is the only time the Australian Army and the Waffen SS ever met in combat but I am unable to find a source so any help would be appreciated --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Word - Free version of some kind?

I'm an MA History student who's working on his latest essay, and I just finished recovering from my hard drive dying on me. I have a new one, but I now have no Microsoft Word, and I'm currently trying to use Notepad to finish the essay, which is hardly ideal. I downloaded a student version of Microsoft Office called 'The Ultimate Steal', and have sent an email to Microsoft begging for a second chance to download it. Eventually I'll get a copy of Word, one way or another, but for now I'm in something of a bind. Is there a free derivative of it online that can be downloaded (legally, of course) so I can use it as a stop-gap solution. I'm fairly desperate at the moment. Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not Microsoft Word, but OpenOffice.org has a free wordprocessor which can read and write Word files. Marnanel (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

open-office is great, I have it myself on the Mac. Other than this though is google-docs (http://docs.google.com/?pli=1#) which allows you to write documents online that you can save and access anywhere. ny156uk (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you had a legal copy of Word and it got destroyed when your hard drive crashed then I don't think Microsoft or anyone would object to you finding someone with a CD of Word and installing from their CD. Someone at your college must have one.

OpenOffice is a strange beast (or was when I last used it), and confusing for anyone used to Word. It will probably get you through a crisis. But frankly if this is for one essay then I would recommend using Wordpad. It's many steps up from Notepad, and it will probably take less effort to write the essay with it than to install OpenOffice for doing just one task. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What country do you live in? That will make a difference to the legality of some methods of acquiring Word. NeonMerlin 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the United Kingdom, of that helps! Skinny87 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OpenOffice is the ticket in the long run. For the short term, Google docs or Zoho writer are a big step up from Notepad and will survive that pending crash. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help with Columbine High School Massacre

I am studying at University and I have to categorize the shooters in the scale of evil of American psychiatrist Michael Stone (T.V. program Most Evil), so I read their article because I need to know if they suffered mental illnesses, etc. I found Harris was a psychotic but at the end of the text ... "Harris was a clinical psychopath"... so, was he a psychotic or a psychopath?. And another question ... if you are a depressive person (Klebold), are you a psychotic or a psychopath?.. thanks a lot!!!! It's University homework but I have attempted an answer first and don't understand that. --190.49.101.52 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard enough to diagnose mental illnesses when interviewing a living subject and giving them a battery of psychological tests. It's harder still when dealing with psychopaths, as they're so good at concealing their inner selves. Surely it's impossible to make any worthwhile diagnosis of a dead person? Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are writing for a University, don't forget to check whether they consider Wikipedia an appropriate source. Many don't, in which case you'll have to find evidence elsewhere. If you find any please come back and add to the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing wrong with reading Wikipedia to get information. You, of course, would never cite Wikipedia in any scholarly paper, but that has nothing to do with the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. You wouldn't ever cite it in a scholarly paper because it is an encyclopedia. Instead, what you should do is read Wikipedia to get an overview on the topic, and then follow the references to find sources you WOULD cite. Well written articles have sources which themselves can be read, and THOSE can be cited... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the point I was trying to sneak up on is this. Wikipedia contains information which is contradictory. That's actually pretty common. Someone reads an article saying that Harris was psychotic, so they add that to the article. Someone else reads one saying that Harris was a psychopath, so they add that to the article. Very rarely does anyone do the (extremely hard) work of researching to find out whether these are contradictory or if they are which one is the consensus, or if they are both educated guesses. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As you don't seem to have received an answer, if I reach back 30 years in my memory I find that depression is usually classified as neurosis, whereas psychosis refers to conditions with hallucinations or delusions. Psychopathology often refers to conditions which are incurable and/or untreatable, whereas psychoses/neuroses respond to treatment. Our article on psychosis refers to "In contemporary culture, the term "psychotic" is often incorrectly used interchangeably with "psychopathic or sociopathic", which actually describe a propensity to engage in violently antisocial behaviors, not usually involving hallucinations or delusions." Hope this helps. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You say you're studying at a university where you're asked to rate the evil of the Columbine shooters on a scale as presented by a tv program, Most Evil?--Wetman (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

...in which case I'm guessing using Wikipedia as a reference is going to be perfectly acceptable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The OP doesn't specify what subject they are studying... Presumably it isn't psychology! --Tango (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if this helps, but: There actually is an article on Most Evil and the scale of evil deployed by Michael Stone. Categories 01 to 22 are listed together with the names of the criminals profiled in this TV "show". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Desirable self-fulfilling prophecies

The examples given at Self-fulfilling prophecy are almost all undesirable. What desirable effects can be achieved by self-fulfilling prophecies? NeonMerlin 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple investors could see a low stock as vastly undervalued, which leads to them buying it, which leads to the price of the stock rising, which leads to wealthier investors and the stock (with its new inflated price) showing how undervalued it was. Livewireo (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, whatever you like? An example: let's say that the prophecy is that you're going to become a rich and successful man by inventing a new computer operating system. Your self-confidence and motivation are boosted by the information that your labors will not be in vain, and naturally you take an interest in programming, since that's where your big success is supposed to come from. Consequently, you create MerlinOS, which sells like hotcakes and becomes a new industry standard, and you indeed become a rich and successful man. If it wasn't for the prophecy, you would have gone on to become, uh, I don't know. A chimney sweep! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two bullet points at at Self-fulfilling_prophecy#Real-life_examples. The second one has examples of desirable outcome. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is successful cognitive behavioral therapy a form of self-fulfilling prophecy? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking about mythology specifically, there's a very good reason why almost all of them have bad outcomes. The lesson those stories are trying to teach is that you don't mess with fate. The stories all follow the same basic structure: first, someone receives a prophecy (it could be in a dream, or from an oracle or something). Then they foolishly make every attempt to stop the prophecy from coming true. And finally, the prophecy comes true because of the steps taken to avoid it.

What's the lesson here? It's this: don't mess with fate!!! Don't do it! Your fate is your fate, and it's hubris to try and avoid it. You can't do anything about it, and if you try, it's just going to get even worse in the end.

One should note that it isn't universal in mythology that the outcome is bad (although it's vastly more common). The article mentions a few fairy tales where the outcome is good, but almost all of them follow that same structure too, the difference being that it's usually the bad guys trying to stop the (good) prophecy from coming true instead of the other way around, and they are the ones to pay the price. Belisarius (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Moore's law. Applications engineers count on the projected abilities of the hardware that will be available when their project goes to market. Chip-makers, in turn, know that there will be a market for their improved chips, without which they wouldn't invest in improving the technology. —Tamfang (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

really 12-year low?

The dow is what it was 12 years ago. But doesn't that mean that it's really much, much lower, because isn't a 2009 dollar worth WAY less than a 1997 dollar? And isn't the dow denominated in current dollars? Or am I missing something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.221 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are missing anything. But I think we're all far too depressed to begin calculating the inflation adjusted matching point. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Math is simply a luxury we can't afford in these troubled times. Belisarius (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Using the GDP deflator to compare prices from the different dates, you'd have to go back to November 15, 1995, to get a closing quote for the Dow as low as today's, in inflation-adjusted terms. So, in real terms, today's Dow close was a 13-year, 4-month low. Stocks rose rapidly during the mid-1990s, so you don't have to go much farther back in time from the nominal price to get the same real price. Marco polo (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dow isn't "denominated in dollars", it's a scaled average. See Dow Jones Industrial Average. --LarryMac | Talk 14:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and it is helpful to note this, since it was one of the OPs questions: but probably equally important to state that it has no bearing on the other element, which is that the index does not adjust for inflation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the scaling is just to account for non-market changes to the stock price (like stock splits). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but the components of the Dow also have changed, making any comparison to the index value from twelve or more years ago somewhat suspect as well. --LarryMac | Talk 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

March 10

Louis H. Sullivan's Charnley House Architecture Influence from Germany

I saw a large Architecture coffee table book a few years ago, that had a photo of the Charnley house, and then a description of German Residential architecture in a upper middle class Berlin Neighborhood in 1860's, that influenced the Charnely House. Does anyone know what area that was? Thanks for any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srader (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Arabs in Bangladesh

Are Palestinians the only Arabs in Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.105 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What nationality?

I'm looking through a set of photos on the Telegraph website, about an increase in security around Tibet. Now, this photo seems to clearly say "Nepal Police", despite the captioning. Based on that, this also seems to be a photo of Nepali police officers. Could experts give an opinion on which of these photographs actually show Tibet (as opposed to Nepal or India)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If it helps at all, the Alt-text of both images refers to Tibetan Buddhists and Nepalese police in Kathmandu --Saalstin (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Further alt-text checking yields the following locations for each photo number: China: 1, Kathmandu: 2,5,6,7,8,9,12, Dharamsala: 3,9,11,13,14, Tibet: 10,15,16,17 --Saalstin (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been several protests in Nepal for Tibetan independence, most of which have been dealt with harshly. So basically, the images are of Nepalese police, in Nepal, but are part of the same clampdowns on protesters as in China. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Telegraph (UK) says:

1: "A Tibetan Buddhist prostrates himself before the Bouddhanath stupa",

2: "Nepalese policemen stand guard as Tibetan Buddhist monks attend Kora prayers at Bauddhanath Stupa in Kathmandu". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

was america the first modern democracy?

was America the first modern (17th-18th c.) country to develop as a democracy? or did it follow democracies elsewhere (where?) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.67 (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Democracy#Middle Ages chandler · 10:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See also American Exceptionalism. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

History of democracy is probably a better link.

The path to democracy was a long slow one, from the oligarchies of Venice to the 18th and 19th century democracies which restricted suffrage by race, gender, or wealth, to the present day, so while the USA has a claim, it's hard to say which was the first modern democracy; the United Kingdom (England and Scotland before 1707) had a functioning parliament since the 17th century, but not everyone could vote. The short-lived Corsican Republic founded in 1755 has a strong claim to precede the USA. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, England's first elected parliament was in the 13th century. And it's worth bearing in mind that "not everyone could vote" also applies to the United States until the 20th century. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

maybe you guys missed it but I said first MODERN democracy, and I meant 1600s-1700s not the middle ages. By this standard it seems the anwer is "yes" (for example your "to the 18th and 19th century democracies" refers, first, to America, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.67 (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you constrain the terms "modern" and "democracy" sufficiently enough, you can make a case for America being the first modern democracy. But its an "ex-post-facto" distinction, created to give substance to American exceptionalism. With the exception of universal adult sufferage (which America was NOT the first nation to enact, Norway had America beat by 7 years) all of the aspects of the American Democracy existed in other nations earlier than America was formed, often by centuries. As noted, the idea of the elected assembly existed in Europe for hundreds of years before the Europeans even knew about the Western Hemisphere, Parliament first met in the 13th century, and the French Estates-General met for the first time in 1302. Elected executives existed in the Dutch Republic in the 1580's (Stadtholder), and federalism in the same, as well as in Switzerland from 1291. Nearly every aspect of the American system existed elsewhere earlier. One might be able to make a case that it was the first country with an elected executive AND elected legislature AND universal adult sufferage all at once, but that only happened in 1920, and other countries (which later reverted to dictatorships) would meet all three criteria a few years earlier. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"First modern" makes no sense unless there was significant gap during which there were no democracies (which I don't believe there was), otherwise the first modern democracy is just the first one to occur during the the period you define as being "modern". --Tango (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're going with this. But during the middle ages there WAS a gap, it seems, at least to read the responses. Or are there 1400s and 1500s democracies America was fashioned after? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.67 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no gap in the history of democracy in, for example, the United Kingdom, the Venetian Republic or the Dutch Republic between the Middle Ages and the "Modern" period. If you genuinely want an informative answer, please read the articles referenced above; if you just want an argument, take it elsewhere. This is not the place to start discussions or debates. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.196.62 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

At the time of the American War of Independence Britain had a well established functioning parliament. "No taxation without representation" was not a complaint that nobody had representation, just that the American colonies didn't have enough. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Did the American colonies have any representation in parliament? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not directly, I don't think. Whether they needed direct representation in order to have some form of representation was a topic of active debate at the time. Most Americans obviously believed they did; Parliament itself seemed to be on the fence about it. --140.247.251.34 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No Taxation without Representation mentions virtual representation. Our article actually tells people to "google search 'declatory act imperial representation' " Jeez.. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The recent democratic experiment that was in the forefront of American consciousness in the 1770s was that of Pasquale Paoli in Corsica.--Wetman (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned female suffrage (in case that was the 1920 reference). It seems that no definition of 'modern' democracy could stand without that. The USA was of course, behind NZ and doubtless a few others..81.140.37.58 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sort answer to the original question: No. None of the democracy articles mention the Tynwald, possibly because elections only began in 1866. You could argue that the US is still not a democracy, as many people are barred from voting. 89.242.99.255 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Barred from voting in the US? Like who? Children, felons and those too lazy to go vote? 12.216.168.198 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-citizens, too. (Some of them, anyway - I'm not sure about the US, can non-citizen residents vote at all? Local elections, maybe?) --Tango (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First female dentist

Who was the first female dentist? --85.226.44.201 (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In America, Lucy Hobbs Taylor. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And Europe? Perhaps Amalia Assur?--85.226.44.201 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

why would blondes be "dumb"?

I don't get where the stereotype comes from, any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.67 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably more that "dumb" people dye their hair blonde - blonde is, for some reason, considered prettier than other colours and "dumb" people are more likely that other people to care about fitting into pretty stereotypes. "Dumb" in this context tends to mean "naive" more than anything. --Tango (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think the dumb blonde stereotype has anything to do with dying hair. Our article Dumb blonde offers some information on it, but doesn't really get into its origins. Tomdobb (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In modern culture, the "blonde bimbo" stereotype was exploited by Hollywood in the 50s (if not earlier). Once you start a stereotype, selection bias will keep it going. No matter how many smart blondes or dumb brunettes a person meets, only the dumb blondes are noticed, which continues the stereotype. -- kainaw™ 15:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dow Jones

I've just been reading Dow Jones Industrial Average#Criticism, and it seems to me that the Dow Jones is an almost completely meaningless measure of the market. A stock split should never be able to affect an index, since it's nothing more than an accounting fudge to make things more convenient, yet it will affect the Dow Jones Industrial Average - the scaling is adjusted to prevent any immeadiate effect, but from then on the DJIA will have a different value than it would have done without the split. To give an extreme example, assume two stocks, each worth $1/share with the scale factor set at 2, so the DJIA is 1. Now one of those shares has a 100:1 split, making it's price $0.01/share, in order to keep the DJIA at 1 the scale factor is adjusted to 1.01. Now the price of the other stock goes up to $2 (while the other stays unchanged), the DJIA is now 1.99. Had the stock split not happened the DJIA would have been 1.5. Am I misunderstanding something, or is the DJIA really such a meaningless number? --Tango (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IMMIGRENT VISA

WHY IS A IMMIGRENT VISA CALLED A GREEN CARD WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY YELLOW IN COLOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by BIGDADDYSCHUCKWAGON (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a violation of WP:NONSENSE AltecLansing12 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why you'd call it a violation of nonsense...Anyway, it is called a green card because the original United States Permanent Resident Card was green. --Onorem♠Dil 15:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (on both points). There are many instances where an item is known by it's former color, such as the pink slip for a car, or the Pontiac Silverdome, which now has a white dome. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Monroe Doctrine entry

I removed several instances of vandalism in this entry. If someone could possibly check my work I'd be grateful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviably (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you did good, thanks for your help! --Tango (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but this is not the place to ask things like this. You should post a message on the talk page of the article in question. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personality development

Reposted from the Language Ref Desk
what are the investigate factors which contibute to personality devolepment?--Munnusmail (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a homework question to me - could you explain why you are asking? --Tango (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on personality development has some details and links to Sigmund Freud, Jean Piaget and others. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

paying off my credit card (or not..)

Hello, I've been trawling the wiki reference desk to procastinate and the question on Credit card interest rates got me thinking... Basically, it seems that as someone who is in rented accommodation, without a job (yet!) or the possibilty of entering the housing market any time soon (5 years min...), can i just not pay off my credit card bill? I'm in the UK so would just like to know what the consequences would be.. Many thanks, 81.140.37.58 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough information to help you, since we do not know what other choices you have. Paying off the credit card, if you are indebted, sounds to be a good thing in that you'll be charged less interest in the future. Indeed, that, and less cash in hand, would seem to be the major consequences of paying it off. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't pay at least the minimum each month you risk bankruptcy, which is very bad. It's not just mortgages you won't be able to get - you won't be able to get a contract mobile phone, you'll have to pay for electricity/gas/water/etc. upfront (with a pre-paid meter), etc. You don't want that unless it really is your only option. If you do pay just the minimum each month it will take you forever (give or take!) to pay it off and the interest you will pay will be enormous (far greater than the initial cost of whatever you bought on the card). If you are in financial difficulties, seek professional advice - not paying your credit card bill is not a good option. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That was really good advice -Tango sounds just like my dad (in a good way...)! Believe it or not, i never though bankrupcy was rally that bad. But yes, i'll be a good boy from now on...81.140.37.58 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it legal to join the Ku Klux Klan but not Al Queda?

Both are terrorist groups. Freedom of speech is usually the rationale, but couldn't you apply that to Al Queda as well? 98.221.85.188 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)