Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

May 31

Legalization Of All Drugs

Is the REAL reason that drugs aren't legalized because of the health effects (the masses are too stupid to control themselves) or because the people that can make that happen benefit more from the current situation (crime, gangs and nastiness fuelled by illegal drug sales). Legalise drugs as in the ending of prohibition, and a chunk of nasty industry is pulled from underneath nasty people, right? --Username132 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are various arguments for and against drug prohibition detailed in our article on the topic. In certain countries it may be that legislators are influenced by those who directly profit from illegal drug sales, but it's hard to see how those same people wouldn't profit from legal drug sales. If you were looking for possible benefits to legislators from the trade in illegal drugs, then a few people have made a case for it creating a perpetual war, which could benefit dominant classes. Warofdreams talk 02:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would tend more towards the former explanation, combined with the fact that in North America, politicians always tend to be more popular (and therefore help their own reelection) if they are perceived as being tough on drugs. If one were to look at it from a cynical standpoint as the second explanation provides, it would actually be MORE beneficial to politcians to legalize those sorts of drugs, since those who would most benefit from legalization would be drug companies and the health industry. Drug companies and the health industry have far more political clout in the United States than criminals and gangs. --DavidGC 02:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I'm hearing this right. All three of you commenting above seem to actually believe that the government (of say, the US) is actually so corrupt and so decadent that it's actually possible that government officials, as a whole, are so amoral that their purpose in criminalizing drugs is actually to benefit organized crime, and in turn, benefit themselves financially? I must have read that wrong. But if that's what you guys are actually contemplating, then I must say, that this has got to be THE MOST absurd, insane, paranoid conspiracy theory I have ever heard. This one truly takes the cake. I promised myself before this that I wouldn't resort to ad hominems, as ad hominems are generally beneath me and serve as very poor logical arguments. But I just can't resist this time. Speaking of drugs, Just what exactly are you guys smoking? Please tell me I misread the above comments. I simply find it too difficult to believe that anyone can actually entertain the absurd notions you guys seem to be suggesting. Loomis51 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The uncrazed version of the "government profits" argument is that the prison industry has an interest in keeping drug arrests high (not state prisons, but private ones). These corporations are very wealthy and contribute heavily to the Republican Party, in particular, while doctors contribute more to the Democratic Party; therefore, this argument runs, Republicans are pressured to make new drug crimes, while Democrats are pressured to favor treatment over punishment.

Personally, I think this is complex. First, it is unpopular to legalize drugs, so anyone advocating it will lose politically (the margin is narrow in some places, but it is the majority position generally). Second, the government spent a great deal of time explaining the evils of these drugs, and it can't now say, "Oh, never mind." Third, there is probably a real regret that alcohol is legal and, in the absence of being able to introduce prohibition, the least politicians can do is not allow other depressants to be legal.

However, some folks will prefer to believe that possible economic motives equal a definite conspiracy. Geogre 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it just because people who are high can't control themselves (literally) and can endanger other people. Obviously this would only occur to the more hardcore drugs, and not the lighter ones like canibis etc. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Frank Bruno - Eye Of The Tiger

Hi, this is bit of an awkward question but I'll give it a go. British boxer Frank Bruno released a version of Eye Of The Tiger in 1995 and although he takes the credit for it, it's clearly not him performing the vocals. any ideas who the vocalist for his version of the song is? Thanks

How is it clear that it is not him? --Chapuisat 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Frank Bruno has a VERY deep voice and the guy singing has a high voice rather like Dave Bickler of Survivor, I thought it might have been Dave but I can't find any information that confirms it.

I doubt very much whether he could have got away with this. Everybody would have known it was someone else and would have ridiculed him. I haven't heard the piece but maybe he was singing falsetto? --Shantavira 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no possible way Frank Bruno could have sang as high as that, his voice is too deep and as far as I'm aware he can't even sing. the person singing sounds like a professional rock singer

I did some looking around, and I can't find anyone who suggested he didn't sing it. According to [1] he has recorded at least one other song (with Ozzy Osbourne). --Chapuisat 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked out that one with Ozzy Osbourne and it's like a comedy song he did with Billy Connolly, Ozzy isn't actually part of it so I don't know why he's credited unless he wrote it. anyway, I found a Frank Bruno official website so I've asked them and hope I get a positive answer. thanks for all your help

Prohibition

Maybe I missed it, but I can't find on prohibition, why prohibition was even introduced in the first place? How do such high-up people come up with such a stupid idea? --Username132 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

see Temperance movement Nowimnthing 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Women who were disgusted that their husbands were spending all the family's money on liquor, and feminists who sympathized with these women, were one strong factor -- it was the combination of this with religious fundamentalism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and the WWI experience which put it over the top... AnonMoos 07:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that women were a major factor, as they had only recently acquired the vote and were therefore politically inexperienced. Thus, they thought that making anything bad illegal (or voting for those who promise to do so) will make it go away. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Making alcohol illegal didn't stop it any more than making drugs, prostitution, adultery, homosexuality, or anything else you don't like illegal, does (or did). StuRat 14:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus the alcoholic beverage producers, which should have united to fight such a stupid idea, instead turned on each other. The beer brewers said that only wine and hard liquor should be banned, due to it's higher alcohol content, while those companies argued that only beer should be made illegal, as that was brewed by those "God-forsaken Huns" (there was a substantial anti-German sentiment in the US following WW1). StuRat 14:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

scandanavian immigration to nz

why did scandanavians immigrate to nz in the past? how did they sustain their culture in nz? what difficulties did they face when immigrating?

Is this a homework question? You could try contacting or looking at the websites of one of the Scandinavian clubs in New Zealand, such as http://www.geocities.com/scandannevirke/ or http://www.geocities.com/scanmanawatu/ --Canley 08:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We also have articles on Norsewood and Dannevirke, New Zealand, the main centres of Scandinavian settlement in NZ. It is quite possible that you could find (via google) a history of Dannevirke (the larger of the two places), which would probably provide more information. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Title of Handel's coronation anthem

Hello.
Handel's coronation anthem HWV 261 is called My Heart is Inditing.
Can anyone tell me what that means as I haven't found inditing in any of my dictionaries.
Thanks in advance. — Oxag อ๊อกซัก 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

From the OED: indite (verb): "To put into words, compose (a poem, tale, speech, etc.); to give a literary or rhetorical form to (words, an address); to express or describe in a literary composition." --Shantavira 06:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But how could the subject of such a verb be a heart ?
Could it mean something like my heart is elated/overjoyed ?
— Oxag อ๊อกซัก 07:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a phrase clipped from the first line of the recitative. "My heart is inditing" is just the first poetic line. Probably his heart is inditing its love or praise or joy. Unfortunately, I don't recognize the line by memory, but I'm quite sure the words came from a contemporary poet. (You might call a song "Go and catch a falling star," as with John Donne's poem, when the title is just the first line of the poem.) Geogre 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The words to the anthem were taken from Psalm 45:1,10,12 and Isaiah 49:23. I have a copy of the KJV before me and Psalm 45:1 reads:

• "My heart overfloweth with a goodly matter: I speak the things which I have made touching the king: My tongue is the pen of a ready writer Thou art fairer than the children of men" JackofOz 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

JackofOz just beat me to it. Handel's words are "My heart is inditing of a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made unto the King". But I think the New English Bible expresses it best: "My heart is stirred by a noble theme, in a king's honour I utter the song I have made, and my tongue runs like the pen of an expert scribe." That last bit would seem to be debatable. --Shantavira 14:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You're actually the first person I've seen praise the New English Bible translation over an RSV. (I read it the most of all my translations, too, and especially for their Apocrypha, but people bad mouth it so often that I'm surprised.) Geogre 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to all of you.
— Oxag อ๊อกซัก 15:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Creating a new page

Hiya, I'm currently studying Politics at University and have used wikipedia MANY times to aid my research, as it is a fantastic educational encyclopedia. However, sometimes pages I have requested have not been created. I would like to help by creating pages myself on topics I think would be useful for other people. I can't seem to find how to do this though. Please help!!!! Thank you very much for your time Best Regards Rachel Honey-Jones

See Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Starting a new page. Dismas|^(talk) 08:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Treason in Australia

I can remember someone telling me that there have only been four cases of prosecuted treason in Australia (including before 1901), and none of them resulted in a conviction. Does anybody know what they were? --203.129.57.80 08:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The rebel miners of the Eureka Stockade were charged with High Treason in 1855, there were thirteen of them, all found Not Guilty in seven trials [2]. The only other possibility I can think of is the prosecution of members of the Communist Party of Australia in 1949, although I think that may have been for sedition, not treason. --Canley 09:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Archaeological digs/deceased persons

If someone was to decide to dig up a dead person in a grave I would imagine there would be a huge outcry, respect to the body and all that. However, in this case of archaeology, this does happen, I assume under the guise of in the interest of science/history. I have no real qualms about this but when I get buried I dont expect someone to come along in a couple of hundred years and start poking around, cleaning me up and putting me on display for everyone to see should they wish to.

My question is, what period of time is considered 'acceptable' to start messing around with deceased people who have been buried in good faith? --DPM 10:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there were a time involved, and there have been/are plenty of arguments in the United States about the disinterring of American Indian bones. Nearest to me is the Etowah museum in the form of a burial mound opened up for tourists to walk through. Since the tribe was wiped out, it doesn't have specific modern descendants to protest, and yet, nevertheless, many folks have objected. The question will always be balanced, with how much can be learned by the research, on the one side, and the disrespect of grave disturbing, on the other. If, for example, we could learn a great deal by examining Mary Mallon (aka Typhoid Mary), we'd exhume her. If we could merely satisfy our curiosity, we wouldn't. Geogre 12:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, however the article states that her body was incinerated, not buried.--DPM 14:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I had Typhoid Mary on my mind because Nova on Tuesday was about her life and treatment. She got a very, very, very bad deal. Geogre 17:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But she was also a very, very, very stupid and stubborn woman who killed people through her ignorance and carelessness by resuming working as a cook after agreeing, as a condition of her freedom, not to. - Nunh-huh 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been on archaeolgical digs, let me assure you that human remains are dealt with very seriously and with the utmost respect. Even with remains thousands of years old the archaeologists treat the bones very carefully. Most of the time they are re-interred as quickly as possibly after the research is done. Other than a few notable exceptions like mummies, almost every museum display you see is actually a cast of the actual remains. Nowimnthing 12:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I may have caused offence. I understand that bones etc are treated with respect. My question was purely concerned with when it's deemed acceptable to disturb such things. --DPM 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think, in many ways, a dead body is considered to be property. Thus, as long as someone holds title to that property (say in the form of a burial plot), then no archaeologist has the right to go dig it up. Even if the title is lost, as long as the cemetery continues to operate, they are unlikely to allow exhumations without a court order, as this type of thing would tend to discourage future business. However, once the cemetery is abandoned, the archeologists may be able to have a go at them. You might want to choose a newer, huge cemetery with only a few occupied plots so far, as this will ensure they continue to sell plots and stay in business for many years to come. A cemetery which is almost full, with no room to expand, may be abandoned sooner than you think. Also, a cemetery which sold all it's plots years in advance, then squandered the money, may be abandoned sooner than the number of open plots would otherwise indicate. StuRat 14:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, just wanted to be sure we were on the same page. I agree with StuRat's general statement and will add this regarding time. It is generally a combination of time and necessity that determine when it is ok to exhume a body. In cases where there are living relatives to the deceased, it is often left up to them (as in property rights) whether the body can be exhumed. Of course they can always be overridden by more pressing concerns like criminal or health investigations. This property right is generally respected but it does get more vague with time. For example Native American tribes in the U.S. have successfully petitioned courts to have their ancestors remains returned to them for burial. They are usually more successful in this when they can show proof that they are in fact direct descendants. That gets harder as you go further back and the tribes are not in the same configuration as they are today. [3]. If you are really worried about it, you can look into other options at Burial or Natural burial where there probably won't be any remains left after a couple hundred years for anyone to disturb. Nowimnthing 15:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to face the (minimal) risk of being dug up, cremation is your solution. - Nunh-huh 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, think about it, all the billions of people that have ever lived are all dead. Only a fraction of a percentage end up in a museum. Nowimnthing 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but a lot more ended up being "disrespected" in some other way. Egyptians, for example, used to toss old mummies on the fire for heating. StuRat 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Paris is the classic example of digging up the dead when the real estate they're in becomes valuable - though sanitation was the stated reason. (The remains suffered the indignity of being used in decorative pattern in catacombs where now, for a centime or so, German teenagers can see how fragile bones are.) The gates of New Haven's Grove Street Cemetery are engraved "The Dead Shall Rise Again", and many a Yale president has said, "If Yale needs the land, they will!". - Nunh-huh 04:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

jews in america

hi, my step-mother is, for all intents and purposes, russian. however, becuase she is (ancestrally) jewish, the US government negotiated her "release" from behind the iron curtain for a life of plenty in the states. Being neither american nor old enough to remember, i'm wondering, did the US do this for any other minority? if not, why was it just the jews? also have they done similar mass evacuations from other nasty places? gays from iran? falun-gongers from china? 87.194.20.253 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The United States unofficially supported the mass evacuation of many oppressed blacks from the United States to Liberia. --Kainaw ^(talk) 11:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about how much negotiating the U.S. did for other groups, but they have offered political asylum to quite a few different groups of people, see here: Immigration to the United States#Political asylum. Nowimnthing 12:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jews from Sudan to Israel: Operation Moses. Lost Boys of Sudan to the U.S. Rmhermen 16:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppressed from the United Stales to Siberia ? I'm reading too quickly. --DLL 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading between the lines of your "question", no, historically Jews have been given no special treatment in the US. In fact, just a couple of months before the outbreak of WWII, the infamous SS St. Louis, a ship containing some 1,000 Jews departing from Hamburg to seek assylum in the US, was in fact denied entry into the US by the Roosevelt Administration. Shamefully, my own country, Canada, also turned the ship away, as did Cuba. The ship eventually had no choice but to return to Europe, in what has been called in film the Voyage of the Damned, after which the vast majority were ultimately exterminated.

Today, thankfully, the US has more humane refugee policies. But NO, Jews do not enjoy any "special status" when it comes to immigration. So, in answer to your real question, NO, the US is not controlled by any "Secret Society of Zionists" or whatever organization the most recent anti-semitic conspiracy theorists have dreamed up. Your "for all intents and purposes Russian but (ancestrally) Jewish" step-mother was indeed lucky, as a lucky few, regardless of their ethnicity managed to escape from behind the Iron Curtain during the years of the Soviet Union. Loomis51 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i'm certainly no anti-semite and find the very suggestion extremely offensive. she is "for all intents and purposes russian" because, officially, she is of course american and given that the communists took her russian passport off her, and as a result can never reclaim her russian citizenship, she has no official claim to be russian, despite the fact that culturally she very much is. i mentioned the fact that she is ancestrally jewish becuase she in not a practising Jew so cleary the US was very generous in its deal. As for the suggestion that i sign up for the "secret society of zionists", well i just don't. had hitler succeeded in his aims my father (whose parents, by the way, fled Germany in the 30's becuase they were, you guessed it, jewish) wouldn't have been born and has the US deal not happened, i would of course be deprived on a ever-so-cute bsby sister. my "real" question was simply to ask, in what sense is this a US policy or was it just a one off. perhaps i could have expressed it differently but really, you just shouldn't go looking for anti-semitism and you certainly shouldn't be trigger-happy in accusing people of anti-semitism. 87.194.20.253 11:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. for the avoidance of any doubt, when i say "is this a US policy"i mean "the emigration of oppressed groups", whether they be jews, gentiles or people with three eyes! 87.194.20.253 11:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's fact it. Most Jews are white, and Judaism is similar to Christianity. I'm sure at that point of time (if not even now), this factor played a major role in this special American concern for Jews. OTOH, this concern really picked up only after the second world war, and especially after the details of the holocaust became known. Jews were also the "enemy of the enemy" kind of people. In fact, sometime in the beginning of the 20th century, there were all kinds of laws preventing Jews, among other people, to immigrate to the US. deeptrivia (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I simply cannot apologize for my remarks. As an RD regular, I can tell with absolute certainty that this has been the first time I have ever accused a questioner of being an anti-semite. Anyone who knows me, knows that I'm loathe to harp on anti-semitism, except in the most obvious of cases. I'm the furthest thing from being "trigger-happy" about accusing people of anti-semitism. However, I'm sorry to tell you, but your question absolutely reeked of anti-semitism. Not for one reason, or for two, but in at least a dozen different ways. If you are indeed not an anti-semite, I really must say, you seem to have an uncanny knack for writing like one. Your story is simply filled with too many holes. You say that the communists took your step-mother's Russian passport from her. That makes absolutely no sense. Is your step-mother over 89 years old? Seems unlikely as she recently gave birth to your ever-so-cute baby sister. Assuming she was born sometime after 1917, yet as you said escaped the Soviet Union, a state that ceased to exist in 1991, she was therefore born in the Soviet Union, and as you said, escaped from the Soviet Union. It therefore makes no sense to me when you speak of a "Russian Passport" that the communists took away from her. During the entire time she lived in the Soviet Union, there simply did not exist such a thing as a "Russian Passport" for the communists to have taken away. Further, you say that because the communists took away her "Russian Passport", she can never reclaim her Russian citizenship. This also makes no sense. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that she actually had some sort of "Russian Passport" which the communists took away, which, as I've said, makes absolutely no sense, it further makes no sense that having one's passport taken away somehow denies one of citizenship. A passport is used for identification and international travel. It is definitely not a requirement for citizenship. Finally, if your step-mother was indeed born in Russia, you may be surprised by the fact that Russia actually has its own "law of return". I'm not sure of the details, I believe that it provides that if you have at least one Russian born grandparent, you can be "fast-tracked" to become a Russian Citizen. So certainly, if your step-mother wished, despite "the communists taking away her Russian passport" (???) she can certainly become a Russian citizen if she wished. But again, your story is full of holes...whether it's anti-semitism, ignorance or whatever, it just plain doesn't smell right. Loomis51 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be the case that you're a regular at RD who has never been accused of accusing others of anti-Semitism, but there's a first time for everything. You have accused the asker of an innocent question of anti-Semitism, and I cannot imagine why. I'm sorry Loomis, but I think you're way out of line here. You spend 8 or 9 sentences harping on the fact that the questioner conflates Russia with the USSR. Lots of Americans do that, take it easy. Just because he says Russia when he means USSR doesn't mean he's a lying anti-Semite, and more than it would if he said America when he meant USA. Try assuming a little good faith. Or if you cannot assume good faith, then just don't answer the question at all. It will keep things much more civil and productive here. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're totally missing the point here. There's absolutely no crime in conflating Russia with the Soviet Union, it's a common and innocent mistake. I'm merely pointing out that the whole story is incredibly fishy, as it flies in the face of reality in so many ways. Perhaps I gave a far too detailed explanation of why this story sounds bogus. I'll put it in much simpler terms: The statement that the asker's step-mother can never reclaim her Russian citizenship is, quite simply, absolutely false. She can. Absolutely. Without a doubt. It's the law in Russia.

You say you can't imagine why I so arbitrarily chose to accuse this particular asker and this particular asker alone of anti-semitism. I'm not sure what your particular background is, and frankly, it's none of my business. What I can say, though, is that being a member of a perpetually persecuted group, you tend to develop something of a "radar", for lack of a better term, for EXACTLY when that ugly menace of bigotry is being presented in a veiled format. It actually gets to the point where it's ridiculously simple, because the pattern of reasoning and the speach of such veiled bigotry becomes so ridiculously predictable.

I don't expect you to understand, and I don't blame you for not understanding. I actually have a great deal of respect for the principles that you are trying to convey onto me, and, because you believe in these principles, I have a great deal of respect for you. I totally agree with the principle of assuming good faith, and in the vast majority of cases I observe that principle to it's utmost. Nonetheless, there are unfortunately a rare few instances where, you just know, that good faith is not present. Loomis51 07:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've totally missed the point. Rather, I think I've just disagreed with the point. The story seems not at all fishy to me. I will readily admit however that my own particular background includes almost no knowledge of nor experience with either anti-Semitism or Soviet law about defectors (though I would be surprised if it were as lenient as you suggest, or are you referring solely to post-Soviet Russian law?)

But let me check with you, perhaps I have missed the point, as you suggest. So your two points are these: 1. there were no Russian passports during the Soviet era, only Soviet passports. 2. all Russians were allowed to return to the USSR, no matter what the means of their defection. The first seems like an innocent sloppiness of language, and the second doesn't sound accurate to me. Was not defection a crime under the Soviets? Was there not danger of reprisal for those who were brought back? Again, I do not know anything about Soviet law, but to me it is your position that seems questionable. Does your anti-Semitism radar ever get too sensitive?. -lethe ^{talk +}

08:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you lethe! how refreshing voices of reason are. on the second point, whilst no expert in Russian law, i am absolutley certain that my step-mother, for whatever reason, is under the impression that she cannot ever reclaim her russian citizenship. she has russian residency for sure, but evertime she visits her family in st petersburg, she takes her US passpost (she has no other) and has to go through the same checks everytime. also, it would seem strange that if she was indeed now a russian citizen, why then can her daughter not claim dual-nationality and so claim a russian passport (it would certainly save alot of time at russian immigration desks). Assuming my step-mother couldn't be more wrong on this issue, that she can reclaim her russian citizenship just like that, why does that make me anti-semtic? Belonging to a "perpetually persecuted group" as i do (i'm gay) i absolutely understand your sensitivity with regards to bigotry (its a quality we both share) but to say that that somehow gives you license to tar me with "that" brush as and when you see fit on the basis that pin-pointing anti-semitism is some kind of infallible talent you have is grossly unfair on the accused and, dareisay it, does us minorites no good whatsoever. thanks. 87.194.20.253 13:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this discussion is taking on a more civil tone. I'm also glad that the original questioner has added some extra information to clarify things.

Russia today is actually undergoing a rather serious population crisis (no doubt in large part due to the massive exodus of Russians of all stripes after the fall of the Soviet Union). As a result its government has begun to enact measures to reverse this trend. One measure that I believe I've recently heard about is the implementation of a "baby bonus" of some $10,000 (that's a lot of rubles!) for those families who opt to have more than one child. Another is the passage of laws encouraging Russian expatriates to return to Russia.

Not that today's Russia doesn't have its problems, (in fact it's quite a troubled society, to say the least,) but one thing is for sure: the present "Russian Federation" is trying its best to distance itself from its Soviet past. As such I find it highly unlikely that the present government would in any way be prejudiced against Soviet defectors when it comes to repatriating them into the new Russia. I'm therefore pretty certain that if your step-mother ever wished to become a Russian citizen, the Russian government would not only permit her return, but embrace it.

But I'm not saying that she's a Russian citizen now. She probably had to renounce her Soviet/Russian citizenship when she originally left. What I'm saying is that if she ever wished to once again become a Russian citizen, she probably wouldn't have much of a problem.

But on to the real issue, why I sensed a great deal of anti-semitism in your question. I'm actually glad that you're gay and can understand what bigotry is like (not that I'm at all glad that you're the victim of it, but merely that you can relate to where I'm coming from). I'm sure you can sense a veiled homophobic remark or gesture from a mile away. Well, when I read your question, like I said, I spotted about a dozen telltale signs. You basically stated with apparent certainty that the US government actually negotiated with the Soviets to get your step-mother out of the Soviet Union because she was Jewish. During the Soviet era, there were literally millions dissidents (regardless of religion) who suffered the cruelest of treatments because they dared to disagree with the communist regime. These people were literally dying to escape that country for a life of freedom in the US, yet the US was not able to help them one bit. (Just to add a little extra perspective, if the Soviets were good at anything, it was the suppression of expression. Bizarre as it may sound, Jews living under Soviet rule suffered far less anti-semitism than under pre and post-Soviet rule. This is because the Soviet Union, being a one party state imposing atheism on all its citizens was able to supress those anti-semitic organizations and political parties, such as pomyats, for example, that immediately sprang up when the Soviet Union fell and such policies as state-imposed atheism, one-party rule, etc... no longer applied.) Yet when it came to a Jew, the US made a special effort to persuade the Soviets to let her go. Why would they do that if they didn't, for whatever sinister motive give Jews special treatment? Why let all those poor non-Jewish Soviets rot in gulags, but jump to the aid of a Jew in order to bring her over to the land of "plenty" (i.e. $$$, another telltale sign, not the land of freedom or the land of equality, but the land of "plenty". We Jews do love money, don't we). The implication is just too obvious: US government policy was somehow dictated by some hidden Jewish agenda. Look up and you see as the title of the question the rather omenous and downright frightening: "Jews in America". Not "US immigration policy regarding Jews" or "US immigration policy during the Soviet era", but simply "Jews in America". Sounds more like the title to an article on the Klan website than a legitimate honest question.

Since you're sensitive to and can relate to bigotry, imagine if you read as the title to a question "Homosexuals in the Media", wouldn't that title alone spook the hell out of you? Now imagine if the question went on to say: "As a white, Christian, straight man, I seem to be having an unusually difficult time getting my foot in the door in the print-media industry. Could anyone explain to me why this may be?" Wouldn't the whole phrasing of the title and the tone and implication of the question set off a million red flags in your head? Be honest.

In any case, as I've been saying all along, it was the phrasing of your question that set off a million red flags in MY head. In my response, I never actually accused YOU of being an anti-semite, but more precisely, pointed out that your question sounded very anti-semitic. I've also been saying all along something along the lines of "you may not be an anti-semite, but you sure write like one". Your last entry cleared a few things up, causing me to lean more towards the conclusion that you're in fact not an anti-semite, but simply posed a very anti-semitic sounding question. Loomis51 16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the original question, your step-mother presumably benefited from the Jackson-Vanik amendment.--Pharos 10:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Un Homme Et Une Femme by Clementine (French Lounge music)

What is the whole biography of Clémentine? And what's the lyrics?

You might have more luck if you ask at the French Wikipedia. The lyrics go: "Daaah daaah daaah da-da-da-da-da da-da-da-da-da; Daaah daaah daaah da-da-da-da-da da-da-da-da-da;...." --Shantavira 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The lyrics are here, I think. Do you want to know what they mean? --Cam 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Eastern European Music

What's the biography of "Les Mystere Vois de Bulgaria?"

What is your actual question? It's a recording, it doesn't have a "biography". JackofOz 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a recording - it is, or was, a musical ensemble. Le Mystère des Voix Bulgares is just a stub, but I don't know anything more about them. --Richardrj 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also the name of a recording. I used to own a copy. JackofOz 01:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Naked in the snow"

There seem to be porn sites showing women outside in the snow, completely naked. While naked women are all well and good, aren't there health issues here? How do they prevent the models from catching a serious cold? I was myself once naked outside at a temperature close to 0 °C, and the very next day I came down with a cold. Is there some trick I'm missing here? JIP | Talk 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple. They move the girls on to the sneezing fetish sites :) --Richardrj 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - there is no relation between being cold and catching a cold. I've been in 40 below wearing just boxer shorts and boots and didn't catch a cold or anything at all. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not exactly true, there is a relationship. Exposure to the cold, especially prolonged exposure, can damage the body and make it more susceptible to infiltration by organisms which cause colds and other diseases. A very brief exposure, however, will have a negligible effect. I suspect they run out, take a pic, then quickly go inside to warm up. If they stayed out long, their skin would turn pale, which most people would find unattractive anyway. And Kainaw, you should know that one case of anecdotal evidence hardly constitutes proof. Using that method, anyone who ever played Russian Roulette and lived could argue that it's not the least bit dangerous. StuRat 14:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Kainaw is right, and StuRat is right. There have been studies under controlled circumstances trying to induce colds in people by making them cold. No positive results. However, during winter months dry air may decrease mucousal flow in the sinuses and tear production in the eyes, thus making it easier for airborne rhinoviruses to lodge. Additionally, winter months mean that people are indoors more, thus in contact with each other, so one sick person leads to others. However, body temperature didn't have much of a role in the illness, and if you make people cold during summer, but none of them has a rhinovirus, they are unlikely to get one. Geogre 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm right!? Something is definately wrong. I need another bottle of NyQuil. Actually, a cold study was done in our hospital. There was no correlation between being cold and catching a cold. There was a correlation between being cold and having a sore throat, dry sinuses (including bloody noses), and chest pain. However, having those symptoms does not mean you have a necessarily have a cold. Plus, I love having a chance to talk about running around in 40 below weather in my boxers. How often does that come up in conversation? --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the study in the hospital lacked the necessary exposure to rhinovirus. If this had been included, I would think that those exposed to environmental stresses, such as extreme cold, would be shown to be more susceptible to the viruses than the control group. StuRat 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat curious as to why you like to run around in -40 degree weather in just boxer shorts. I can only assume it's because you find running around in -40 degree weather in briefs to be a bit too constricting. :-) StuRat 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have a baby girl, you should wear boxers. Besides, tighty whities are so embarrassing looking compared to the manly boxer. Geogre 17:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The hospital study did not increase or decrease exposure to the virus. That was a control. The goal was to see if there is a direct correlation between cold temperature and catching a cold with all other variables constant. As for the low temps - I was just lazy. I was stationed on top of a mountain in Norway in Feb and it takes a lot of time to get dressed. So, when I had to pee, I just went to the toilet in my boxers. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like they made an effort to intentionally expose both groups to the virus. I would have been very surprised if any test subjects developed colds without any exposure to the virus. Again, exposure to environmental stresses, such as extreme cold, will only increase the incidence of colds provided there is also some exposure to the viruses. StuRat 02:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also such a thing as fake snow. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Next you'll be telling me that the breasts might be false as well. :-) Geogre 17:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Being naked in the snow is no big deal. As long as you remain dry, and there's no wind, you don't lose body heat very fast. --Serie 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The -40° and the boxers remind me of a letter written to a Canadian medical journal (I think it was the anaesthesiology journal) a decade or longer ago. This doc had been out jogging early morning at way below zero temp, and on returning home found he had developed frostbite of the penis. He was busy trying to warm up the injured organ by manual means when his wife walked into the kitchen. He wrote that he had some explaining to do. The title of the letter was something like (not sure of this, though): "Hitherto Unrecognized Hazard of Jogging". (reference avalable, but I'll have to dig it out of a pile, so ask if someone wants it) --Seejyb 02:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well read

I often hear people being described as 'well read'. I take this to mean they have read many books by a wide spectrum of authors. In my adult life I guess I've read about 200-300 books (I'm 33 by the way). I read all sorts of books but I have never read Shakespeare other than at school. My questions are: 1. Can I be well read without having read Shakespeare? and 2. Whether or not reading Shakespeare is a pre-requisite for being well read, how many books do you have to read and by how many different authors to be considered 'well read'? --DPM 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Well Read" means the person has a lot of book knowledge. It implies that the person has read (or at least knows enough to discuss) the classics - such as Shakespeare. While it is often a compliment, it can be an insult as well. "Can he fix an engine?" "Nope, he's just well read." --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Now then, I've read lots of classics but no Shakespeare, are you saying that no Shakespeare, no well read status? Hypothetically speaking you could have read every book printed but without Billy S, you cant be considered well read.--DPM 15:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Billy S, as you call him, is a biggie. Many "well read" people would indeed consider a total lack of knowledge of The Bard to be, or not to be, a reason to be barred from their exclusive club. Perhaps I can offer you a way to wipe out this damned spot from your otherwise good record, have you at least seen, or even just heard, a Shakespeare play (either live or on radio/TV or in a movie) ? If so, the play's the thing to qualify you as well read. I'll even give you points for Shakespeare rip-offs like West Side Story. Still no ? Have you ever seen an Avon lady ? Do you own a globe ? Have you ever seen anything with Robert Urich in it ? Do you like to play with slings and arrows ? :-) StuRat 16:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"well read" is one of those terms that doesn't work if you go round applying it to yourself. If you start calling yourself well-read you will just sound like a jerk. So if you really want people to call you 'well-read' you will have to read books they think are important, in which case Shakespeare is good. Alternatively you could try reading things you think you might like. That might be Shakespeare - you'll never know till you've tried. (Incidentally, in my opinion Shakespeare is much better seen on stage than read). DJ Clayworth 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous books that provide reading lists. Perhaps the most ambitious and worthy is Cultural Literacy by E. D. Hirsch, Jr. Also, read Closing of the American Mind (even though "American" is the title, the book is fairly universal) by Alan Bloom.

The bookful blockhead ignorantly read,

With loads of learned lumber in his head,

With his own tongue still edifies his ears,

And always list'ning to himself appears. (Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism)

Read well, read judiciously, and live the stuff. Geogre 17:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a rather ambitious reading list in Huxley's Those Barren Leaves? Or was it Antic Hay? (a well-read person would know I suppose). I had a plan of going through that list, but I never did, in fact, I have lost the list and don't remember what was on it. Btw, it would make precious little sense to read lots of English classics and ignore Shakespeare, because a lot of authors will keep referring to Shakespeare, implicitly or explicltly, so that you'll feel left out unless you go and read up at least secondary works. I suppose nowadays you qualify as well-read if you can read and understand Shakespeare and Milton without footnotes; but note that being "well-read" traditionally doesn't stop at the English language barrier. According to Macaulay, an educated man is one who reads his Plato with his feet on the fender (meaning, fluently and without a dictionary) while Mark Pattison felt that you have literary culture if you are able to fully appreciate Lycidas. dab (ᛏ) 18:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised no one has mentioned the Great Books curriculum yet. Rmhermen 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty good curriculum, but one problem is which of the curricula you mean, because the original (the Harvard freshman reading list) has gotten turned into a product, and that product has been offered by multiple companies in multiple packages. Geogre 19:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Well read" generally does not refer to the quantity of books read but the perceived cultural quality of them as well. Reading 1,000 science fiction novels will make one well read in science fiction but not generally well read. Most people consider someone "well read" if they have read most of the major novels out there, and to a lesser extent some of the major non-fiction books as well. Reading the entirety of Anne Rice's work will not make one as "well read" as reading the major works of Shakespeare, Milton, Eliot, Borges, etc. (to pick a few names at random).--Fastfission 02:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, one could be considered well read despite never having read a single word of these people's works, or of Dickens, or Jane Austen, or Tolstoy, or of hundreds of others. Fwiw, I think the whole Shakespeare thing is a furphy. His works are sonnets and plays, none of which are meant to be "read" in a passive sense. Poems are meant to be spoken aloud, and plays are meant to be performed. Just sitting and reading Shakespeare plays to oneself, in isolation from their dramatic context, would be like reading a film script and thinking you had a real sense of what the finished movie was like. JackofOz 03:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to explain the term "furphy", Jack, since that's Aussie slang. StuRat 02:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. For you, Stu, anything within reason. A furphy is a bit like what our article says it is, but in my usage it's more like "a common misconception". We talk about Shakespeare as if he's the be-all-and-end-all of English literature. It's not that he's unimportant, but really one can get a very full appreciation of literature without him (but please don't interpret that as licence to not study him, because he's simply peerless). It's the totality of what you read or what you're exposed to that makes the impact on your life, not that you've been reading Shakespeare specifically, or Emily Bronte specifically, or Oscar Wilde specifically, or anybody else. In most cases, our perception of Mr S has been violated by our schoolroom introduction to him, where we sat and laboriously analysed every sentence, with scant (or no) regard for the music in his words that only comes alive when the thing is acted the way it was meant to be. Shakespeare's works are literature only in an incidental sense. Their primary genius is as theatre and drama. JackofOz 11:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Koons 's contact

would you please help me to find jeff Koons 's artistic  ? I need to deal a project with his artistic agent and I can't find anywhere who is he and where to get in touch with him. Thanks a lot for your help. Yours sincerely

veronique LEBLANC from Paris, France Head of artbuying dptt McCann Erickson Paris

Sorry for anyone who may be annoyed by a foreign language response on English Wiki, (I'd be rather annoyed myself seeing a discussion on English Wiki in a language I don't understand, so please provide feedback if this is any way innappropriate) but given the phrasing of the question, I just felt it would be most helpful to the questioner to answer in French.

Votre question est un peut difficile a comprendre en anglais, donc je vais essayer de repondre en français. J'ai essayé mais malheureusement j'ai pas trouvé un contact direct pour Jeff Koons. En tous cas, il apparait qu'un certain "Max Hetzler" en Allemagne peut avoir l'information que vous cherchez car il est proprietaire d'une gallerie qui possede des oeuvres de Koons:

Galerie Max Hetzler

Zimmerstrasse 90/91

D-10117 Berlin

Phone (+4930) 229 24 37

Fax (+4930) 229 24 17

Email effacé pour le proteger contre le spam - consultez l'histoire s.v.p. Sandstein 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Holzmarktstrasse 15 – 18

S-Bahnbogen 48

D-10179 Berlin

Phone (+4930) 240 45 630

Fax (+4930) 240 45 632

J'espere que cette information va prouver utile. Bonne Chance! Loomis51 01:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange Man

http://img343.imageshack.us/my.php?image=16a0ni.jpg

Can you guys tell me who this scary looking guy is?

That's Lavrenti Beria, head of the secret police in the Soviet Union under Stalin. --Shadarian 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot mate.

Republican Nominee for Governor of New York

When are we going to find out who the official Republican nominee for Governor of New York is? --Shadarian 16:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be this week at the convention [4]. Nowimnthing 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

confused

hello my name is rick and iam going to a pain clinic in ky and they are giving me percocet but i recenty messed up my knee and ankle if i go to the hospital and they give me any pain meds am i breaking the law thank you

See the top of the page, as we're not a place for giving out legal or medical advice. The most important thing, and I say this as a layman, is to make sure that all doctors prescribing for you know what else you are taking. The doctors who proscribe should be aware of any pain medication you're already taking. It's important for your health. Geogre 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not familiar with KY law as in the US the criminal law is within the jurisdiction of the state, and therefore each state has a separate criminal code. I'm not even American, so my knowledge of KY criminal law is that much weaker. Further, I don't specialize in criminal law at all, so basically, what I'm saying is that I'm really not the best guy to be giving this sort of legal advice. So just to be sure, please consider the following as if it were coming from a complete layman, as it would be improper for me to give you legal advice under these circumstances. Having acknowledged all of the above, that this is merely to be taken as the advice of a layman and not the advice of a lawyer (sorry for all that, I just have to be really careful to cover my ass here!) my take on the whole thing is pretty simple:

Should you be completely honest with each doctor your dealing with about what meds you're on, and should they nonetheless further prescribe you additional meds, I can't possibly imagine how you can be considered to be breaking the law. If anything, having been completely honest about all the relevant information, should heaven forbid anything go wrong, it would be the doctors, not you, who would clearly be in the wrong.

But again, this shouldn't be considered as definitive advice, as KY criminal law may have some peculiarities that I'm unaware of. I'm just speaking from a general understanding of the basics of criminal law, and in no way do I claim to be a licenced practitioner of law in the State of Kentucky.

(i.e. don't worry buddy, as long as you're honest with your docs you're not breaking the law) Good luck. Loomis51 00:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're so right, Loomis51. I join you in wishing Rick well. One point: I deduce from the fearful tone of the question that Rick has been required to sign an Opioid Contract at the pain clinic which he attends. That is a contract, not a law, but can come across as very intimidating and downright terrifying. The contract usually requires the patient to inform any other doctor treating him/her of the treatment at the pain clinic. So if this patient does not inform his knee doc, he would be breaking the contract, and the pain clinic may then change his treatment plan. If he does inform the knee doctor, he is keeping his side of the contract, and definitely not doing anything illegal. To be doubly sure, I could suggest that Rick ask the knee doc - in writing - to contact the pain clinic to make sure what pain treatment they would approve of for Rick's new problem. This suggestion is probably overkill, but Rick does seems somewhat frightened. Then it is not Rick's problem, but the doctors', and Rick can use his emotional energy in striving for a good recovery from his injury. --Seejyb 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Newark, NJ government

What Boards and Commissions are statutorily required in Newark, NJ? How can you create a new board and how can you get rid of a board?

Newark's city website is here [5]. Based on my brief but expert check, I do not see any advisory bodies. There are federal and state boards but that's all I saw. Advisory bodies would typically be created, modified and disbanded by motions of council, probably with input by staff report. Each municipality is organized differently, with different names for similar positions. For example, what I would call City Manager or Chief Administrative Officer, Newark calls Business Administrator. I suggest you contact his office to find out if Newark does have any advisory bodies such as committees or boards. What is odd about the city's site is the lack of easy-to-spot contact info.--Shandon 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Newark School system, having been found "at best flagrantly delinquent or at worst deceptive in discharging its responsibilities to its students" by the State of New Jersey, has been under state control for the past ten years. The suspicion that the governance of Newark has been consciously kept labyrinthine and ponderous to keep its activities safe from scrutiny has occurred to more than one person, so perhaps the lack of contact info isn't so unexplainable.... - Nunh-huh 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unicode and prosody

Are there unicode characters to represent prosody, mainly, symbols for long and short syllables (but preferably also a symbol for 'any syllable', 'caesura' etc.)? At Tristubh I made do with ¯ and ˘ which are properly intended as superscript characters. dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you try em dash ? and its little brother en dash ? --DLL 22:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Search for "METRICAL" on http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/version/4.1/index.htm, and read the original proposal with some background at http://www.tlg.uci.edu/final/metricalsymbolsbrief.pdf. In my browser (Firefox) I see question marks for these, so probably they aren't generally implemented. Articles discussing prosody in poetry, such as that on the dactylic hexameter, appear not to use them. --Lambiam^Talk 11:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Great Lies in History (on video)

I am working on a video compilation of great lies through history and I wondered if anyone had some ideas for me. Examples that I have some up with are:

• George H.W. Bush “Read My Lips, No New Taxes”
• Bill Clinton “I did not have sex with that woman”
• Richard Nixon “I am not a crook”

They don't have to be politicians, but it seems like they are the ones most be videotaped lying.

Look pal, everybody lies. If the stupid electors only vote in politicians who say what the people want to hear, then you simply have to lie to get elected. Why should politicians be diffrent than us? Why is everybody so amazed by it? Why is everybody such a hypocrit and never admits that great politicians can to good things through the right lies? Even the great examples of leadership lied: Like Franklin Delano Roseveld who got elected upon his promise NOT to enter the WWII. I am sure that Abraham Lincoln (honest Abe) promised that he would not endanger the Union even if that meant NOT to release the slaves. Kennedy who promised US military support to the cubans exiles and then chickend out. It goes on and on, in the end what really matters is: Why did they lie? Was it a good reason? And what was the result? The last is by far the most important of all. Flamarande 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Politicians are the best source for lies, but businesses are also. As for politicians, any will work and it doesn't matter what side you are on. You can take George Bush's assertion that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or you can opt for Saddam's declaration that he has weapons of mass destruction and he will drive Israel into the sea. Either way, you've got a good lie. In business, look at the Enron head's assertion that they didn't know anything at all about the bad accounting. How about something as simple at Windows 96, I mean Windows 97, no I mean Windows 98 - or how about "Do no evil" and then censoring content for China? What makes it a great lie is your opinion on the matter. If you think Clinton is the greatest President since sliced bread, then you won't consider his "I did not have sex with that woman" a great lie. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that I like Bush junior (I thing that he is a honest religious retard), but imagine they really had found some WOMD, the inteligence agencies told them there weren´t any, but the Central (Lack of) Inteligence Agency had been wrong before a lot of times, you know? All of us would applaud the decision to go to war. Flamarande 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to Bush Sr.'s "No new taxes" statement, I see that more as a broken promise than as any sort of lie. I suppose it depends on what you really think is going on in the minds of these individuals. I sincerely believe that Bush honestly (however naively) had no intention of raising taxes when he made that remark. I don't see that as a lie at all, but rather a remark on a subject that he should have put a lot more thought and research into into before actually going ahead and irresponsibly "shooting from the hip" about. But then again, it depends on the extent of one's skepticism of politicians in general and Bush Sr. in particular.

In any case, let's look at the situation with a bit more perspective: Bush made the remark in '88 while riding on an enormous lead in the polls with regards to his opponent Michael Dukakis. Further, for any swing voter highly concerned with the issue of rising taxes, absent the remark, the choice would be just as clear: Bush the Republican would certainly be far less likely to raise taxes than Dukakis, who was quite liberal even by Democratic standards. The remark was completely unnecessary, in fact it was actually more of a blunder than a lie in my opinion, given the fact that it ended up causing far more damage for Bush's career than had he not made it at all. The whole "read my lips" fiasco was actually a leading factor in Bush's defeat in '92, a defeat that just one short year earlier seemed so incredibly unfathomable given Bush's record breaking popularity ratings, that Saturday Night Live actually did a sketch where the cast-members, impersonating the leading Democrats of the time, participated in a debate, each strenuously arguing why he should not be chosen to go through the embarassment of losing to Bush in the '92 election, each doing their best to list their most negative characteristics, with Mario Cuomo simply stating: "two words - mob ties".Loomis51 23:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone is missing my point. I don't need a lecture on why politicians lie, I was simply looking for some video clips of people lying (hopefully to humorous effect) to put in an ad campaign I'm working on.

The Iraqi Information Minister has a few good ones from the US invasion, such as "There are no American tanks in Baghdad". --Serie 23:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my little lecture, I submitted it before I read your last comment. In any case, I think it's still relevant, as it displays that labelling something a "lie" is a lot easier said than done. You actually have to get into the minds of the individuals making the statements, and then subjectively decide whether the remark was a "true", "out-and-out" lie, or whether the speaker actually believed what he or she was saying. I'll give you a couple more examples:

• Yasser Arafat (on various occasions...forgive me for paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact words) - "We [the PLO or later the PA] recognize the right of Israel to exist", or alternatively, "We [the PLO or later the PA] completely denounce all forms of violence".

Was he telling the truth? Was he lying? You'd have to get into his now (thankfully) dead brain to be absolutely certain. Otherwise it depends on who you ask. For those gullible enough to believe he was being truthful when he made these statements, it sort of became "their" truth, in an odd sense. In any case, it might be far more difficult than you had expected to find a list of clear lies to include in your ad campaign.

Just as a final example to think about, since you're looking for something that may also have humourous effect, where do you think you'd but O.J. Simpsons statement, after being acquitted of all murder charges, to the effect that (again, forgive me for paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact words): "Now I intend to focus all of my efforts on trying to find the true killer". Tough call, eh? Loomis51 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I'd say that Bush Sr.'s "no new taxes" statement was not a lie but a promise he broke. Some other political lies are:

• • Dwight Eisenhower calling Francis Gary Powers' U-2 a weather device.
  • Richard Nixon campaigning on a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War.
  • Gary Hart denying he was having an affair.
  • Joseph McCarthy claiming to have a list of 57 (or 81, or 205) Communists in the State Department.
  • Karl Rove claiming he didn't know who Valerie Plame was.
  • George W. Bush saying he didn't know of anyone in his administration leaking classified information. (Lewis Libby later testified Bush himself approved the leak of a classified document on Iraq.)
  • Ronald Reagan's invention of the "Welfare Queen." -- Mwalcoff 23:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder where your political inclinations lie, Mwalcoff. You just listed six Republican "liars" with one token Democrat (Gary Hart,) who incidentally, from the list, is the lowest profile individual.

Also, call me crazy, but wasn't it during Nixon's administration that the Vietnam War was in fact efectively put to an end? How then was his campaign statement that he had a plan to end the Vietnam War a lie? Seems like he pretty much delivered on that statement.Loomis51 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're crazy, Loomis (lol). No American administration can claim credit for ending the Vietnam War. Nixon in 1974 belatedly removed most of the Americans from the equation (in which they and other western powers including Australia had no business being involved in the first place) and left the Vietnamese to fight it out amongst themselves. The war may have been over for the Americans, but that didn't mean it was over. The fighting and the dying continued, and the war didn't end in any real sense till after the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. One week earlier, on 23 April, Gerald Ford made the somewhat vacuous pronouncement that the Vietnam War was officially over. Not only was this a little premature, but he was talking about a conflict that his country had turned its back on, so it was none of their business anymore. How would it be if, say, the Tsar of Russia had declared the US Civil War was officially at an end? Ford must have thought the American people were incredibly stupid, to come out with such a ridiculous statement. JackofOz 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me, Jack, that you actually believe that the conflict in Vietnam was a purely local issue, just a mere squabble between opposing factions in a swampy little country in Indochina. The Vietnam War was one of the clearest examples of a proxy war between the greatest powers at the time, China and the Soviet Union on the one hand, and the US on the other. You say the western powers had no business being involved in the war. What about the eastern powers? What about the 320,000 Chinese troops that actually served in Vietnam to back the communist north? Did they have any business being there?

No. Of course not. JackofOz 02:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that once the western powers were removed from the equation, the Vietnamese were left to fight it out amongst themselves. Do you actually believe that? Do you actually believe that once the west withdrew, the Chinese and the Soviets similarly withdrew their support of the north and truly left the Vietnamese to fight it out amongst themselves? (Besides, even if they did, they had already supplied the north with such a massive cache of military equipment that a final victory by the north was inevitable.)

Please don't always take my hyperbole literally (except, of course, when that's entirely appropriate). JackofOz 02:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Vietnam War was indeed a tragedy of immense proportions. And yes, when looking at that particular war on its own, the west clearly lost. The reality, however, is that a much larger war was going on at the time: the cold war. The Vietnam "War" was, in my opinion, more of a battle than a war. A battle within the much greater cold war. A battle which the free countries of the world lost, but still managed to give the east a bloody nose. A battle that kept the self-imploding but openly expansionist east occupied long enough that it no longer became feasible to expand further, throughout Indochina, and perhaps even further south, into Indonesia and finally into that rather odd, sparsely populated island nation where there lives a rather funny group of people who speak a rather funny brand of English and who have a rather tiny military to defend themselves from outside aggressors, as it hardly ever occured to them that anybody would have any interest in attacking their nation. Loomis51 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey fella, now you're getting personal. I won't even try to correct such cocky Canadian canards, except to refer you to Japanese air attacks on Australia, 1942-43, and in particular Air raids on Darwin, February 19, 1942; the Japanese midget submarine Attack on Sydney Harbour; and the Brisbane Line. The now thankfully defunct White Australia Policy owed part of its existence to the xenophobic attitude of the British colonists who felt that if any "foreign" cultures were allowed to thrive here, those foreigners would take over from within. Re defence spending: we have the longest coastline of any nation, a coastline that surrounds the world's most arid continent, huge parts of which are uninhabitable; and we're located a long way from the "main game" of Europe/USA, so our arrival on the world stage has been very recent in historical terms. These all account for the lowest population density of any continent except Antarctica. Because of the inherent tension between our geography and our demography, we will probably never acquire the critical mass of human capital required to have a truly secure perimeter. So, without being completely naive about it, we place a great importance on maintaining friendly relations with our neighbours. Which is why we've become the leading nation in our region on a whole range of measures. JackofOz 02:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, Jack, there's obviously been a miscommunication here. If I inadvertently offended you, then I appologize. You tell me not to take your hyperbole literally, all I ask from you is to understand in similar fashion that I may use similar techniques to drive home a point. My reference to something along the lines of "a rather odd people who speak a rather funny brand of English...with a tiny army..." was clearly not to be taken literally. My main point, in simple terms, was that I couldn't understand why an Australian such as yourself, (with obviously a good memory for past instances of miltary agression against Australia,) would be against his country getting involved in a war where the very identity of a Australia as a free nation was clearly at stake. So I used a bit of sarcarsm. The horror.

By the way, perhaps you should check out Geography of Canada and compare it to Geography of Australia. It would appear that Canada has roughly eight times as much coastline as Australia. Not that I'd ever be so uptight as to correct someone about such a rather meaningless piece of trivia, but since you seem to have reacted in such an inexplicably hostile manner, basically accusing me of being a total ignoramus on all things Australian, I only thought it fitting.

Look, we're in the same boat here. If you assumed that I was suggesting that Australia has the means to build up some sort of massive military infrastructure, you couldn't be more wrong. It's no secret that the Canadian military is the laughingstock of the western world. It's so obvious that to openly mock it is common fare. (Common Canadian joke: Q-What do you call three guys, two canoes and a slingshot? A-The Royal Canadian Navy.) We simply don't have the means to build up much of a military, plus, most Canadians seem to live in some fantasyland thinking the world is such a peaceful friendly place and nobody ever threatens us because we're so damn lovable, when the reality of the matter is that the only reason our national security is such a non-issue is because that other country that we happen to share the continent with just happens to have the most massive and powerful military on the planet.

Yes, despite a lack of resources to build up a significant military, the Australians did what's right and helped out in Vietnam, even if only sending a symbolic military contingent, just to show solidarity with the free countries of the world. Good on them I say! Same thing goes for the mission in Afghanistan, and, dare I say, Iraq. Good on them!

Canada, on the other hand, has been shamelessly shirking in it's responsibilities as a member of the community of free nations. On 9/11 our closest neighbour and friend was barbarously attacked by an organization which was hosted and being given aid and comfort by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Can you believe that only five short years later, a motion introduced to Parliament by our minority government to extend the mission in Afghanistan by a mere two years just barely squeaked through? Shame on us for even giving the issue a second thought!

If you disagree with my obviously heavily right leaning views, take it out on me, not on Canada, as my views diverge GREATLY from those of my fellow Canadians. Calling what I said a "cocky Canadian canard" simply makes no sense, as my views are so UNCanadian when it comes to these issues. Not that I don't love my country, its people, its dedication to multiculturalism, freedom and tolerance, I actually couldn't imagine living anywhere else. I simply find myself in an extremely small minority when it comes to issues of international relations.

Like I said, I'm sorry if I inadvertently offended you, but at the same time, I'm no sycophant, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining exactly what I meant, point by point, and how it wasn't meant to offend you. I honestly don't have the time, and frankly, I'm not entirely unoffended by your rather unexpected turnabout. I had thought that over the past little while we had established a degree of goodwill between each other, to the extent that you would give me the benefit of the doubt in cases where my writing may leave room for interpretation. Apparently not. I sincerely hope that you would reconsider that "cocky Canadian canard" comment, but if you can't, I'm afraid there's not much else that I can do to make things right. Loomis51 13:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, I took no offence at your remarks, and I certainly meant none by my response. I was merely engaging in "robust intellectual debate". We're adults and we can withstand the best others have to offer in such debates. There's no need for people's sensitivities to get bruised, unless there's clear evidence of personal attacks being made. I have seen no such evidence in any of our interchanges, and I don't intend there will be any. If "cocky Canadian canard" offended you, I of course withdraw. I thought it was obvious that my deliberate use of alliteration was a signal there was good humour being displayed here. If you force me to adopt the "lol" language and put a smiley after every single time I say something humorous, to make absolutely sure the reader doesn't misconstrue what I just said as malicious or whatever, then it just makes for a very unnatural and stilted way of writing for me. I guess we all have our own personal views on what humour is, and the best way of expressing it. A very instructive lesson, which I'm sure you would appreciate, was listening to Andrew Denton interviewing Mel Brooks a couple of years ago on Enough Rope (ABC TV). Mel was directing the stage version of The Producers over here. They were discussing the song Springtime for Hitler, and Denton asked Mel if there was any subject that was off limits for humour. Brooks replied "None, absolutely none", and went on to explain that a song like "Springtime for Hitler" is inherently very funny, and only those Jews who are committed to being eternal victims would get all offended by it. Laughing at such a song does not mean that a Jew has suddenly forgotten about the Holocaust, or ceased to care, it just means that they can see the funny side of any situation, which is a necessary survival skill. I'm sure Victor Frankl would agree wholheartedly. So, that's my sermon about humour. I fear I've now become too tangential even for me, so I'll leave it at that. Cheers. JackofOz 23:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeez Jack! You really had me going there! As I think I've at least implied in the past, I have no problem with "robust intellectual debate". In fact I love it, all the moreso with someone who holds diametrically opposing views to mine, so long as there's that inexplicable "kinship of spirit" -- basically, that underlying mutual respect that can trascend any debate, no matter how heated. Please don't change your manner of debating on my account. No need to withdraw the "cocky Canadian canard" comment either. In fact, my coy little reference to a "rather odd group of people, speaking a rather odd brand of English" was intended to hopefully put a grin on your face, and possibly produce a bit of a chuckle...with you then responding similarly with a good-hearted dig about Canada (which apparently you did...though it apparently went over my head). I'm sure that had the exchange gone on in person, I would have been able to sense the underlying good-will, it can just get tricky sometimes in writing. With regards to the Mel Brooks story, I couldn't agree with you more. "Springtime for Hitler", for me, is brilliant satire. In any case, I'm sure the original questioner of this question (I honestly can't even remember what the original question was!) is by now completely bewildered by this whole give and take. So for her/his sake, maybe we should just quit now, and let the rest of the bunch continue with their discussion. G'day, you absolutely asinine Aussie ass! Loomis51 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The "secret plan" (which Nixon denied having) was to end the war without losing it. Nixon appears to have had no such plan; the real question is whether he really claimed to have one in the first place. See Election_promise#Richard_Nixon.27s_Election_promises. --Fastfission 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Nixon "ended" the Vietnam War was not my point. The questioner asked for examples of politicians lying, and there's no question Nixon was lying when he said he had a plan to end the war in 1968. I seem to remember a documentary that intersperced a clip of a 1968 Nixon campaign speech with a post-Watergate interview in which Nixon chuckled and admitted there was no such plan. I can't help it if I mostly thought of GOP lies. Clinton was already taken, and Carter, if anything, was too honest. -- Mwalcoff 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush's "no new taxes" wasn't a lie, it was a broken promise. A lie is stating something that is not true; a broken promise is saying you will (or won't) do something, and then not doing it. Personally I'm less critical of broken promises than I am lies; a promise may need to be broken occasionally, if the circumstances change. A lie is a lie no matter how you spin it. Though some lies are, in my mind, worse than others (Clinton's "didn't have sex" lie didn't hurt anyone; Bush Jr.'s "Saddam has WMDs and participated in 9/11" lie has so far resulted in thousands of US and Iraqi deaths, with more no doubt to come). --Fastfission 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A.Q. Khan was quoted about a million times before 1998 claiming that Pakistan's nuclear program was not developing a bomb, though I don't know if that is on video anywhere (or in English). The entire Soviet state was built on lies but that isn't particularly interesting (and they are all in Russian). Hmm... I'm drawing somewhat of a blank at the moment. --Fastfission 02:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is footage of a Congressional hearing in which the CEOs of the big tobacco companies claim one by one that they had no clue whatsoever that smoking might have adverse health effects. If I'm not mistaken it's in The Corporation. --Lambiam^Talk 05:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple such events in German politics, the most famous one probably being Uwe Barschel claiming he didn't know anything about the Barschel affair (he said something to the effect that the lies of his detractors would "fall like a house of cards"). You'd probably have a problem with the langugage barrier since you probably cannot expect your audience to understand German, but if you want to educate them a bit about politics outside of the US, the Barschel affair is a classic example of what you're looking for (I'm a bit surprised we have no article at all on en.wikipedia, I'll see if I can fix that). If you're looking for a bit of comic relief in between, two classics that instantly come to mind are Obi Wan Kenobi saying "Only imperial stromtroopers are so precise" and "What I told you was true...from a certain point of view" -- Ferkelparade π 06:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One recent event in Canada occured last May the entire Canadian parliamentary press corp broke out in laughter at a press conference when Paul Martin made the obviously untrue claim that Belinda Stronach's defection was not going to affect the upcoming confidence vote. - SimonP 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some British examples:

Tony Blair claiming that Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction which could be deployed within 15 minutes

Tony Blair later claiing that the reason we invaded Iraq had nothing to do with WMD & was because Saddam was a dictator.

Charles Kennedy denying he had a drink problem.

Alan Clark on his involvement in the Arms to Iraq scandal.

Harold Wilson saying "the pound in your pocket isn't devalued".

John Profumo denying an affair with Christine Keeler

Gordon Brown & Tony Blair saying there is no rift & they're the best of friends & working well together.

David Blunkett denying fiddling travel expenses & pulling strings to get a visa for his mistresses nanny.

Johnathan Aitken & Jeffrey Archer saying just about anything - there are so many lies to choose from.

AllanHainey 09:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• • If you want to expand beyond politics, don't forget that professional athletes and actors routinely lie to journalists. The trouble with these lies is that it often takes a long time to tell whether it's a lie, and in many cases, the liar feels like it was nobody's business to know the truth, anyway. For example: Barry Bonds has definitely lied about steroids, but how much? Elton John lied about first being straight and then being bisexual when he was gay all along, but was it really any of our business? --M@rēino 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe the subject matter is none of our business, but if they're choosing to make any sort of public statement, a lie is still a lie. Compare Elton John and Kevin Spacey for example. One told lies for a while; the other has preferred not to make any statement, so people still speculate, but he can't be accused of lying.
• People in general lie all the time. When confronted with a street beggar asking for $2 for "a cup of coffee", most people prefer to say "Sorry but I don't have any change on me right now" (a lie) rather than "I don't believe you when you say you want the money for coffee because I suspect you're a drug addict and I don't want to support that. But even if I believed you, I just don't want to help you anyway, because if I help you I'll feel I have to help all the others like you whenever I'm asked, but I feel unable to come right out and say that because that will make me seem like an uncharitable person (which may well be the truth)". JackofOz 21:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

June 1

Breakdancing scene in Flashdance

Does anyone know the song playing in the breakdancing scene in the film Flashdance (seen here)? I have tried some searching but to no avail. Thanks, TacoDeposit 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A google search for a few of the lyrics indicates that it is "It's Just Begun" by The Jimmy Castor Bunch, 1972. ×Meegs 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

and an IMDB search for the soundtrack of Flashdance confirms that that song is in the movie. [6] VdSV9•♫ 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks both! TacoDeposit 01:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The signifigance on January 01 as a date of birth

I have been told, and it could be a wild goose chase, that muslims celebrate their birthday on 01 January, and that when asked for a date of birth, this is the date they will give of the year they are born. Is this statement correct, is it a wives tale, or is it not true of muslim's but true of another religion or the like. Thanks in advance D

All the Muslims I know celebrate their birthday on their actual birthday. JackofOz 04:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true of (race)horses --DPM 07:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's true in the USA, but the horse's birthday is 1 August in Australia. Funny, we don't seem to have an article on that. JackofOz 10:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Islamic calendar there are only about 354 days a year, so that a birthday celebrated according to that calendar would be constantly changing its position with respect to the seasons, and someone 70 Islamic years old would be only 68 seasonal (tropical) years old! But Wahhabis are opposed to the celebration of birthdays. I never heard the Jan 1st, thing, though... AnonMoos 07:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The poorest people of India (some of whom are Buddhist), do not have luxuries like calendars and don't attach much importance to dates. They will often give their date of birth as January 1st. --Shantavira 11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In Norway, immigrants who claim to be born the 1st of January have to provide solid documentation, otherwise they will be given an id-number (= a unique number identifying the individual, starting with the date of birth) corresponding to a random date other than January 1st. The reason is that the numbering system that is being used in Norway (a thousand individuals for each date of a particular year) simply cannot handle the number of people that claim to be born the 1st of January. --vibo56 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it not fascinating to know that Jesus (and Buddha, by the way) were born the 1st of Jan., that's why ? But the CIA distorted facts and burned manuscripts with the help of the Opus Dei. Do not tell that I told you. --DLL 22:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

when were women allowed to act?

I would like to know when women were allowed to act on stage? I seem to know that it was not allowed in Classical times nor in Medieval nor Elizabethan times. When then did it begin? Theatre says nothing and women in theatre seems to be somewhat reddish in color. -lethe ^{talk +} 09:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In the English stage, women were allowed to act at the Restoration. See Restoration drama, Breeches role, and Edward Kynaston (or is it Kynastan?). France had already allowed women to act, but I don't know when and how they allowed women on stage. Geogre 11:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kynastan sounds like a tiny landlocked mountainous country somewhere east of Suez and north of civilization, whose sole industry is very thirsty cows. :--) JackofOz 12:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on the English Restoration claims that it was the first time ever that women were allowed on stage. It's not clear if that is meant globally, or just the English tradition. Anyway, it's enough to satisfy. Thank you. -lethe ^{talk +} 11:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely the first time in English. However, scholars don't like "ever" or "first." Any statement like that is bound to fall. At any rate, there are many suggestions that women acted in private before that, but you're sort of allowed to do things in your own home that you can't do in public, and so masques would often have women, and they might even have an audience, as there was some winking at the regulation. Nevertheless, the official ban was lifted by Charles II. Geogre 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that it's probably quite a bit imprecise to look at the periods mentioned as possibilities of when women "began" to be allowed to act. It's much more probable that whatever ban there was on women acting "began" at a certain point as well. For example, if you look back to ancient Greece, were women banned from acting in the great Greek Classics? Would a woman have been forbidden from portraying Sophocles' Antigone? Perhaps. And perhaps not. In any case it's virtually certain that women acted at various periods in various places long before the ban you speak of was imposed.Loomis51 03:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I can assure you that women were not allowed to portray Antigone in Sophocles' day nor thereafter. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the status of women regarding acting in ancient Greece. That's why I said perhaps, and perhaps not. The point I was trying to make was that it's highly unlikely that the ENTIRE WORLD had some sort of UNIFORM ban on women acting up until a certain point in history. For example, did North American aboriginals participate in this "ban"? In particular, did they participate in it before they were even aware that Europeans existed (and vice versa)? Since several aboriginal nations were matriarchies, it certainly seems possible that they would have allowed women to act. I know what I'm saying may sound ridiculous, but I'm just saying all this because it sounds equally ridiculous that there was some universal ban on women acting everywhere on earth, since the beginning of time, only until that ban was lifted. Loomis51 23:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, as I recall, women and children were not even allowed in the audience during the Ancient Greek comedies, though they were allowed to view the tragedies. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Lethe is right. The default is women not allowed on stage. Why they weren't is one of those things you can argue, but women were not allowed to act in public, and women on stage made news in Europe when they began in England. Visitors from other nations just had to come see the really exciting, nearly pornographic, thrill of a real woman on the stage. This, in turn, can fuel lots of speculations on "spectacle" and "gaze" and other fanciful stuff, but the prohibition was very strong everywhere else. Geogre 11:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Virginia Scott's Molière: A Theatrical Life (p 42) mentions professional Italian actresses documented as early as 1563 and French actresses as early as 1640, so claims that England's restoration actresses were the world's first need to be tossed out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, Bunch. Yes, there were some. No, they weren't allowed. Anyway, this is one of those tangles that I said we should avoid anyway: "first." Which is the first state university in the US? (There are two.) I'm content to have England not be the first with professional actresses and still maintain that they were the first to lift the ban, or at least at their own time. Geogre 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Democratic People's Republic of North Korea : why democratic in name?

Hello,

I was just wondering why countries like the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea and the Democratic Republic of Congo have been calling themselves democratic. I am not saying they should be democratic or aren't, but do they officially claim to be democratic when they put that in their name?

Evilbu 11:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What's in a name? That which we call a government by any other word would operate identically. Anyway, point is, an "official claim" to being democratic is pretty silly, and requires some understanding of what we mean by a republic or a democracy. Most, if not all, countries today meet some, but not all, of the conditions for the two, and international bickering over the degree to which those conditions are met is pretty common. Putting "republic" or "democratic" in a country's name is most likely a means of reinforcing an implicit claim, either to outsiders or the internal population. — Lomn Talk 13:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

East Germany was also a "Democratic Republic", while interestingly West Germany was not "Democratic". deeptrivia (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks, but could you both elaborate a bit? I am aware of the subjectivity of the matter, but I wanted to know, when North Korea calls itself (they have decided on that name themselves right?) Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, do they MEAN 1) the president can be elected by the people 2) the president is elected by party people 3) certain other matters (which?) are decided by the people 4) no elections should be held as everyone agrees that the current regime is the best and thus we are democratic? I am just trying to understand their own explanation of that name.

They "mean" (and I'm now moving into subjective opinion) that they are a free and democratic nation, and the US should stop attempting to coerce and intimidate them away from their rightful place at the table of nations. That's one view, anyway. Note, of course, that it doesn't really fit any of your suggestions -- in fact, it doesn't even approach your suggestions -- because there's no need for a country to make its name mean anything. As a couple of similar examples, why the "United States" when, in geopolitical context, there's only one "state"? Why the "Commonwealth" of Virginia when Virginia is a US state, not a commonwealth of the US? — Lomn Talk 16:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly from my studies, and to digress a bit here, the United States functions as only one state now, but when it originally adopted the name, it was essentially a group of different states (countries). In the early days of the United States, if you were to ask someone such as George Washington what country he was from, he would likely respond with "Virginia" or the name of some other state of the Union. This atmosphere lasted up to the U.S. Civil War, which was a defining moment in the self-identity of the U.S. Originally, therefore, the name "United States of America" essentially meant just that: several states on the (North) American continent that had united. --DavidGC 03:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is another interpretation of the meaning of democratic in the titles of communist states. Virtually all of them were formed by an overthrow of the previous government which was carried out "in the name of the people." They all claim to rule in the name of the people and by the authority of the people. However all of them interpret this to mean that the dictator or ruling elite make all policy decisions "on behalf of the people" since they know best what the people need. Any disagreement with government policy is interpreted as an attempt to subvert or obstruct the "will of the people" and many of the communist rulers have been willing to subject millions of the their people to death, imprisonment, forced labor, internal exile, unemployment, etc "for the good of the people." Once you accept the assumption that the ruling elite are acting on behalf of the people, there is nothing dishonest in characterizing your country as democratic, no matter how murderous the government is. alteripse 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Communist states have always claimed that they are democratic. That's why they have "elections" and party "coalitions." In reality, both are shams. In North Korea, for example, candidates run unopposed, and the coalition parties are really under the control of the ruling Worker's Party. Communist states have legislatures that act like the parliaments of democratic countries but serve as mere rubber-stamps for the ruling party. There are differences among "Communist" countries, of course. China, while still authoritarian, is less of a shamocracy than it used to be; there are now actual debates in the National People's Congress. -- Mwalcoff 22:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with democracy, or anything to do with being a communist state in particular. Quite a few totalitarian states nowadays claim to be democratic. (E.g. The Democratic Republic of Congo.) It's simply a propaganda thing to make it sound like the regime has the support of the people. Nothing more, nothing less. --BluePlatypus 20:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Whenever a country decides that it must include the word "democratic" in its official name, it just kind of brings to mind that old quote by Shakespeare in Hamlet: "The lady protests too much, methinks". Bottom line, if a country's name includes the word "democratic", it most likely isn't. Loomis51 01:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Meaning Of Roy

I was told that 'Roy' means King (i.e from Royal). Is this True? If not, what's the actual meaning of Roy?

83.229.103.31 11:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it comes either from the Old French, which indeed means king (roi), or from the Gaelic meaning red. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See Ray (surname). deeptrivia (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As Sputniksssr says, if the name is Rob Roy, it is gael : "Rob Roy is anglicised from the Gaelic Raibeart Ruadh, or Red Robert" ; if it is in the East Indies, as our Ray article tells, it comes from Raj which is akin to latin Rex and French Roi. I believe it because I read it in WP. --DLL 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, roi means king in the current French of today, not necessarily only in "old French". But I suspect what Sputnik meant was that its introduction into the English language dates back to the Norman invasion of 1066, when "old French" was introduced into England causing the English language to undergo what is by far its most significant and radical transformation ever. Loomis51 01:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But "roy" is a particularly Middle/Classical French spelling (and Old French I suppose, but the further back you go it becomes "rois" or "reis"). Adam Bishop 03:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

GFDL licencing

Hi. I am working on a project where I use pictures. When downloading pictures tagged with GFDL, with the following licence text: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". - (GFDL-self) - what am I allowed to do with the picture? May I

• use it with no source credit?
• use it with credits to the photographer as named on Wikipedia Commons?
• use it with information that it is licenced under the GFDL?
• use it with credits after getting approval from whoever licenced the picture on Commons?
• are there any differences between using it in presentations (PowerPoint) and reports/documents?
• and, just to be sure, images tagged with (PD-self) may be used however I want, right?

Sorry for asking this here, but the help pages on Commons focuses mostly on what is needed to upload a picture, not how exploiters like me can use them. Of course I'd like to name the sources, but it is not always easy, especially not so when used in a presentation or as part of a larger assembly of pictures. Jørgen 11:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you are really GFDL compliant, you have to give a source and a list of changes, and a full copy of the GFDL. (Personally I think this makes GFDL the wrong license for images, since that is a lot of extra copy to include with every picture). Now you can also get in touch with the creator themselves and ask them for a different license on it -- they can separately license it to you however they wish (I recommend CC-BY-SA, which is much easier to use then GFDL for images). PD-self images can be used however you want, yes. There should be legally no difference based on the medium (though personally I think this is ridiculous). GFDL is really nasty when it comes to photos, because it is a license designed for software manuals. --Fastfission 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't be sorry for asking. A lot of people just take images without thinking about the law.

use it with no source credit?

No. This is something you cannot do under any circumstances.

use it with credits to the photographer as named on Wikipedia Commons?

use it with information that it is licenced under the GFDL?

The GFDL requires you to give credit and say it's GFDL so other people can reuse your copy of the image.

use it with credits after getting approval from whoever licenced the picture on Commons?

Yes, if people want to license it under another free license that allows that in addition to the GFDL, they are free to give you any right they want. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

are there any differences between using it in presentations (PowerPoint) and reports/documents?

No.

and, just to be sure, images tagged with (PD-self) may be used however I want, right?

Yes.

Those are my answers. Images don't generally have a lot of chances, so it's usually enough to give the source and the name of the uploader for each. It's the GFDL copy that's going to take a lot of space. Not the list of contributors. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. However, I still do not have it clear: May I use the picture, writing somewhere on the same page: "Photo: P. Hotographer/Wikipedia Commons. The image is licenced under the GNU Free Documentation Licence".

and, on another note: doesn't a lot of web pages copy text off Wikipedia? It says below the edit window that my contributions are licenced under GFDL, so how come they do it - without listing the individual contributors or the GDFL licence? Jørgen 11:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is this famous woman?

In a recent interview broadcast on Australian television (ABC transcript), author DBC Pierre talked about his meeting with a famous Italian literature critic. Without naming the woman, he described her as "like the grandmother of American literature", and the "first Italian to import the literatures of Ernest Hemingway and all these liberal American authors...she'd been imprisoned three times by the Fascists for importing these liberal books". I am fascinated by this woman. How may I find out her name? --60.225.84.192 11:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He was probably talking about it:Fernanda Pivano, born 1917, a critic and translator of American literature (sorry no English article). --Cam 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

She wrote an article about Pierre for the Corriere della Sera in August 2003. The title of the article appears in this list but I can't find the text online. --Cam 12:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that would be January 2003. January 8, 2003. --Cam 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I started an English article about her: Fernanda Pivano. --Cam 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How would I apply for a job?

I'm 15, and I'd like to get a casual part-time job somewhere, say at a department store or something. How would I go about applying? Just ringing up and asking if there are any job vacancies, walk in and ask the same? Do I need to specify positions or anything? I'm in Australia.

Try dressing like a person who is smart and successful. Then, make a resume (it should be one page and highlight your skills since you probably have no work history). The key here is to put your 3 references with full contact information on the resume. Even though the employers won't have interest in it, it is a great cheat-sheet when you fill out their job application. Finally, go from store to store and just ask for a job application. I did this when I was 13 (in the United States). I worked on farms as a kid and I found I could legally work in retail once I was 13. So, I quickly left the tobacco, corn, and sheep behind and went to Orange Julius - then Burger King - then AMC... --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What sort of dress would that entail? About the classiest things I own are generic sneakers, long black pants and a long-sleeve surf brand shirt (or this short-sleeved pseudo business shirt thing). I'm also a longhaired male, which rarely looks classy.

I hate to say it, but as an occasional long-haired male myself, I am appalled about the amount of difference a hair cut makes to how people treat you. Sometimes you just have to swallow your pride. --The Gold Miner 15:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The trick is very simple: look and act like the person doing the interview. Then, the only way for them to dislike you is to dislike people that are like them. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Get a haircut. Get some proper shoes. Get a dress shirt. (I hope by pants you don't mean jeans. If so, get some Dockers or their Aussie equivalent.) I suppose you could start as a stockboy, in which case your sloppy attire may not be a problem. --Nelson Ricardo 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A haircut isn't required. Granted, I didn't have long hair when I was your age but I have for a few years now and it doesn't make a difference for interviews. Just brush it and pull it back or something so it looks good. Also, here in the U.S. at least, many guys have long hair and work in grocery stores, music stores, electronics stores, etc. So basically, I don't see what hair length has to do with it. Dressing well is however important. They don't want you looking like you and your buddies just got done hanging out. Put on nice clothes and you should be fine. Dismas|^(talk) 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Another note, most countries have laws regarding which hours and how many hours a person of your age can work. Some companies will work with this and others don't want to bother. Check out places that have kids your age already working there, they are your best bet. Nowimnthing 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

this is a matter of life or

very important that i finish thi

You'll have no trouble if yo (DJ Clayworth 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

If I were you I would calm dow Tyrenius 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I really thi — Lomn Talk 19:43, 1 J

It's in the cave of Aaaarrrrrggggh! Geogre 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They couldn't hit an elephant from that dist Grutness...wha? 01:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what you're looki --DavidGC 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please suitly em --212.202.184.238 04:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn pastatu...hotclaws**==(81.136.163.210 08:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

I wi -- Ferkelpa

Greek theory regarding mind, body and spirit

Hello,

I'm trying to find the Greek phrase for mind, body, spirit and an explanation of the theory or philosophy. Any suggestions? Thanks

Try psyche, physis, pneuma. alteripse 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

psyche = spirit, noos = mind, soma = body. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And read the article on Philosophy of mind. --Lambiam^Talk 11:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Greek" theory (yuk yuk yuk) regarding "mind", "body" and "spirit":

Mind: "No, I don't mind!"

Body: "If the body comes with it, it's there for a reason!"

Spirit: "If the spirit willing, no ifs ands or buts".

Duration of a whole note

Hi there, is there any way I can find out the duration of a whole in a song? I mean, intuitively, sometimes it's quite easy, but sometimes it seems impossible to tell if the beat is a fourth note or an eighth note. I have looked for it in some meter-related articles, whole note, etc. But I do most of my wikiing at work, and any url with (music) in it is blocked out, so I might be asking a question that I could find the answer on my own if I searched more at home.

The reason I'm asking this is that I just recently came up with a song and when trying to put it to paper it seemed too bizarre. The main riff is 13 (as 3+3+2+2+3), sometimes 14 (as 3+3+2+2+4) dotted notes, so I was thinking that it would be a 39/16, but for all I know it might just as well be... what, 39/8 or 39/32 depending if those were dotted fourths, eighths or sixteenths. VdSV9•♫ 18:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a very slight variation on: half half quarter quarter half (a common 2-measure rhythm). It is not uncommon to hold notes a little long and shorten others to give it a nice syncopation. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably looks less odd if you write it down with alternating time signatures (ie, two 3/8 bars, a 2/4 bar, a 3/8 bar, or something like that); that way, it would be surprisingly similar to a Zwiefacher (four bars: 3/4 3/4 2/4 2/4) and would look a lot less exotic than a 39/16 signature. Changing signatures mid-tune (and even regularly as a base rhythm) is a lot more common than you might think, just have a listen to all those Led Zeppelin records and try to count the bars :P (of course, the exact places where you split your riff into bars would depend on where in your rhythm the accents are) -- Ferkelparade π 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no-hard-and fast rules, but many conventions depending on the style of music. Which style of music are you writing? If you email me a sound clip of the riff with some context, I'll be happy to have a go at suggesting a notation. You can email me via my user page --vibo56 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you Vibo for answering the main question. It's supposed to be, er... rock, whatever that means... As for the other replies, I think you haven't quite understood, it's 13 dotted notes, so it would be 9+9+6+6+9/(8 or 4 or 16) not as you put. VdSV9•♫ 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rock is usually either 4/4 or 12/8. 3+3+2+2+3 sounds cool. It doesn't make much sense to me to say that every note is dotted. If the main riff is 3+3+2+2+3 for at least a couple of bars, I would suggest 13/8, or 13/16 if it's very fast. Try to identify the exact spot when the 13/8 notation no longer fits, try to identify the exact spot when you're back in 13/8, and use an alternate signature (whatever/8) for the period in between. --vibo56 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, rock usually is 4/4, but I don't know what else to think of it, I mean, I play in rock bands, I play rock music, so this would have to be a crazy-ass-rock-waltz. ;)

I expressed myself poorly. It's not that every note is dotted, the beats, the beats are dotted notes. The riff is comprised of 13 beats, grouped as shown.

 1''2''3''1''2''3''1''2''1''2''1''2''3'' repeat.

I don't play drums, but I'm good at Air Drums. I came up with a simple count for this stomping my foot on the 1s, shaking my false drumstick as if I were hitting the hihat on every number and ', and tapping my leg on the 2s and 3s. Was this humanly understandable? VdSV9•♫ 00:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that by using 13 beats, you are over-complicating it. You can use 8 beats and get nearly an identical sound. Hold two half notes a little long. Hit two quarters a little short. Hold a half a little long. It is called, as I said, syncopation. Only robots play in strict 4/4 time. Humans bend the time to make it feel right. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're suggesting I change it to fit a common time, thanks, but I prefer it as it is. I might use it as a variation for a guitar solo or something... Like in Pink Floyd's money. ;)

I know what syncopation is, but I don't want a nearly identical sound.

Thank you all for suggestions on my music, but maybe I shouldn't have mentioned itfp. Let's get back to the point, how to figure the duration of a whole note? Someone take a (preferrably well known) song or two and say "this song is 6/8 and can't be 6/16 because the whole note is...." or something like that. VdSV9•♫ 11:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, back to the starting point. As vibo56 said, there is no rule for this. It is just a matter of convention and convenience, like what is common, how people tend to do it. The exact same piece may be written 6/4 or 6/16 without change of meaning. This might look weird though for people used to reading that kind of music in 6/8. So if you're used to reading music, just pick what looks most right. --Lambiam^Talk 11:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for replying! VdSV9•♫ 12:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that you're using duple time? (Someone who can spell it, please suitly emphazi). It's like triplets, but the other way. You could write it as 9/8 with a duple thing over two of the bars, if theat is the sort of 'stretched' effect you want. Otherwise, it's just changing bar lengths. "9/8, 9/8, 6/8, 6/8, 9/8" Funky. And as people said, you can write it any way you want. If it comes to setting the speed, you do that seperately by writing "90 (crochets) a minute)" or whatever. If it comes to the beat, it's however it makes sense. 6/8 and 3/4 are the same length (you could write a piece of 6/8 music with a 3/4 time signature), but the beats are placed differently. You probably know most of this, so please don't feel patronised. Skittle 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like tuplets, I like it when it's complicated. :b

If you look at the little scheme I did with the 1''2''3'''s, you'll see exactly what the beat is like (I think). VdSV9•♫ 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well yes. As I said, if you're using exact counting (the bar lengths are not the same, the beat length is) and your beats are dotted notes, then you're looking at "9/8, 9/8, 6/8, 6/8, 9/8" as your simplest form. You could try "9/4, 9/4, 6/4, 6/4, 9/4" or others if you'd rather, but I think you'd be most comfortable working with the first. And who says tuplets aren't complicated? :-) Skittle 11:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unknown Music Track: Used in X-Factor

What are the track details (name composer etc.) of the piece regularly used to symbolize powerful things happen, and is currently feauturing heavily in the British televison programme the X-Factor, especially towards the beggining of each programme, where it shows clips (I think). Philc _T^E_C^I 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it is from Carl Orff's Carmina Burana [7]. The part of the piece that is usually used is called "O Fortuna". --Cam 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!! Philc _T^E_C^I 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

GOP

What does the acronym GOP stand for?

See GOP. In order to help any more, you'll have to give us the context in which it was used. Dismas|^(talk) 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Try this. --vibo56 22:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Grand Old Party.

Regulatory Agency Clearance Delay

What's that? I heard about it in the Powerbook prank (located at http://www.zug.com/pranks/powerbook/index.html) It seems to be something to do with British/American customs. Wizrdwarts 23:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just FedEX speak saying that the item has arrived in the country and is awaiting processing or inspection by that country's customs authority. In the case of the PowerBook prank which was delivered to London, this would have been HM Customs and Excise (now HM Revenue and Customs). --Canley 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks for answering! Wizrdwarts 02:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

June 2

What is a "sister city"?

In some cities they have a list on the bottom that has other cities from other countries labeled as sister cities. Can someone explain it to me?--195.229.242.54 01:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you type "sister city" in the box it takes you to Town twinning. Is there anything that article doesn't explain? —Keenan Pepper 03:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think there would be an article about it, thank you very much!--195.229.242.54 09:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Journey Plural

(moved to the Language Desk)

Chinatowns

Why are there only Chinatowns in the United States? Why not a Japantown, Koreantown, etc? Thanks.

MSTCrow 02:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• The short answer is that there are. They're just not as famous internationally as Chinatown in NYC and San Fransisco. I don't know of a Japantown, but there are Koreantowns. Geogre 02:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact NYC is so massive and diverse that there's a "town" for pretty much any ethnic group you can think of. Just as an example, I've been told that in NYC there's actually a neighbourhood called "Little Afghanistan". Also, it has to be recognized that different ethnic neighbourhoods tend use different wording in their names. Not every ethnic neighbourhood has to end with the word "town" as is traditional for Chinese neighbourhoods. For example, there may not exist any "Italytown" anywhere in America, but there are certainly plenty of places in plenty of major cities in the US that are known as "Little Italy". So, to turn your question on its head, why are there no "Little Chinas" in the US? Loomis51 03:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Japantown. --Nelson Ricardo 07:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a perfectly good Chinatown in Toronto.

See List of named ethnic enclaves in North American cities for more examples. Rmhermen 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Detroit has a well-known Greektown, and IIRC, New York has a "Little Italy". Seattle has a heavily Japanese area, but I don't know if it's got a name of its own. --Serie 18:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a Japantown in San Francisco.

• This is a sweeping generalization, but the Chinese immigrants started arriving in the 1800s, while the Japanese and Koreans started arriving (except for the Asian-Californians, of course) in the 1960s. So while there are indeed J-Towns and K-Towns, in many towns immigrants from these nations arrived in a USA that was more encouraging of ethnic integration. So while ethnic neighborhoods exist to some extent for just about every immigrant group, they are far more common among groups like the Italian and Chinese who started arriving in large numbers before the 1960s.--M@rēino 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

date of birth of Rahul Mahajan son of late BJP leader Pramod Mahajan.

June 2, 2006.

To Wikipedia Reference Desk Humanities

Subject: Request for information on Date of Birth of Rahul Mahajan, son of late BJP leader Pramod Mahajan.

Sir / Madam,

I wish to know the Date of Birth or any educational information wherein I can know the date of birth of Rahul Mahajan, son of late BJP leader Pramod Mahajan. I need the information very urgently. You may SMS me at [ phone number redacted ]. Thanking You for your kind response Yours Truly Sd/- Prashant Hamine Special Correspondent Daily News & Analysis.

date of birth of rahul mahajan, son of late BJP leader Pramod Mahajan

June 2, 2006

To Wikipedia Reference Desk Humanities

Subject: Request for deleting information on Rahul Mahajan, son of late BJP leader Pramod Mahajan

Sir / Madam

I hereby humbly request your goodself to delete the query that I had asked you for information on date of birth of Rahul Mahajan, son of late Pramod Mahajan. I apologise for the trouble caused. Please remove the query from the website. Sd/- Prashant

No worries! Glad you managed to find the information you were looking for. — QuantumEleven 08:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Death becomes her

In the film Death Becomes Her, Isabella Rosselini played the role of a 71 year old woman with the body of a 20 year old, posessing an elixir of youth. In something I'm writing, I am trying to conjure up an image of such a bottle, and intended to make a reference to the film. It's a while since I saw it, and I have trouble remembering the exact details. I would like to know:

• how was the stuff taken? I remember it being applied to the skin, but according to the article, it was drunk.
• exactly which color did the liquid have? On the image shown in the article it appears to be purple, I remember it as blue.
• I remember it as having a bright, swirling appearance, as if something were moving around inside. Is that correct?

--Oddgeir 08:03, 2 June 2006

• It was drunk.
• I am not sure about the color.
• I remember that it glowed a bit, nothing else.

At least this how I remember it. Flamarande 10:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember it looking pretty much exactly as it does in the movie poster, without the arcs of lightning and with a whiff of pinkish vapour released when the stopper was removed. It's been a few years since I saw the film though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but anyways, my favourite movie line ever, is when Goldie Hawn rises from the pond that she was thrown into after having most of the contents of her abdominal cavity being nicely scattered around the garden, and calmly states: "That was totally uncalled for". I googled for ("That was totally uncalled for" AND Goldie AND Hawn) with virtually no relevant hits. Is there a spelling mistake in my search (PLEASE CONFIRM), or am I alone on the entire www in recognising the beauty of that particular piece of cinematographic history?

See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104070/quotes. --Lambiam^Talk 00:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --vibo56 09:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, the question was:

• How was the stuff taken? Lisle (Isabella Rosselini) put a drop of the potion on Madeline (Meryl Streep)'s skin, and you could see the rejuvenation process occurring, real time. That was just a teaser, however, when Madeline bought it, it was drunk.
• I am not dead sure :-) about the colour.
• Was the liquid visibly alive? Yes, definitely. --vibo56 20:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

file sharing questions

Isn't there a contradiction between the record industry's wish to clamp down on "illegal" file sharing and the sale of used records and CDs? If I buy a used CD from a store, my money goes straight to the owner of the store. None of it goes to the record label or the artist. But that's OK, because the label and artist got their cut when the CD was sold the first time. So, isn't there a parallel with the act of downloading a CD from a file sharing site? Presumably, *someone* must have bought the CD in the first place, at which point the label and artist got their cut. What's the difference?

You could extend the analogy to a hypothetical used record store whose owner, in a fit of generosity, gives away all his stock for free. Would the record industry complain about that? No, because they wouldn't be getting a cut from the sale of those used records anyway. They're not losing out, because they got their cut when the record was sold the first time.

Also, what about vinyl LPs? Many record companies still release new music on vinyl. If I buy an album on vinyl from a new record store, the artist and label have got their cut. So, no problem there. But what if I then decide that I want to listen to that same album on my computer or my CD player as well? Surely I should be allowed to download that same album for free off the internet for personal use, because I have already paid for the music when I bought the album on vinyl. --Richardrj 09:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your analogy is that if you buy a second hand CD, no one else can also buy that same physical CD, but any number of people can download a digital version of a CD, yet only one copy was purchased.-gadfium 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, when you buy a second-hand CD, the original owner no longer owns the CD. When you file trade, you aren't "trading". You are copying. A true trade would mean that you no longer have the song you traded away and the other person no longer has the song you received. Yes - you can copy a CD and then sell it - but that is considered just as illegal as file sharing. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you specify the jurisdiction that you're talking about? Not all jurisdictions (eg Canada) consider file sharing to be illegal. Angel Thane 04:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, what makes you think that the record companies don't want to stop used CD sales? I think it's likely that they would if they could; they just recognize that there's no political will to make used CD sales illegal, so they don't expend any effort trying to accomplish something which they know is not politically feasible. Used CD sales are allowed under current law under the first-sale doctrine. Chuck 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I was aware of the first sale doctrine, but it is about copyright. My interest is, rather, in the financial aspect - how record companies can argue that file sharing hurts artists financially when thousands of copies of artists' music change hands every day perfectly legally without the artist seeing a penny. I take the point that people can download a CD without having previously bought a copy, but from where I'm sitting there still seems to be a massive double standard at work here. --Richardrj 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point that I made. When you say "change hands", you imply that if I give you a CD it is identical to letting you copy songs off my harddrive. When I give you the CD, I don't have the CD anymore. When you copy songe off my harddrive, I still have the songs on my harddrive. The two actions are not identical in any way. Implying that they are is a very convenient rationalization to justify stealing music. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirby Smith - Confederate General

I thought Stand Watie was the last Confederate General to surrender? June 23rd, 1865.

• Stand and Wait? I've never even encountered that general. Do you have a source for that? (On the other hand, I've encountered Kirby Smith as the last to surrender many places, including Shelby Foote.) Geogre 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Stand Watie (a Cherokee) is reported as having been a Confederate brigadier general who signed a cease-fire on 23 June 1865, becoming the last Confederate general in the field to stand down. Edmund Kirby Smith, a full general in the Confederate army, is reported as having surrendered the only significant Confederate army left on 26 May 1865. It looks like it comes down to what is meant by surrender, and what each surrendered.--Ssbohio 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• That makes sense. It's also the difference between surrendering an army (Smith) and surrendering a force (probably a division or brigade). The last commander vs. the last army. I'm sorry I haven't heard of Stand Watie, esp. since the subject of the Cherokee and Creek Confederates is troubling and interesting. Geogre 02:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article on Watie suggests that he had a regiment and that he had...other uses...for it, so that might why he receives short shrift when it comes to giving out credit for the last surrender. The fact that he was Cherokee would also have complicated things, as it would have meant an acknowledgement of US authority over the Cherokee in a somewhat glaring way. It sounds like a really, really fascinating subject for a careful and farsighted historian. Geogre 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Marriage

I have read your informative section on this subject and acknowledge the two aspects of marriage - the religious marriage and the legal (i.e. civil) marriage.

However, I had a debate the other day with someone about which came first - the religious marriage or the civil marriage?

I believe the question is an interesting one as the answer may solve our debate i.e. were humans initially more concerned with the religious and ethical aspects of the union or the legal and civil aspects about rights of the union (e.g. next of kin rights and property rights in the event of separation and divorce).

Answers appreciated.

Tony

Both go undoubtedly back to prehistorical times, so there is no record that will conclusively answer the question. However, it is not unlikely that several cultures independently developed a marriage ceremony conferring some official recognition. It is also quite possible that the distinction between religious and civil would have been alien and incomprehensible to several of those. --Lambiam^Talk 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

if you're talking about gay marriage, the point is that it can't be treated as religious regardless in a country where people follow a hundred different religions. marriage can, in a country like america, carry sentimental value without necessarily carrying religious value, and it's completely unfair to anyone who espouses any religious beliefs on the subject contrary to yours to tell them that the feelings they connote with marriage have to carry some religious meaning in order to mean anything. can atheists not truly marry?

Marriage does not have any implied religious meaning. Secular marriages are very popular in the United States. Atheists are not the Antichrist, they can get married.

The legal marriage is the only thing that matters materially. It has to be a legal marriage/divorce or partners do not get protections or benefits. Besides, you can have sex, have kids, and buy a house - all without needing to be married. The only benefit is for you emotionally (until the divorce, lol) or discounted tax rates. --mboverload@ 05:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Aryan Nations Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

What are the rituals associated with the Aryan Nations Knights of the Ku Klux Klan? How do they differ from the Aryan Nations or the KKK? I am researching for personal knowledge and possible assistance to law enforcement.

Did you consider reading the articles Aryan Nation or Klu Klux Klan? Wow! This encyclopedia has more than just a reference desk! --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

US Govt bureaucrat ranks

Who in the US bureaucracy is higher ranking: assistant secretary or undersecretary?--Jiang 14:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

According to undersecretary, the term is used to refer to a second-in-command - which would imply all others (other than 1st, of course) would be lower. I believe undersecretary is higher in power. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The no. 2 in a US federal department is the deputy secretary, so the article cannot be used to imply specificity to the US. My understanding is that undersecretaries head offices and assistant secretaries head agencies. Which is more senior? --Jiang 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

what's wrong with WP editors' reading comprehension skills?

The question above Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Sadam_Husain:

--- Sadam Husain ---

Why is it we didnt iniolate iran Harvey Stanfield jr

to me completely obviously means:

--- Saddam Hussein ---

Why is it we didn't annihilate Iran.

[~] Harvey Stanfield Jr.

there's no way for Iran to be a typo for Iraq, as editors above suggested: the typo would be Irak or something. IT'S A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE QUESTION.

Instead of answering it, everyone gets all their panties in a bunch over the transliteration, suggesting Iran is a typo, etc. Newsflash: Sadam Husain is a fine transliteration for this context. The people responsible for liberating Iraq also want to liberate Iran.

Why didn't we?

p.s. note how my use of the word liberate reflects a viewpoint, and so does the poster's use of the word annihilate, but it's no reason to pretend not to understand what they're saying. my theory is that wikipedia editors are so used to the written word that they listen to TV with the closed captioning on so as not to strain their intellect.

p.p.s. to be on the safe side the answer can include "if you mean why didn't we totally nuke Iraq when we learned it had weapons of mass destruction it was about to use against the US, the answer is...". However, since it's a recent question, the news now reflects a liberation of a people, and not neutralization of an imminent threat to our population. (Which is why this answer is not necessary. Maybe before we decided not so much as neutralize as a threat but to "liberate" Iraq it might have made sense to interpret the question as a typo -- "after saddam hussein caused 9/11 why didn't we totally nuke his whole country" but this "interpretation" of a question, with iran->iraq is not now warranted.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.189.233 (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, it is far more likely that the questioner didn't know the difference between Iran and Iraq than your assumption that he was making a very vague relation between the invasion of Iraq and a possible invasion of Iran. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So annihilation (or 'iniolation') = liberation? It's obviously not a very 'legitimate' question if nobody can understand what it's saying. In those cases, there should of course be the possibility to ask.

Just to digress, I think this question and how it's been responded to portrays the whole issue quite well... 'After Saddam (whose name I can't spell) caused 9/11 (even though he didn't), then why didn't we invade and kill everyone (which is a perfectly valid way of doing foreign policy) his country of Iran (or was it Iraq, not that I really care as long as we get to kill foreigners). We might call it "liberation" as well so no one will notice we're killing them all.' I wonder if that's exactly what went through Bush's head? - ulayiti (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading your comment just made me realize something... What if the question was actually Bush just now learning to use Wikipedia? --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone asks a puzzling or ambiguous question, it isn't really up to us to guess what they mean. Minor spelling mistakes are not important; given the quality of the question I think there is every reason to consider the possibility that Iran and Iraq were confused, and the word was so far from annihilate I thought it as well not to guess either. I asked for clarification, and none was forthcoming. I've observed a regrettable tendency to consider "asking for clarification" as equivalent to a form of insult. Notinasnaid 16:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the heading that was chosen -- "Sadam Husain" -- it is not at all clear to me why the question would reference Iran. What is clear is that our anonymous ranter is somewhat confused about the history of the events of 9/11/2001, and the involvement (or complete lack thereof) of Saddam Hussein. And that he probably should switch to decaf. --LarryMac 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that "we" also assume some pov. If the question is: "Why did Wikipedia not annihilate Iran?", the answer might be that no-one nominated it for annihilation, or else that the outcome of the debate was: Keep – no concensus. --Lambiam^Talk 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

GIGO, I'd say. If we're overfull of charity, we can try to guess at a person's meaning, but it's not a requirement, and the chance of guessing correctly is increased by the effort of the interrogator. People respect effort. Geogre 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

We can read just fine. Give us a (reasonably) understandable question and we'll figure it out. On the other hand we're not in the business of decoding what is essentially an incredibly incomprehensible mess of letters. Although I seem to disagree completely with the political views held by the last several contributors, I'm with them 100% with everything else they've said.

Of course there's always the possibility that the questioner is not a native English speaker, and I believe that we should always be sensitive to that. (I know there are foreign language versions of the English RD, but I've checked them out and trust me, they just plain suck. The only useful RD is the English version.) However, with a name like "Harvey Stanfield Jr." (if that is indeed his real name, which is doubtful), the possibility that English is not his native language is incredibly unlikely.

Granted, "iniolate" seems almost certainly to mean "annihilate", despite the utterly pathetic possibility that a native English speaker can be so incredibly illiterate. I'm aware as well that there are cases of unfortunate people who actually are illiterate, through no fault of their own. However the person in question, "Harvey Stanfield Jr.", apparently has access to the internet, and knows how to work a computer just fine, making it highly unlikely that he's truly illiterate.

Finally, why is this questioner so completely sure that s/he has successfully interpreted the original question?

If you ask me, we're all being had, and "Harvey Stanfield Jr." is laughing at this moment that he not only got us regular contributors to respond, but all the moreso, that he actually got some incredibly gullible moron to rise to his defense. Loomis51 00:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When I first read the question, I thought it was a typo for "Saddam Hussein: Why is it he didn't annihilate Iran?", to which an answer would be "He certainly did try." -Canley 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

isn't there any possibility he was just trying to screw with all of you by mispelling and miscommunicating an idea that you all probably found offensive and idiotic? i'd personally find that fun

There is, but there's a tendency to Assume good faith around here. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't the USA and UK completely annihilate Germany after World War II? Why was every single German man, woman, and child not systematically hunted down and killed? Why are there still Germans to this day, even though Germany was the country that gave rise to Hitler's Third Reich? This applies equally well to the question about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. JIP | Talk 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

because in all honesty few can be blamed for their actions or beliefs. the history of america is filled with people who fervently believed without any doubt that slavery was right. they weren't all bad people; they were in circumstances that greatly affected their ability to understand the issue clearly, and bigotry, violence, and self-promotion through those two means are innate human tendencies. black codes in america provided for whites to hold more power, degrade other people, and at the same time feel ok about it. you can suspect similar reasoning to be at work in Germany at the time. europeans, since the time when jews were used to fill a gap in Christian religion that didn't allow christians to lend money, generally been antisemetic, largely because of the fact that jews had (through christians' actions) been shouldered with most if not all of the lucrative money-lending positions. it was a fairly accurate accusation often that jews were in general better off than christians. so that violent anti-semitism that arose in the Third Reich had a background that made it not so great a leap for the average german. and it should be remembered that this all occured as a sort of nationalist response to disarmament after ww1. germans were swept up in a fervor. if any other person of any other nationality had been in their place, they would have been swept up too. you can't accuse (much less annihilate) someone for falling back on their baser but more natural tendencies towards bigotry and self-promotion. if you had been racist living in america 150 years ago, it wouldn't really be your fault. someone's surroundings have a tremendous amount to do with how they act and what they believe. also, have you heard of the famous Milgram experiment, in which test subjects would submit test subjects to what they thought would be near-fatal shocks so long as they were under orders (ie the blame was elsewhere.) what happened in germany was a profound psychological mess, and those involved can only be held responsible for their actions to a minor extent. circumstances had a large effect. it should also be said that the prospect of annihilating a faulty or immoral population, for whatever reasons, is terrifyingly similar to hitler's aims in starting the holocaust.

Exactly. And that was my reply to the original question too. JIP | Talk 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think "Irak" would be a misspelling, not a typo, and "iran" (when trying to say Iraq) is a typo.

Federal Excise Tax

Hi. I just read here [8] that the U.S. govt. is ending the Federal Excise Tax (that appears on every telephone bill) which has been in place since 1898, at the time of the Spanish-American War. I've looked on wikipedia and can't find anything about this tax. The Spanish-American War article doesn't mention it, nor does the Excise tax article.

thanks, --WhiteDragon 17:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not complete. But this tax is breifly discussed under Taxation in the United States. Did you have a question about it? --Shantavira 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking for info about it. --WhiteDragon 19:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's ending? I rather thought it was a proposal only. I wonder if it's under more discussion at FTC or FTC tax? Geogre 16:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can Someone Confirm the Exact Date the State of Ohio was Admitted to the Union

I have been given information from a, usually reliable, source that Ohio is technically the 47th state to enter into the union due to some procedural blunder that only the Congress of the United States is capable of making. I have been unable to confirm this and would like some definative confirmation on the matter.

The article on Ohio states: On February 19, 1803, President Jefferson signed an act of U.S. Congress that recognized Ohio as the 17th state. The current custom of Congress declaring an official date of statehood did not begin until 1812, with Louisiana's admission. So, on August 7, 1953 (the year of Ohio's 150th anniversary), President Eisenhower signed an act that officially declared March 1, 1803 the date of Ohio's admittance into the Union.--24.80.70.174 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a common argument made by tax protesters, who are trying to reach the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment wasn't properly ratified--see the "Controversy" section of that article. More on the argument, and its refutation, can be found under "The Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified" (scroll down and start reading with the paragraph beginning "Still another claim made by tax protesters...") in the Tax Protester FAQ. Chuck 20:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It's not even a very good argument because even if Ohio wasn't a state, the Sixteenth Amendment was still ratified by enough states for it to take effect. Strange that the Tax Protester FAQ doesn't point that out. Chuck 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody better go back and change history. If Ohio wasn't a state until 1953, then Woodrow Wilson didn't really beat Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, and Samuel Tilden didn't beat Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876! -- Mwalcoff 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Heartlight

Hi! I'm missing the song Heartlight by Kenny Loggins in the singles list of his article. IMHO it's a quite good song, and i hear it sometimes on the radio. I expected it do be a #1 hit. I don't find much about it in Google either. Is it a cover song? Or is the name Heartlight wrong? TIA, Mickey --172.173.1.144 22:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Some sources have it as Heartlight, while others have it as Welcome to Heartlight. KennyLoggins.com, his official site has it as Heartlight, from his fifth album, 1982's High Adventure. I haven't seen anything that indicates it was ever released as a single by Loggins or his record label. An interesting sidenote: A song by the same title was also a popular hit for Neil Diamond.--Ssbohio 00:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I can't understand how Diamond's boring Hearlight could become a big hit, while Loggins' didn't even make it on a single ;-) Mickey --172.173.1.144 01:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Parable of Immortality" by Henry van Dyke

I've seen "Parable of Immortality" (sometimes called "Gone from my Sight") attributed to Henry van Dyke all over the place...but sometimes to other authors as well. (e.g. Bishop Brent and Col David Marcus). I'm unable to find the poem or essay in the works that have so far been added to Project Gutenberg, though van Dyke was prolific, and assuredly there are books that haven't appeared there yet. Does anyone know for certain that this is his, and can cite the collection it first appeared in? I'm especially interested in proving it is out of copyright before I use it elsewhere. Thanks in advance for your help.--Ssbohio 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate questions like this because I feel impelled to try and track texts down. Unfortunately I haven't got far with this one and have had to endure visiting some of the most dreadfully mawkish sites on the internet with frightful midi tunes and angelic puppies. What I did find was [9] which says it was from Let Not Your Heart be Troubled compiled by James Dalton Morrison, 1938. Which had an application to extend copyright in 1966[10]. And it may be a coincidence as it is a bible quote but Let Not Your Heart be Troubled was the title of one of Henry van Dyke's sermons in 1901[11]. Although no defence, there are innumerable websites and books using this work and the chance of you using the correct version are slim as they vary between each other "I am standing upon that/the foreshore/seshore/shore..." MeltBanana 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

June 3

What kind of robe does Zatch wear in the anime series Zatch Bell?

An announcer on Cartoon Network's Miguzi lineup just referred to Zatch, the main character of anime series Zatch Bell, as "the kid in the dress"; I had previously missed the whole possibility of his costume being a dress, and would like to know if anyone else knows what type of robe it is he wears. Or if I'm wrong, because I can't seem to find reference of the type of robe through google or wikipedia. --Cryptess 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever seen the show myself, but it's described by one person as looking like a 'choir boy cloak' on this page at animenfo, and it can be seen in detail in this image --Noodhoog 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Square Ended Ties

When is it/is it not appropriate to wear a tie with square ends? --Username132 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I's not when on a nude beach. --Lambiam^Talk 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to wear a rather long, wide tie on such occasions. :-) StuRat 18:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't you wear... no tie? I thought you wanted to be nude? — The Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 09:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll only wear it on formal occasions at the nudist colony. :-) StuRat 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

road trip 2

i asked this question before, and got good answers, but i'm not sure i wanna go with either. can anybody suggest a couple really good, popular-enough-to-be-available-on-tape, history books. i'm going on a long road-trip and would like my time to be put to good use. someone suggested band of brothers, but i shy away from something so specific that it ends up sort of being a novel in historical context. i really liked schama's histories of britain, because they were very entertaining but widely informative. i actually learned about history in large area over a fairly long period of time. i was considering maybe "my rise and fall" by mussolini, but that's not available even on amazon on tape. any suggestions for a good, well-written, and fairly general history on anything (except too much about america - which i've already studied a fair amount about) that i can find? i don't really know where to start looking. thanks

I was quite fond of The Professor and the Madman by Simon Winchester, and his The Map that Changed the World. Both are British history, accessible, and interesting, if superficial. Beyond that, The Killer Angels is on audio, if the US Civil War is an interest. The Botany of Desire is also on audio, and that's botany, history, and science but popular and interesting. Geogre 14:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks so much. i'll look into them all

Online Streaming of english music

Can you give me the site names which offer online buffering/streaming for listening to english songs with out downloading on to the harddisk?

Thank you

see List of Internet stations Nowimnthing 13:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean songs written with English language lyrics or songs originating in England ? StuRat 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! You just asked this question at the Science desk! — The Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 09:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Protecting one's intellectual property during negotiations

If I got a good idea, which hasn't been published before, how would I go about negotiating a deal with a potential collaborator, a potential employer, or a funding agency? With a funding agency, a confidentiality agreement might suffice. But, how do we ensure that the earlier two don't claim post facto that they had this idea even before I told them? (Assume that I'm not in a position to patent it without collaboration.) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

With the usual "I'm not a lawyer, you're not my client and this is not legal advice" disclaimer.... Short of a patent or some sort of binding contract before disclosure, there is no way to garentee anything. My advice is to find a good Intellectual Property lawyer. --CTSWyneken 12:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. The usual practice is to have the other party sign an NDA. If the other party claims they had the idea earlier, they must show that, or at least make it sufficiently plausible, should it come to a court case. This is not legal advice. In fact, I don't know what I'm talking about. Sorry, my cat leapt on the keyboard, I didn't even type this. --Lambiam^Talk 17:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some ways. One is to mail yourself a sealed copy of the idea. The postmark provided by the Post Office proves the date and, as long as it remains sealed, the contents must be older than that date. If you break the seal (anywhere other than in court and/or before witnesses), however, this method no longer proves anything. Another method is to have a notary public sign and date the papers, which proves their age. StuRat 18:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The "mail yourself a sealed copy" is a popular notion, but it's completely wrong. See Snopes on the "Poor Man's Copyright" (I know we're talking about patents and not copyrights here, but it's just as wrong.) It's easy to see that having a postmarked envelope is not proof of anything, anyway: imagine mailing yourself an unsealed envelope (which the post office will deliver just fine); then you have an envelope with a postmark of the desired date, and you could put anything you like in it at a later date. Chuck 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. This would require that you mail yourself an unsealed envelope (maybe you mail yourself one every day ?) just in case you find out about a non-copyrighted idea that you can then steal and claim as your own. But, I suppose some people might be crazy enough to do just this. So, OK, stick with the notary public then. StuRat 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all for useful advice. And yes, I know that it's not legal advice. :-) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And you better hope said lawyer isn't a Marxist. Pckeffer

Let me be careful about this. :-) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Poker

According to my understanding of poker; say everyone has 10 chips. One person wins the four chips that all four players put into the pot. Now they have 13 chips they are able to raise the pot to 13 chips while everyone else can only reach 9 and therefore are force to forfeit every time. Surely there must be a rule against this otherwise the first person to win more chips than everyone else has won fullstop.

Well, there's usually an upper limit to the size of bets allowed. But even if there weren't, another player could still win the pile by going "all in", risking all of his chips against the possibility of doubling them. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The questioner is describing pot limit, in which the limit is indeed the size of the pot. If one has too few chips to call an entire bet, they can always go all in, regardless of whether the game is limit, pot limit, or no limit. When doing so, one can do considerably better than doubling their stack if there are more than two players in the pot, as described here. There's never a "forfeit because you don't have enough chips to call", as far as I know. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

See Betting (poker)#Table_stakes_rules. In the case you described, if one of the players decided to go all in and wins, the player who had bet 13 will get his 3 extra chips back. In other words, the Table stakes for the player with the most chips are always the number of chips that the second players with the most chips has. VdSV9•♫ 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In Las Vegas,if you die during a hand ,you are declared "all in"This is true!hotclaws**==(81.136.163.210 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Question for Roman Catholics on mortal sin

It sometimes seems to me that my head, my thoughts, my intellectual distractions are attempting to interrumpt my prayer; does my mind give deliberate and complete consent to these distractive thoughts? If some of these thoughts constitute blasphemy is it mortal sin?

Thank you,

--anon 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC).

Your question raises deep philosophical, moral and religious issues, such as the existence of free will, the possibility of being possessed by demons, what constitutes blasphemy, and the meaning and extent of the doctrine of the Holy Church concerning mortal sin. The heading of this page states: If requesting medical, dental, or legal advice, please consider asking a doctor, dentist, or lawyer instead. Perhaps this should be extended to requests for religious advice. Most devote Roman Catholics are not particularly knowledgeable about these issues. Personally I'd say: if you experience these distractions as such, it is hard to construe this as "deliberate and complete consent". Further, most instances of blasphemy are not "grave matter". This has little to do with whether this interrupts your prayer. Just to be on the safe side, make sure you repent before you die. --Lambiam^Talk 17:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Read St.Theresa of Liseaux on this .She is both practical and comforting.--hotclaws**==(81.136.163.210 21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

The general distinction between mortal and venal sin is will. If you will to sin, it is a mortal sin. A thought that flits by is nothing. Something that you consent to is something involving will. Geogre 20:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wet dreams are not considered a sin since they are beyond the scope of freewill. Although people can control what they think about, if you're trying not to think about something, you're going to think about it. Just relax, God understands that you're trying your best. --mboverload@ 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just relax, God understands that you're trying your best. How comforting. Now I know where religion comes from. — The Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 09:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're not answering the question, please don't try to hijack the discussion, and remember WP:NPA. Geogre 19:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear anon., your life is your prayer, your thoughts are your prayer. Do as McDavis tells, just relax. --DLL 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Milton, while not Catholic, might as well have been when he wrote, "Yet be not sad: Evil into the mind of God or Man May come and go, so unapproved, and leave No spot or blame behind; which gives me hope That what in sleep thou didst abhor to dream Waking thou never wilt consent to do." - Nunh-huh 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How easy is it to hijack an airplane?

Right now, in June 2006, how hard is it to hijack a commercial airplane in New York and fly it into the white house? When I thought about it, the 9/11 attacks seemed amazingly easy to carry out: just enter the cockpit door, throw everyone in there outside, lock the door, and fly the airplane. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be so easy after 9/11. --Bowlhover 18:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd first of all have to learn how to fly a plane, of course, and flight schools would be a bit suspicious if you weren't too interested in learning how to land. You'd probably face stricter security checks into your background, both as a trainee pilot and as a passenger. You'd have a harder time smuggling weapons onto the plane, and you'd face the possibility of there being an air marshal on board. If you managed to overcome these obstacles, the USAF might be a bit quicker in intercepting your flight, and attempting to force you to land. If unsuccessful, the powers that be would have little hesitation in ordering that your plane be shot down. TheMadBaron 19:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

see Airport security and Airport security repercussions due to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Nowimnthing 19:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many levels to this question. First, it depends on the country the plane is comming from, as security is different for each country. Next, you also have to learn to fly a plane, though you can still suck at it as you're not planning on landing. Next, you need some way to keep the passengers out and pacified for a very long duration depending on the distance you have to travel. I don't consider security measures on the ground to be much of a threat, a nice metal pen is probably more dangerous than a tiny box cutter. --mboverload@ 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are in the US, it is a lot harder, as the links User:Nowimnthing gives point out. For one thing, cockpit doors are usually sealed pretty securely at this point, so you'd have a hard time getting into it. --Fastfission 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A big difference between 9/11 and now that I didn't see mentioned is the passengers. Before 9/11, the attitude was, "Well, we're going to be really delayed, but maybe we can sell our story to some tabloid." Now, it is, "We'll kill these hijakers before they try to fly us into some building." --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn right. What the point of not fighting back if you're going to die if you don't? --mboverload@ 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it has been said that is by far the biggest difference between pre and post 9/11 hijacking security. The rest is to a substantial extent security theater. --Robert Merkel 01:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To Mboverload: I have a few reasons. The hijackers might cut off the oxygen supply, and suffocating is more painful than crashing into a building. Also, how are you going to break into the cockpit? You can't just crash a food cart into the door and hope it would open, like the United 93 passengers did.

If I'm a hijacker, breaking into the cockpit door might be a problem. But not letting me carry a box-cutter knife on board is not: I can improvise with my camera's small tripod.

I'm interested in what TheMadBaron said about the USAF. How will they know where the hijacked plane is? How will they even know that a plane has been hijacked? (Maybe the passengers can call using the onboard phones, but can't those phones be deactivated?) What if I take over a flight whose intended destination is the U.S. capital, and then turn toward the white house, literally at the last minute? --Bowlhover 01:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming a deviation from the intended flightpath being detected on radar. Even so, you'd still face the problem of those cockpit doors.... opening them in such a way that the pilots don't first notice a disruption in the cabin area.... and notify ground controllers.... who notify authorities.... who notify the USAF.... TheMadBaron 10:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My response, turning off the "air supply" from within the aircraft is probably impossible. If the mass of people can't get into a cockpit, a small group of terrorists certainly couldn't unless they brought along some kind of cutting tool...not sure how compact those are. Actually I'm pretty sure suffacating isn't that bad if you don't fight it (you'll pass out first anyway). I know there's no pain involved. --mboverload@ 05:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought cutting off the air supply is impossible, too. But according to our article on United Airlines Flight 93, the terrorists were talking about whether they should do it, and I assumed they knew what they were talking about.

By my understanding, the terrorists were discussing dumping the cabin pressurization, that is to say, equalizing the air pressure inside with the air pressure outside. When that happens, the oxygen masks in the cabin deploy automatically, and oxygen starts being generated as soon as they are put to use. Below about 12,000 feet, many passengers can function without oxygen, but, above that, the need for the oxygen masks will limit their mobility. Cabin crewmembers are provided with walkaround oxygen bottles, instead of the fixed masks provided for passengers. At high enough altitudes (jets routinely carry passengers above 40,000 feet), useful consciousness is less than a minute, which is why FAA requires that flight decks have special oxygen masks & that, above a certain altitude, if one flight crewmember leaves the flightdeck, the other goes on oxygen until his or her return. In the passenger cabin, on-board oxygen generators are typically good for 30 minutes, so it would still be possible, however, for a hijacker to "run out the clock" on his passengers by waiting for the oxygen supply to be exhausted.--Ssbohio 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now, how long will the USAF take to respond to a hijacking? If I hijack a plane and then crash it only 2 minutes later, will they have time to realize what's going on? I know this is pure speculation, but... --Bowlhover 13:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

....But this is getting silly. The stated objective was to fly into a specific target. A hijacker is not going to be able to reach a specific building in two minutes. I don't know what the USAF response time would be, but I do know that some of their planes are a lot faster and more maneuverable than commercial jet aircraft, and their pilots a lot better trained than your average hijacker. I'm not saying that it couldn't be done.... but in two minutes? No. TheMadBaron 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The passengers would take you down immediately, since 11-9-2001. — The Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 09:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is pure speculation. It would depend on the nature of the passengers, the nature of the weapons available to them and to the highjackers, and their relative skills. Would you tackle a hijacker with a pistol? Or holding a knife to the throat of a child? TheMadBaron 10:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, during the flight, the captain would be in frequent and at times near constant communication with the tower. If the pilot suddenly stopped responding and the plane changed path, that would be a pretty obvious sign, since Radar can track the plane's path. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As another editor mentioned above, there is a real possibility in Washington, DC of an approaching aircraft diverging from course at the last minute. For that reason, locations like the White House, Capitol, Pentagon, & Camp David have long been thought to have anti-aircraft capability. Washington, like New York, Boston, San Diego, and several other large cities, has a downtown airport, placing many flight paths very close to the kind of buildings we see (post 9/11) as terrorist targets. In the event of an onboard emergency, flight crews can alert those on the ground by radio, or by dialing in a special code on the aircraft's radar transponder. However, it's important to note that, due to budgetary considerations, fewer eyes are watching our skies than before, and primary radar (the kind that can detect aircraft flying without transponders) is not being installed & upgraded as it used to be. Combined with continuing decreases in our military ability to respond quickly to hostile aircraft, it's mostly down to either ground detection & denied boarding or to the passengers in the air to stop whatever is going on.--Ssbohio 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

book about tower blocks that fall down?

I'm trying to remember a horror story about a man who deliberatly designs a pair of tower blocks joined by walkways to collapse when a strong enough wind blew.It was set in late 60's??? Britain during all the clearing away of terraced houses.The twist was it also was supposed to address the problem of ethnic trouble and one tower block was filled with whites and one with blacks and they were meant to mingle on the walkways.(I lived in a "streets in the sky" ,the walkways were where the criminals hung out) Anyway he was a racist and particularly hated the idea of the races mixing.As you can see,I remember it pretty well,just not the author or the title.Any help gratefully received.hotclaws**==

Rebuidling of Kerch, Ukraine after WWII

What country paid for the rebuilding of Kirch, Ukraine, in the Crimea after the Nazis and Soviets bombed it during World War 2.

Thank you for your help!!

Deborah Shaut

Did the German Jewish Philosopher Ernst Cassirer have any writings or opinions about Judaism?

The most logical guess would be the US. Under the Marshall Plan, the US pledged to give billions of dollars to Europe to help rebuild after the war. Political Mind 00:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not likely. The Soviet Bloc did not participate in the Marshall Plan. -- Mwalcoff 02:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It would almost certainly have been done by the Soviet government, though the money might have come from the reparations extracted from the Axis nations that came under Soviet control. - SimonP 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

June 4

Looking for a good King James Bible...

But I'm viscerally averse to it being couched in any sort of religious setting, with running theological (rather than academic) annotations or grandiose claims of divine authority (not to mention alterations of the source for various reasons, etc). That is, I want one aimed at people reading from a comparative literature standpoint, preferably assuming religious apathy; or, at the very least, one from a non-sectarian, least-common-denominator sort of view. Can anyone help me out? --Tothebarricades 00:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It IS a Bible, so I'm not sure you're going to be able to find a non-religious version. When I studied it, though (for sort of half-religious-half-com-lit reasons), I was asked to buy the The New Oxford Annotated (I don't think you'll be able to avoid annotations)Bible. Just don't read the opener or the comments, though the comments really are helpful to general understanding anyway. I'm not really sure that what you're looking for exists, or even, given the usefulness of comments to even the non-religious reader, what you're looking for.

As the above person says, the New Oxford is a good one for scholarly/literary emendations, but its text is NSV, not KJV. As for its not being religious.... Well, you can get a KJV with no emendations at all. Other than that, all the footnote work is going to explain things in their context of the religion. Geogre 04:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

are bibles like the oxford's revised standard from an entirely different source? i mean i know they've got the same books, but are they from a pre-1611 (is that the right date) translation, indirectly from a language other than latin or...?

No, not at all. The New Oxford uses the Revised Standard Version, with some updates (hence the New Standard Version or New Revised Standard Edition). Of the common translations found in English, the 1611 King James was a full translation (although they did crib from Tyndale). The New Jersusalem Bible is a translation that was worked to be in basic agreement with the Vulgate and is used by the Roman Catholic Church in English. Then the Revised Standard. After that, full translations have been rather rare. It was a major undertaking for the New English Bible, which was an official Church of England translation meant to replace the KJV. However, almost all sides condemn it as flat and boring. True translations, as opposed to revisions and paraphrases, are understandably uncommon. Geogre 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"True" translations from the original sources are not that rare. See English translations of the Bible and Modern English Bible translations for several more examples (including the New Living Translation, New International Version, Good News Translation, Anchor Bible, etc.) Rmhermen 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I've now read the article Modern English Bible translations, and it has quite a few errors in it, including not recognizing the difference between a translation from Hebrew and Greek and a translation from English to English (which would normally be called a paraphrase). It's also missing, for example, the NEB. I don't want to toss sand at anyone, but, well, it needs some citation, some research, and some balance, as i think it reflects a somewhat evangelical view. Nothing wrong with such a view, but it can be partial. Geogre 17:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, we need a critical eye like yours at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. Also, a quick search reveals an "NEB" in the Other major versions section. --J. J. 19:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly not exactly what you are looking for, but Isaac Asimov, who was not a religious person, has written an excellent guide to the Bible. --vibo56 10:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? The Living Bible was a paraphrase. The Good News Bible was RSV. Anchor...I thought that was RSV as well. Maybe each of these endeavors has since gone on to translate and I'm out of the loop. (Also, there is a bit of a trick here, as a good many will do a partial translation. They'll translated the New Testament from koine, but they won't do the textual work of comparing sources and establishing authorities, and they definitely won't do the Hebrew again. They may therefore call themselves a new translation and be telling the truth, partially. A serious and full translation is rare enough that it tends to make the papers and take a long, long time.) Geogre 03:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From our article "In North America it was formerly known as Today's English Version (TEV) but in 2001 was renamed the Good News Translation because of misconceptions that it was merely a paraphrase and not a genuine translation [12]." Skittle 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Penguin are about to publish the bible[13]. Is there any more secular animal then a pengiun? MeltBanana 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

About to republish the KJV. Rmhermen 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, I have Oxford's NSRV, and I enjoy it a great deal. But it lacks the lyrical grandeur of the King James translation. So I was looking for a similarly academic KJV; I'm surprised there aren't (m)any, considering the importance of the text to English literature! I'll have add that to my list of life goals. The penguin is exciting, though I hope they aren't foolhardy enough to make it a novel-sized ultra-thick paperback. Thanks guys --Tothebarricades 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I just found a Cambridge University Press edition that seems pretty secular via some Wiki article. For anyone else having the same problem as me: http://www.cambridge.org/uk/bibles/info/ --Tothebarricades 03:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That upcoming Penguin version is basically just a reprint of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible which was published in March 2005. Is this the one you're referring to? While the scholarship looks excellent on it, note that this edition doesn't italicize the original "supplied words" as the 1611 is traditionally formatted. See the mentioned A Textual History of the King James Bible for reasons why. --J. J. 19:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Figurine

I recently bought a wooden carving (approx. 3 inches tall) of a man sitting cross-legged, with his hands resting in his lap and his face buried in his hands. His only clothing is some sort of loincloth and he is shaven headed.

I got him second-hand from a charity shop so have no idea who or what he represents, but after getting him I found out my mother had bought an identical, but somewhat smaller carving elsewhere and given it to someone as a present. However, my mother knows nothing about him either, although he clearly can't be that uncommon.

Can anyone tell me who or what he is? Is he praying, having a revelation, in deepest despair or just washing his face?

Many thanks, T.C.

We need some more description here, what does he look like? Like this? [14] but that one isn't sitting. hmmm. Nowimnthing 00:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they are more common than you think. I've seen plenty of these in "ethnic"-type giftshops. I don't think it's intended to be anyone in particular. Just something a bit different.--Shantavira 07:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Solitaire

Is there an organization specifically devoted to studying/developing games of Solitaire ("Patience")?

I think the idea is to go it alone, bud.

Patience Strong is one of Britain's most famous poets. --DLL 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Little Red Rooster

On what album and in what year did the Rolling Stones record Howlin' Wolf's "Little Red Rooster"? Pckeffer

The Rolling Stones, Now! - their third album. 1965 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.1.47 (talk • contribs)

For which our article can be found here... Joe 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's ladies night and the feeling's right...

What is "ladies night"? --Username132 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a marketing tactic used at nightclubs and bars. Typically, ladies will be let in at discounted rates, or even free, and will also often be offered cheaper or free drinks. As every nightclub owner knows, the key to getting (heterosexual) men into nightclubs is getting women into them first. --Robert Merkel 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think in terms of the song lyric quoted, the idea is that the raubriter bachelors are especially happy to be in the bar on lady's night, and this one is feeling particularly on top of his game. Geogre 16:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For interest, the lyric is from a disco song by Kool and The Gang, and was covered in 2003 by British girl group Atomic Kitten. --Robert Merkel 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this legal? It seems like discrmination to me. 199.201.168.100 19:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, don't be so pathetically PC. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I gather a few places have been challenged, but I don't recall the results. Certainly I know many men/boys/guys who are not happy with it and feel discriminated against. But I go to places that don't have trouble attracting women. I'd say if your place is only attracting men to the extent that you have to run a 'Ladies' Night' to correct it, you're doing something wrong. Unless you mean it only to attract men, in which case why are you running a Ladies Night? And nobody would stand for it the other way 'round. Skittle 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What does "raubriter" mean? Geogre? Anybody? JackofOz 21:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Lan Raubritter means literally "robber knight", less literally "robber baron". --Lambiam^Talk 22:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was having a little fun and being a little literary. Sorry I didn't check back and see that I had thrown a curve ball. I wanted to call them ronin, but I couldn't remember how to spell it. :-) Geogre 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh. OK, tks. JackofOz 20:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pompeii

hello, does any one know the key features of the Baths at Pompeii, its purpose and main functions (Not Herculaneum Not Roman Baths) or have any references.. THanks

We'll try to help but first could you explain the difference between Baths at Pompeii and Roman Baths? alteripse 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pompeii is 200 km southeast of Rome, for one thing. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but Roman baths (or "Thermae") refers to a style rather than a location. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the "purpose and main functions" the same as for all baths, everywhere? As for the key features, have you tried the official website here? --Shantavira 11:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Try also this. --Brand спойт 14:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

to state the obvious, the baths are like turkish baths, sauna, socializing, etc. not so much for just washing up.

The difference is that, im looking at Pompeii Baths, which ARENT in Rome, but have Roman influence, Pompeii baths are established as much as roman...i would also appreciate, if anyone could give reference to modern scholars about my topic.. thank you

They may not be in Rome, but they are still considered Roman baths and hence their main features and functions are the same as other Roman baths, such as those in Bath (England). Skittle 10:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Roman baths here means 'baths used by the Romans', not 'baths in Rome'. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

fixing wikipedia

Question moved to the Help Desk. Sandstein 05:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

About the types of Angry Young Men, urgent please

Could you give me a non wikepedia based source on the following groupings, also important who were the commentators? From the "Angry Young Men" article: Sorry but since you seem to be the user who wrote this could you please tell me where you got this and who the commentators are? And Again I'm sorry but could you answer me as fast as possible, I need the info very soon. from the "Angry Young Men" article: "Some commentators, following publisher Tom Maschler, who edited a collection of political-literary essays by the "Angries" (Declaration, 1957), divided them into three groups:

The New University Wits (a term applied by William Van O'Connor in his 1963 study The New University Wits and the End of Modernism), Oxbridge malcontents who explored the contrast between their upper-class university privilege and their middle-class upbringings. They included Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, and John Wain, all of whom were also part of the poetic circle known as The Movement. Writers mostly of lower-class origin concerned with their political and economic aspirations. Some of these were left-wing and some were right-wing. They included John Osborne (whose play Look Back in Anger is a basic "Angries" text), Harold Pinter, John Braine, and Alan Sillitoe. William Cooper, the early model AYM, though Cambridge-educated was a "provincial" writer in his frankness and material and is included in this group. A small group of young existentialist philosophers led by Colin Wilson and also including Stuart Holroyd and Bill Hopkins. " Answer me on my user page, rtaycher1987, please Roman Taycher --rtaycher1987 10:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

chinese name

How is : Ho-Shang Kung written in taditional chinese ? ( He is a famous writer if a Tao Te Ching commentary ) Hhnnrr 12:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is 河上公. --Cam 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the same in simplified Chinese. --Cam 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Suburanus

Was Sextus Attius Suburanus Aemilianus the praetorian prefect under Trajan or the prefect just had the same cognomen? Thanks. --Brand спойт 14:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The text at this link: [15] claims that according to Aurelius Victor the praetorian prefect was indeed Sextus Attius Suburanus. --Lambiam^Talk 14:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What is that dress?

I remember I found an article about a special designer dress that is very famous, which is meant to really emphasise someone's figure. It was worn by Victoria Beckham, and was made by a really famous fashion designer. I can't remember what it was called though! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! --Rushda2 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Beckham wears a different designer dress for every public occasion. Try going to the Victoria Beckham article, and click on "What links here" in the box on the left. This will give you a list of all the articles that mention her, which includes several dress designers, such as Vera Wang and Roberto Cavalli. Perhaps you will find what you are looking for there. --Shantavira 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not thinking of Elizabeth Hurley, are you? She wore a really famous dress once, made by Versace. There's a picture of her wearing it on this page. --Richardrj 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm. Thanks for that link :) Grutness...wha? 06:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Median Adult Income in USA

This may seem like an easy question, but it wasn't for me, so I'd appreciate any help: What is the median annual income for an adult in the USA? Please note that I don't want the median household income or the median income for adults employed full-time. Thanks again. Superm401 - Talk 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a result of $24,084 at [16]. It would be good to have a second opinion in case I'm misinterpreting that statistic, though. Superm401 - Talk 16:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I could only find median family income about 8-10 months ago, which was 52,000 US. (I think the value of a buck might have changed significantly since then.) I couldn't find per-capita average income (which I was looking for) but made do. Actually I can see why median family income might be more useful. anyway here's a link 82.131.186.217 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

1920s/1930s play in rhyming couplets.

As a boy in the 1970s I came by accident across a play that was definitely from the 1920s or 1930s. While the book had a library buckram binding that was added, it was originally a thin performing copy published by one of the play publishing companies.

I may be a little hazy on details, but I'm pretty sure the play is set in a train station on Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve.

It had more than one act, maybe two or three, and was an elegiacal play full of reverie and lost romance. I believe a conventional young couple discovers they truly love each other.

But the most certain thing that I remember was that the play was set in rhyming couplets. It reads very naturalistically, and then you realize, oh, my god, this is all in rhyming couplets.

I wish I'd kept my copy, but I got rid of it years ago. Every year or so, I try to think who might have written it. I think it was a "known" talent, but I can never find any clue online. There are well-known playwrights and humorists and satirists and poets who did plays in rhyming couplets, but no details ever turn up that would indicate the title of my play and its author.

I hope someone out there can figure out the play and its author.

Thanks.

Eve's stallion

A play in one act and two rhymes.

Joachim - I'm wainting for the train.

Oz - I hope that it won't rain.

Train - approaches and whistles.

Seller - how are the sales ? --DLL 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

On a request by Zarkov : "I hereby agree to dual-license this contributed text both under the GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 2.5." Anyway, traduttore, tradittore, as my Dutch friends say. --DLL 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're willing to put this under a license that's more handy than the GFDL, I'll translate it into German and publish it in an underground magazine. Eternal fame is waiting for you. How about it? --Dr. Zarkov 23:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'd guess, if you wanted to really find it and didn't mind the pain, you could look through the Current Theater in The New Yorker from the decade in question (supposing it opened on Broadway). Broadway was incredibly prolific back then, compared to our standards today. (These days, all theaters combined may put on 10 shows. When Benchley and Parker were reviewing, it seems like they had at least one opening a week.) Geogre 03:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Deadly historical cultural exchange

Does anybody know the comparative number of deaths caused by the tobacco/alcohol exchange since first contact between Europeans/NA Indians?

Namely, how many people of European decent have died from tobacco related causes versus the number of people of NA Indian decent who have died from alcohol related causes since first contact was established? Angel Thane 23:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting concept, but I can't think how anyone could compute either statistic with much accuracy. Most alcohol related deaths are not the result of direct intoxication but of impaired function, either acutely or chronically, and are rarely recorded as related to alcohol. Most smoking deaths are related to heart and lung disease or cancer, but I have seen statistics over the years which purport to count American deaths related to smoking, but you would have to make lots and lots of unsubstantiatable guesses to extrapolate even those statistics backward a century or globally. And both types of carnage continue... alteripse 02:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it's a tough thing to calculate - if it wasn't, I wouldn't need to ask here. ;) For the record, I would be perfectly inclined to count DWI related deaths under the alcohol rubric. I've a feeling that the European/smoking deaths would be higher than the NA Indian/alcohol deaths, if only because of the greater population numbers of the former, but I would love to find any sort of ballpark estimations. Angel Thane 04:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

DWI is obvious, but alcohol contributes to most fatal brawls and shootings that are not simply robberies or drug business. Suicide? How about RHWI (riding horse while intoxicated)? Do you want to count reduction of population because of children not born-- not relevant to tobacco, but perhaps not negligible as a general contributor toward the low indian birth rate? And on the other side, how about the coming Chinese epidemic of smoking-related deaths. It is barely getting started. Do you count them as part of the "European score" or just collateral damage? alteripse 04:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Very, very difficult to calculate. 95% of Indians died before they had a chance to sip alcohol because contagious diseases accompanied, or even preceded, almost every First Contact (see Guns, Germs, & Steel.)--M@rēino 20:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

June 5

Biblio Entry

I was wondering if anybody knows what the MLA format bibliography entries would be for http://www.alchemylab.com, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DuerersMagicSquare.html, and http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/SDRs/SDRs_03_02_020.html, excepting the date of acess? Aleph2.0 01:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I found this page which may be of help. Scroll down to "World Wide Web sites and sources." --Cam 05:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I always tell folks to go to the Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University. It's the best online guide to college writing I've seen, and they do great work, there, in linking and drilling. Great source. (Google "OWL" and "Purdue," and you should get there immediately.) Geogre 16:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Insider trading (US)

What laws are there on insider trading on mercentile exchanges such as NYMEX or ICE. For example, let's say I'm a corrupt officer at a large oil company, and I force refineries/pipelines down simultaneously to give the impression of major disruption. Beforehand though I purchase many contracts, before then selling as the price spikes. Would this be illegal? The Insider trading article seems to suggest laws are only applied to securities such as stocks and bonds. Jim.

I'm not 100% familiar with American securities law, but I do know quite a bit about Canadian law on the matter. Yet from what I understand, securities law between our two countries tends to follow a pretty much identical set of principles. Also note that up here, securities law is a provincial jurisdiction, while the American SEC is a federal body, yet each province's legislation tends to follow the same basic set of principles. With that in mind, I'm pretty certain that what I'm about to say would be the law in the US, but I can't guarantee it with 100% confidence.

That said, your question seems to have two components. First off, the particular exchange you're dealing with is irrelevant. Insider trading rules apply to all exchanges. It's not, for example, the NYSE that makes up the rules on insider trading, but rather the SEC, which would have jurisdiction over every possible exchange.

Second, the definition of a "security" in securities law is very broad. It covers not only stocks and bonds, but a long list of pretty much anything that can even loosely be described as a "security", which would include such things as options, futures (which are essentially contracts) as well as the type of contract you describe.

So basically, my answer would be that, barring any substantial difference in our two countries securities laws, yes, what you're describing would definitely be just as illegal as insider trading of stocks and bonds.

If you want to be absolutely certain, though, I suggest you find the relevant legislation, go directly to the "definitions" section, find the word "security" and you'd almost undoubtedly find an extremely long list of everything and anything that would be considered a security. Loomis51 13:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If I trade my apple for your dollar, having the "inside knowledge" that it is full of worms, I'm sure the SEC does not have jurisdiction over that exchange. Only if it involves securities. Contracts in general are not securities. --Lambiam^Talk 14:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The relevant U.S. federal law is 2006 CFR Title 17, and can be found here. (I believe 17CFR1.59 may be most relevant.) In short, U.S. law prohibits insider trading of commodities/futures -- exchanges which are monitored by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). What is generally prohibited is "employees, governing board members, and committee members from trading commodity interests on the basis of material, non-public information obtained in the course of their official duties," which seems to me to be exactly what you're describing. --DavidGC 15:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks David, for finding the particular legislation. As for your comment, Lambiam, the statement that "contracts in general are not securities" is quite simply untrue. If it were true, then the exchange of such things as, for example, options, (which are essentially nothing more than contracts,) with insider knowledge, would be completely legal. Since it would be legal, and since it's just as easy to benefit from insider knowledge by trading in an option as it is in trading in the underlying security, the law would essentially be providing a gigantic loophole within which insider trading can be accomplished without breaking any law.

When people say something like: "While meetings in general are a waste of time, some are worse than others," they don't mean that all meetings are a waste of time, just that they generally are. "In general" or "generally" means: "for the most part", "in a general manner", "in disregard of specific instances and with regard to an overall picture" (e.g. as in "generally speaking"), "as a rule", "usually". So "Contracts in general are not securities" is another way of saying: "Although contracts may be securities, usually they are not." I think that is true. An NDA for instance is a legal contract but not a security. --Lambiam^Talk 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Lambiam, originally you clearly came to the conclusion that trading in the type of contract in question with insider knowledge is not insider trading. Why else would you first present the example of the "wormy apple" sales contract as not being within the jurisdiction of the SEC, and then point out that "contracts in general are not securities"? As it turns out, (thanks to David for providing the precise legislation,) you were wrong in believing that such a transaction would not be considered insider trading.

I still maintain that the statement that "contracts in general are not securities" is untrue. I only chose to use an options contract because it was the simplest form of explaining my point. In fact, however, a vast array of contracts are capable of being classified as securities in US securities law. The list of contracts that can be characterized as securities is seemingly endless, but I'll try to list as many as can come to mind: Options, futures, mortgage contracts, contracts for royalties, warrants, profit-sharing contracts, lease contracts, income or annuity contracts, investment contracts etc etc etc... Clearly, one cannot make such a sweeping statement as: "contracts in general are not securities", as, it would appear, almost the opposite claim can be made, that being: "contracts, in general, in a vast array of situtations can be regarded as securities". Loomis51 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, since David found the relevant legislation, it's unnecessary to explain the whole thing any further. The activity in question that the questioner described would indeed be considered insider trading, and, therefore, illegal under US law. Loomis51 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that Enron did something quite similar to your scenario. I'm not sure if any of their convictions were for intentionally causing supply disruptions to increase prices, however. StuRat 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Geography

What are the geological processes involved in the formation of a rock platform and a "tied Island"?

try Landform Nowimnthing 12:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Capital crimes in the People's Republic of China

What are the capital crimes in the People's Republic of China? Vess

Try our article, Capital punishment in China. Murder, financial fraud, treason, drug offenses are some of them. Rmhermen 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Distribution of Condoms in Schools

Is there any information on Wikipedia or any other place that discusses arguments for and against providing condoms in public schools?

--163.153.132.5 14:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Try [17] and [18], use the references to dig further. Nowimnthing 17:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Painting

http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200xk.jpg

Would someone kindly tell me the name of this painting.Thanks.

It's a blue rider. By Wassily Kandinsky. Gave its name to a german art movement. Didn't get paid for it. --DLL 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Der Blaue Reiter. Grutness...wha? 02:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

They're just too easy now. No challenge. Tyrenius 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

heh. don't worry - there'll be more to get us scratching our heads soon enough! Grutness...wha? 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Judicial Systems

Are there any remarkable differences in the structure of the British Judicial System and American Judicial systems?

Jesica**___

From Jury

Selected jurors are generally subjected to a system of examination whereby both the prosecution (or plaintiff, in a civil case) and defense can object to a juror ... The method and scope of the possible rejections varies between countries:

In England these objections would have to be very well based, such as the defendant knowing a potential juror, to be allowed. Some jurisdictions, such as ... the United States, give both the defense and prosecution a specific number of unconditional peremptory challenges. No justifications have to be brought to exclude a specific juror. Generally, defense attorneys exclude jurors who have professions or backgrounds similar to that of the victim and who could thus feel an emotional link to them, while prosecuting attorneys exclude jurors who might show affinity to the defendant. Some systems allow argument over whether a juror's particular background or beliefs make them biased and therefore unsuitable for service on the jury. In the United States, and probably other nations, it is hardly unknown for citizens to quite deliberately get out of jury duty (for example by mentioning knowledge of legal concepts).

I can look for more, or if you want a quick answer you could search Wikipedia yourself. Skittle 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sex

Why is sex considered such a taboo subject in many cutltures? It is something that occurs naturally and frequently (not in my life, but in nature). Why then do we censor the subject of sex and freak out if it is in a video game (like the recent San Andreas contraversy)? Why do annoying soccer moms and religious organisations lose their mind over things like Sex For Sam, and other such incidents? 12.183.203.184 18:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Study the history of religion. How do religions run by uptight old bald guys steal patrons from religions run by sexy women? --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In evolutionary terms, it would probably be beneficial for sexual mates to keep secret who they are having relations with. Females protect their offspring because each male assumes the offspring to be his. Subordinate males get to secretly 'spread their seed' without attracting the ire of the lead male. From this general secrecy social customs evolve in different ways about anatomy related to the sexual act (even women's hair is considered taboo in some cultures) and discussion of sex. Nowimnthing 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Some animal mating systems proceed on principles of general "promiscuity" and uncertain paternity, but such systems have little correlation with secrecy, and have rather little relevance to humans. Chapter three of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond has a brief and relatively clear discussion. AnonMoos 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncertain paternity certainly has a large relation to secrecy among animals with hierarchical social organization. How else can subordinate males ever get to conceive offspring?

See Geary, David C. "Evolution of Human Mate Choice" Journal of Sex Research; Feb2004, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p27-42, 16p and Wallen, Kim. Hormones and History: The Evolution and Development of Primate Female Sexuality. Journal of Sex Research; Feb2004, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p101-112, 12p.

Another contributing factor is the purely social aspect of sex as it relates to group dynamics. In most other mammals females only mate during estrus. Humans do not display their estrous cycle externally and like Bonobos use sex for social reasons unrelated to procreation. Nowimnthing 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are Ken Lay & Jeff Schelling still here?

Why are Ken Lay & Jeff Schelling still here? Why don't they just get some of their money, hop on a plane and fly to Brazil rather than await sentancing for their crimes, for which they can recieve life in prison? For that matter why doesn't everyone convicted of or likely to be convicted of a major crime skip bail and get the hell out of the country? I mean at that point, what would you have to lose?

Wouldn't they just get arrested there and extradited. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually think they will serve their sentence? In a few years, when the general public forgets who they are, they will be let out on probation. It is better to serve a few years now instead of a lot of years for trying to skip out on the sentencing. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do other countries extraidate for non-volient crimes? why not go to a country that doesn't? XM 19:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even in another country, there is still the risk of bounty hunters. Add to that the risk that another country's government may simply take all your assets and running away loses some of the appeal. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Lay and Skilling have been convicted of a federal crime. There is no parole for federal crimes. Nor is there time off for good behaviour. Basically, they're stuck in there until Bush pardons them on his last day in office. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No parole for federal crimes? Then why does the U.S. Dept of Justice have a US Parole Commission for paroling federal prisoners? --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the abolition of parole (by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984) did not apply to prisoners committing crimes before that date (something about no ex-post-facto laws.) I might be wrong about time off for good behaviour -- I think I saw something that indicated that up to 15% of the sentence can be trimmed for being good. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I just read their history page. It is the government agency that will not die. Every time a law is passed to phase them out, another one is passed to extend it even further. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah -- it's odd that they'd pass laws to phase it out, at least until the last of the pre-'87 prisoners dies off. Isn't the ex-post-facto part of it obvious? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How could a bounty hunter get you if you're in another country, and even if they do, you wouldn't go willingly. What do they do stuff you in a van and drive back against your will? LOL 12.183.203.184 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Pretty much so, yeah. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Worse, if you aren't who they think you are, there is no law against accidentally kidnapping the wrong person when trying to get a bounty. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Help -

I am doing a big project for work where I need to find out a list of corporate anniversaries, ie. 2006 is hershey's 100th year anniversary. Im coming close with my searches (the link below is the closest i could find) but i would really appreciate some further guidance. Thank you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies

Do you carry boxing history for 1900s

I am trying to find my grandfather boxing history back from the 1900s. I dont want to join unless you have this kind of information, If not can you tell me what web-site might have this information. Thank you Jenean

Well, if you gave us the name of your grandfather we MIGHT help you. Flamarande 20:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to join to do a search. This is a free resource, search all you like. We would prefer you join if you are going to edit pages though. First tell us more about your grandfather and we can get you on the right track. What country did he box in? Do you know the league he was in, any other info that would be helpful. Nowimnthing 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, no one "joins." This is an encyclopedia. You either write it or not. Either way, you're free to read it. Geogre 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Khazars

Are they any people that claim to be descended from the Khazars at last partially?

Maybe. See Khazars. Rmhermen 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

June 6

Roentgens Caricature Drawing

i am after a picture of Roenetgens caricature picture. where am i able to find one, if there are any availible

• Um, is this image the sort of thing you're after? (I found it on this guy's website if you want to know the provenance.) If you're looking for something else, please be more specific.--Pharos 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

HAH! That's pretty good (No I'm not the original requester)! 68.39.174.238 03:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Plural of Habeas Corpus?

I was doing some work on a page concerning a court case here and ran across a legal/linguistic question: Should two writs of habeas corpus together be written with the plural of "habeas corpus"? Also, embarassingly enough, if that's the case, what IS the Latin plural for "habeas corpus" ? Thanx68.39.174.238 02:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "X writs of habeas corpus" is the correct form. "Habeas corpus" itself cannot be pluralised. It is clear from our article why this is so. JackofOz 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Habeatis corpus, habeas corpora, or habeatis corpora, depending on whether you want to pluralize the subject, the object, or both (in respective order). These are the latin terms, not the legal terms, as you asked. Legally, I think writs is correct. alteripse 02:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Political inclinations

Me again. I'm doing some work on the articel of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and someone suggested that the partizan complex of the judges be shown. According to Fox (I know, not the best source), it's 4 Dem., 2 Rep., and one Ind. I've been able to find one person's affiliation (Zazzali's a Democrat). Anyone have any idea how they found out what everyone's party was? Or did they just ask them all one by one? Is there a likely place these things whould be recorded (I've checked about 15 pages of Google)? Thanx again. 68.39.174.238 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• One has to remember that these judges were appointed by the governor, and presumably all or nearly all are of the same party as the governor who appointed them. I believe the party rolls are public information, though it would probably take a fair bit of bureaucracy to get to them. Short of that, the definitive source for their party affiliation would I think be the Star-Ledger story on the occasion of their swearing-in.--Pharos 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, however I don't see how to account for the independant one though... Do you know if the S-L keeps back issues online, or if anyone else does? I checked their site... but it immedately confused me (Sorry, it did: flat and portal-like!)! 68.39.174.238 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, wait... Zazzali's a democrat... and was appointed by Whitman (A Republican)? I think I'll have to find someone with back issues of the S-L and root around in there, unless there's something else. 68.39.174.238 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See this site. Only short excerpts are free, but I've been able to piece it together. Here's the breakdown:

• Poritz, Republican according to a July 11, 1996 article.
• Long, Democrat according to a September 9, 1999 article.
• LaVecchia "has spent 12 years working in Republican administrations" according to a January 11, 2000 article.
• Zazzali was a Democratic state attorney general (May 5, 2003 reference if that's necessary).
• Albin was appointed by McGreevey and gave money to Torricelli, but we don't have an explicit statement of his affiliation.
• I can't see a reason to doubt that Wallace is a Democrat, but again it isn't explicitly stated.
• Rivera-Soto is a mentioned as "listed alternately as a Republican and an independent" (April 21, 2004) or as just a registered Republican (September 12, 2004), but he has given more money to Democrats than Republicans. It appears he is the "independant" Fox News was referencing, though I think that classification may be inaccurate.--Pharos 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Officer on deck!"

In pop culture I've learned that soldiers/sailors signal that an officer is nearby and requires saluting by calling out the above phrase. Can anyone tell me if there's always been such a custom? - I'm especially interested in the armed forces of 17th century France.

Thanks Adambrowne666 06:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a side note: that phrase is only used by Navy and Marine enlisted. The "deck" is the ship's deck, and it comes from the days when the swabbies and sailors would be working on the deck of the ship -- rigging and swabbing and stuff -- and the officers would emerge from cabins or superstructure and these working sailors would need to notice. Nowadays, of course, the phrase is used even though the sailors and marines might be six floors beneath the top deck of the ship. Geogre 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Berndt Lubich von Milovan

I am searching where Berndt Lubich von Milovan was burried. He died probably on April 24, 1966 in Oslo. He was a fascist born in Riga, Latvia on December 7, 1913.

Thank you for your help

Alena, June 6, 2006

Searched Find A Grave, Ancestry.com (too much results). Try them ? --DLL 20:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup

How many World Cup squad members play in the English Premiership, or the lower English leagues, and how does this compare with the other European leagues?

See 2006 FIFA World Cup (squads)#Player representation by league. Conscious 10:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Only two nations where all players play in their domestic league. Interesting!

Lewis and Clark - how far can you canoe?

Reading several sources on the Lewis and Clark expedition raises a question - how far can you go today in canoe between St. Louis and the Pacific Ocean? It seems as though there are rivers which are navigable by canoe which would lessen the distance to traverse over the mountains that L & C weren't aware of. Admittedly, there are now dams which would require portage that L & C didn't have to face.

Hmm, I wonder if we have an article on wild rivers or list of wild rivers or list of wild rivers in North America? If not, the Google term would probably be "wild river," as that seems to be the only type of river that doesn't have a flood control or hydro electric dam on it somewhere (or a water diversion dam as with the Colorado River). Geogre 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Convicted Terrorists in U.S. Prisons

I am interested in finding a list of terrorists convicted in the last 5 years in the U.S. -- and which U.S. prison are housing them. Thank you.

As far as I know it's just Richard Reid (shoe bomber) and Zacharias Mousaui (I know that last name's spelt wrong), anyone else gets thrown in Guantanomo without all the inconvenience of trial and conviction (or aquittal). AllanHainey 14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Terry Nichols and Eric Robert Rudolph? They are both at ADX Florence, along with Moussaoui, Reid and many other high profile prisoners.--Pharos 21:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The right spelling is Zacarias Moussaoui. E-s-B 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Pentagon list of detainees, but most of them have not been tried yet [19]. Here is a list of infamous terrorists and current info about them, some in prison, some not [20]. Nowimnthing 14:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Shurely shome mishtake? If they have not faced a fair trial and due process, are they not infamous people accused of being terrorists? Or do we do away with traditions such as 'Innocent until proven guilty' now that there's any test of them? Sorry: bugbear. Skittle 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just went with the how they were listed in the article. It looks like most of the ones in the list that have not been convicted have assumed responsibility for terrorist actions. Nowimnthing 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to read the article USA PATRIOT Act. Basicly, to protect American security almost all rights have been revoked. You can thank the American people who voted for George W. Bush, our new and glorious leader in this new crusade against terrorism. Don´t forget to praise the LORD for the new American president. Oh, and if you are against it, you might be a anti-american fanatic, perhaps... even a terrorist sympathizer; you will be checked out (privacy? forget it), and then perhaps arrested for a couple of years WHITHOUT charge and then probably forgotten. (Ahh sarcasm, don´t you just love it?) Flamarande 15:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not 'correct' people's spelling for them. Suggesting 'I think you meant ___' is one thing, changing it yourself is another. As it is, the 'mistake' you corrected in my post was deliberate: a reference to a particular magazine. On top of the chance of this sort of thing, it is rude to alter people's words without their consent and doesn't allow any lessons to be learnt, unlike pointing errors out. Thank you. Skittle 16:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is absolutely great that Bush is an evil overlord who took away every single right the American citizens have and is the sole source of every problem in the world. That means that when his term is up, the entire world will turn into a utopia. How can anyone complain about that? --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seating Plan Diagram Of Indian Parliament

I need the seating plan diagram of indian parliament i.e lok sabha and rajya sabha for a project. Please provide them.

Click here, then click on "email", then you can ask the head of security yourself and tell him all about your project. --Shantavira 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparison Between Indian Rupee, American Dollar And British Pound

Could you please tell me why American Dollar is strongest and has widest coverage even if British currency has the maximum value? I need this information urgently.

For a start, you can take a look at the international use section of the United States dollar article. I will see what else I can find for you. Road Wizard 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maximum Value doesn't equate to better stability. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is what he/she is asking. So yeah the dollar may be considered stronger not because of it's relative value compared to other currencies (though that is one consideration) but due to it's widespread use and relative stability. Nowimnthing 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the £1 is worth more than $1 doesn't mean the pound is a better currency than the dollar or that the British economy is better than the American one. The weakness of the dollar compared to the pound reflects the fact that the US has a trade deficit with the UK. But in the US, the trade deficit tends to reflect strength, not weakness, in the economy. In some countries, such as Zimbabwe, a weak currency does reflect weakness in the economy, but, to this point, not in the US. The US remains the world's number-one economic power, and the dollar, even if it has its up-and-down cycles, is a relatively stable currency. In the future, however, the euro may come to replace the dollar as the world's currency franca. -- Mwalcoff 23:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of urban studies departments in the US?

Where can I get information on relative judgements on quality of teaching and research of urban studies depts at US Universities? I'm interested in some govt or independent survey. Thanks! 71.34.105.97 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to answer a question like this before and it is not as easy as it seems. Independent ranking organizations tend to rank the entire university rather than individual schools within the university. Notable exceptions being medical, business, and law schools. You can find a list of schools offering degrees in urban studies here [21]. From there you would have to do some research on each school you might be interested in to see how much they publish in journals and if there any faculty who you would like to work with. If anyone can find better info, I will be curious to see it. Nowimnthing 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I noticed on their website that Portland State says they ranked 3rd in the country (their US dept) in the most recent survey, but couldn't figure out which survey. I called them, but of course, couldn't find anyone who knew anything about it. 71.34.105.97 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. You might try the Journal of Urban Affairs one of those topic specific journals are the most likely place to find rankings. Nowimnthing 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

voting

Why do we always vote on Tuesdays

One assumes that by "we" you mean citizens of the United States, in which case there is some information at Election Day (United States), as well as an informative (if overly Flash-reliant) external link. --LarryMac 19:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It varies between countries. The UK General Elections always happen on Thursdays. In Australia all federal, state and municipal elections happen on Saturdays. JackofOz 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trojan War infobox

There is a disagreement on whether an military conflict infobox should be included in the Trojan War. We would like to know if it is official Wikipedia policy to have infoboxes in fictional and semi-ficitonal Wars. Please answer in the Trojan War discussion page Ikokki 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The best place to get some discussion on this would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. The final answer you should expect: there is no "official" policy, and so work out a compromise with your collaborators on the article. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Burlesque Comedian Harry Evanson information sought

Harry Evanson was my great uncle. I know that he was a burlesque comedian. Form Wikipedia and the internet I have also found references that state that he worked with Bud Abbot of Abbot and Costello fame at one time.

I would appreciate anyone who could lead me to sources of additional information. StephenSS 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: anyone who finds additional sources, please also add them directly to the Harry Evanson article.--M@rēino 21:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• A quick question - was that article a live link when you posted that comment? It no longer appears to exist. Road Wizard 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Distance Traveled for water.

What is the estimated distance traveled in undeveloped countries for water? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.214.64 (talk • contribs)

• The answer will vary HUGELY depending on the local climate. In The Gambia, for example, the answer is "a couple meters, tops." In the Kalahari desert, you might be in for a 300-km hike.--M@rēino 21:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Deaths?

Did any of the workers or people involved in the carving of Mount Rushmore die? (During construction, of course) --71.98.6.115 21:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they are all immortal

Now now, be nice. If you mean were any workers killed while working on the carving, then no, according to [22] "Not a single worker was killed working on the carving...". The man who organised the project, Gutzon Borglum did die of an unrelated embolism in 1941 before it was completed, and his son completed the carving. --Canley 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

June 7

What is the difference between logical doubt and psychological doubt?