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 Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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.

June 28

William Trent

I found the stub article to one of my ancestors, but it describes Major William Trent III not his grandfather William Trent I, who founded Trenton, New Jersey. I would like to write articles about both (I have a book written by a PhD student from University of Pittsburgh on William III's life).

William Trent senior is listed as William Trent (Trenton, New Jersey) and Major William Trent III is listed as William Trent

How would I go about suggesting that the listings be straightened out? --Ben Trent 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to make the William trent page into a disambiguation page, linking to two separate pages called William Trent I and William Trent III. I've made some changes to fix that up. Grutness...wha? 09:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Democratic versus Republican

Is there a series of questions I can ask myself to determine whether my thinking, beliefs and situation (income, job type, etc.) qualifies me (compatibility wise) more as a Democrat than as a Republican and vice versa or if I actually lean toward something more or less sinister? ...IMHO (Talk) 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd question from someone whose userbox claims they're a politician.--152.163.100.72 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of those things. They're worth every bit as much as you pay for them (they're free). For myself, cogito ergo sum Democratus. Geogre 03:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"I think therefore I am a Democrat?" Think about what? If you apply that to President Clinton then what must have he been thinking about when he did not have women with that sex?" ...IMHO (Talk) 03:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean President Clinton, the Rhodes Scholar?--152.163.100.72 04:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean President Clinton who was Impeached. ...IMHO (Talk) 04:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean unrelated tangent to deflect the origional comment?--152.163.100.72 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of little quizzes online, but most of them are biased. I doubt that your income or occupation would influence your political affiliation, since there are many poor and rich people in both parties. It's mostly ideological. but if you answer "yes" to most of these questions, you probably belong in the GOP. If you answer "no", you probably have more in common with the Democrats. If you're evenly divided, you could probably be a moderate in either party. Of course, it may be that you would prefer the platform of a third party to either major party, but anyway...

Do you support preemptive military intervention?

Do you oppose universal health care?

Do you think social security should be privatized?

Do you think Judaeo-Christian morals should influence policymaking?

Do you think organized labor is a threat to free enterprise?

Do you think marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman?

Do you support legislation banning flag-burning?

Do you support capital punishment?

Do you think immigration from Mexico should be strongly restricted?

Do you think American soldiers should remain in Iraq?

If you answered "yes" to more than five, you'd probably be a Republican (or Joe Lieberman). Bhumiya (said/done) 03:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You forgot, "Do you believe in personalizing and then demonizing complex geopolitical issues and treating entire nations as their leader and all your opponents with pure hate?" Geogre 13:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you love the flag with a transubstantiation-inspired passion? "Have not I myself known five hundred living soldiers sabred into crows' meat for a piece of glazed cotton which they called their flag; which, had you sold it in any market-cross, would not have brought above three groschen?" -- Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus. Geogre 14:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay that sounds like a pretty good start. Now how about if I wanted to include Communist in the mix or Nazi, etc. Can we expand this group of questions to include those political parties as well? ...IMHO (Talk) 03:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Political Compass sounds like what you're looking for. Natgoo 09:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks a great deal. This is more advanced than I was hoping for and moves the decision making process into a more scientific yet still practical realm. Thanks again. ...IMHO (Talk) 10:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How about making it more realistic for the U.S.:

1. Do you want a group of rich people (mostly white men) to cast your vote for you?
2. Do you want to blame all the nation's problems on anyone who doesn't obey the group you chose?

If you answered yes to both, then you are either a Republican or Democrat - it doesn't really matter which since both parties are for raising taxes and raising taxes and then giving themselves a big hefty raise (which they will cover up by saying they are against the 3% Cost-of-Living raise while passing a 7% raise on the side). Now, if you answered no to either one, you are anti-American and you will burn in hell with all the other flag-burning hippies. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Knowing what idealogical groupping you fit best in, is all great if your just voting, but if you plan to become an elected offical there are only two questions you need to ask yourself:

1. Could you imagine yourself cheating on your taxes?
2. Could you imagine yourself cheating on your wife?

• If you answered yes to 1 and no to 2, you're a Republican, with the Bible in one hand and your budget in the other. You pay way to much taxes, and most of it goes to lazy welfare cheats, and dead-beats anyway. And your wife has been a loyal supporter for years, and helped you get the votes from the religous right and middleclass women.
• If you answered no to 1 and yes to 2, you're a Democrat, always putting the rest of society before yourself, except on long workdays in the office when you and that blonde secretery are all alone. And you've seen the looks your wife is giving your best friend, they're probably doing something they shouldn't be doing, so she's got nothing to complain about.
• If you answered yes to both, you're a Libretarian, why on earth should you abide by the law of others, you work your ass of every day, you have every right to make your own rules, and that is what America is all about. We don't need a new king!
• If you answered no to both, you're a fine upstanding member of your comunity, and you're not really cut out to be politician are you? Maybe you should consider becoming a teacher, or a doctor, or maybe fight poverty in a picturesque village in Namibia. --Eivind^t@c 02:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the example... I can't find the other section where I was looking for an example of a Cynic but your's will work fine. ...IMHO (Talk) 01:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Communism

In simple terms... why does America view Communism as such an awful thing? I don't quite get the concept, I suppose. --Thanks!

Well as in the above effort to define a few major political parties by comparing the answers a member from each party would give to several relevant and distinquishing questions there is as of yet not indiction of what questions might be suitiable or what the answers might be. Consequently Communism can at this point in time be lumped in with Democrat or Republican or both. You have to define Communism in similar terms if you want to find an answer. ...IMHO (Talk) 05:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of the issue for me, I don't really understand what Communism is about as compared to Democracy, and why a commie is such an evil thing in the US.... -- Steve (the previous anon poster)

Well alot of it depends upon the reason or basis. Agricultural even with manufacturing endevores that sell products and are centered around a belief in God are usually accepted here in the US. But then as with any group or individual that may include an alternate quirk may also have then gone over the line, i.e., have done something that other individuals or groups can simply not approve or forgive. ...IMHO (Talk) 05:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article Communist Party USA covers many points about the rise and fall of the Communist idea in America. As a comparison, you may wish to read about the many other countries in the world that have active Communist or Communist-like parties. Road Wizard 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a mixup between terms and systems here. Communism is an economical policy and democracy is a way to decide which policies (including economic) to use. So in theory they don't exclude each other. However....

First some groundwork. Communism is an ideal in which everyone does what they can and takes no more than they need. That would be very nice, but people aren't like that. So in countries ruled by a Communist Party (and are therefore mis-named Communist States) you get what is usually called State Socialism, with a government that owns everything (nationalisation) and tries to change the attitude of people such that eventually the government can abolish itself and people live happily ever after in total freedom (ironically also the (right-wing) economic-liberal ideal).

In reality, this is done through an oligarchy, with a small group of people controlling the country. This is not democracy and therefore considered very bad in the West in the last century or so. Before that we had kings or Tsars, which were much worse, but we got over that and now that we have 'seen the light' everyone else has to follow. By force, if needs be. This excuse for the 'war on communism' is somewhat understandable (I also prefer democracy, but that's no excuse to force it down other peoples' throats). But there is also the domino theory, which states that if one nation 'falls' the neighbouring countries will too, somehow, and eventually the US will become communist. This is not based on anything at all, but somehow it appeals to the public. And then there's the simple idea that because the economic system of State Socialism is so unlike that of the US that it has to be wrong. This is stupid but classic. Anyone who has a different belief has to be wrong. This has always been in the history of manikind. It was usually about religion, but this time it's about an economical system, which is even more silly.

But there's one more thing. After WWII the USSR effectively confiscated Eastern European countries. This was done through military force (albeit originally against the Germans, but that was effectively just a convenient excuse). And that was understably seen as a real physical threat. I haven't a clue how real this threat was, but it's gone now. Any threat from Cuba was based on suport from the USSR, so that threat is gone too.

But then there's China. Still not democratic, still present in Tibet and only getting stronger. So if there was any threat from China and therefore a solid reason to mistrust them, that is only getting stronger. But they've introduced some free market and now everyone acts like everything is ok (well, almost - there's still the human rights issues). Which is pretty hipocritical. This makes it look like it was really all about the economic system and every people have the right to choose their own system.

Oh, one more thing. The US have the power to push everyone else around, so they do. Another constant in the history of mankind. DirkvdM 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I have to add this one. Democracy in the US? Democracy means that people can vote for whatever idea they wish to support. So McCarthy obviously wasn't a suporter of democracy. But more fundamentally, what choices does one have in the US? Two parties that are barely distinguishable from each other. You can pick any colour as long as it's blue. Yeah, democracy.... DirkvdM 08:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW! I have to say that I don't think I've every heard as much diatribe! I'm not complaining mind you I'm just saying that if I ever need sometimg to keep me busy while sitting on the can... Oh well, lets not get McCarthic. Anyway what I want to ask is if you were going to come up with a list of questions that might tell me whether I would be happier living as a Communist what would those questions be? I already have a few questions to help me decide if I am a Democrat or a Republican from the topic just above. ...IMHO (Talk) 08:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

About China: I don't think that's true... when Japan was poised to rise economically the U.S. hated them too (particularly in Detroit where two men killed Vincent Chin and essentially got away with murder), and the Japanese were democratic! --ColourBurst 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

People's Republic of China != China. I for one think the Republic of China is the continuation of Sun Yat-Sen's principles. Also see anarchist communism, collectivist anarchism, gift economy, et al. which are forms of libertarian socialism that rejects an oligarchy for communism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, PRC is what I mean... however, Communism in practice is rarely equivalent to Communism in theory. Samuel Webster was the guy who said "Communism works, in theory." --ColourBurst 19:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That really depends on which theory one means (which really has become an immortal cliche). A fairly testimony of a successful partially classless society is Homage to Catalonia by Orwell, when the Anarchists banded themselves together in the Spanish Civil War (although they called their other opponent, the Moscow Regimists aka Soviets "Communists" with a capital C which tends to exclude the anarchist communists). I however rarely call the Beijing and Moscow Oligarchial Regimists by their self-prescribed names anymore (Gongchandang/CPC and Soviet respectively) because it both the Chinese and Russian terms. Workers organise themselves all the time.

In Singapore there are proposals to organise some lift-upgrading (in the opposition constituencies, ie. Potong Pasir SMC and Hougang SMC purely through voter participation because Lee Hsien Loong somehow morally justifies that it's acceptable to actively discriminate opposition constituencies in the HDB upgrading programme in favour of constituencies that support the ruling People's Action Party. I don't know their latest status, but self-organisation in practice can actually have the potential to be quite successful. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Orwell, though, wasn't Animal Farm a counterexample of what could go bad? You can't assume that the Homage scenario would always be the outcome of what happens. --ColourBurst 03:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Franco eventually won the Spanish Civil War. The outcome of the Homage scenario is not what we want (being defeated by the Fascists and infighting with the Moscow Oligarchists). Animal Farm is usually cited first against communism - but in truth he was writing against the Moscow Regimists who said they were Communist (and he termed them so) but were in truth no different from the capitalists. Of course, at the time the Moscow Regimists laid their claim to the label, but in truth poisoned it for the anarchist communists. In the anarchist respect, he was showing what was potentially possible, and a lesson to be learnt: the anarchists must never ally with the authoritarians, or at least treat them with all suspicion. Politically, there is a systemic bias that favours the citation of Animal Farm as a book, but Animal Farm was a condemnation of the Moscow Regimists, not the anarchist communists. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it has to do with the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War (okay, technically all the same thing)... all wars in which the U.S. was fighting Communism. This probably leads to a lot of anti-Communism being thrown about. --ColourBurst 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically all the same thing?? The Vietnam war was pretty hot, I'd say. And that was about a people trying to oust the occupying force, which was quite the rage at the time, with colonies going for independence. When the 'champion' of these freedom fighters (the US) didn't reply to their request for help, they turned to a closer, more logical ally. Which happened to be a socialist state (China). Which did wake up the US, upon which they did enter the war (on the wrong side), which forced the Viet Minh into the arms of the Chinese (and 'communism') even further. So the US created their own demon, so to say. Sorry, had to get this off my chest. :) DirkvdM 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that the three wars are basically clustered under the cold war category. Whether this categorization is correct (or Americentric) is up for debate, but that's what Wikipedia has done. --ColourBurst 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"The US have the power to push everyone else around"? If that were the case, North Korea (or any other country in the world for that matter) would not have nukes, 9/11 would never have happened, OPEC countries would provide America with free oil, every country in the Middle East, as well as the Hamas led Palestinian Authority, would recognize Israel and quit commiting terrorist acts against Israeli civilians, Iran would end its nuclear programme and apologize profusely for having the temerity to dare disobey the wishes of the American government, the French and the Germans would have supported the war in Iraq, there would be no Iraqi insurgency, Fidel Castro, now without a Soviet Union to back him would be kissing GWB's ass and begging for forgiveness...etc...etc...etc. Yes, the US may be the only "superpower" in the world, but that's a far cry from actually having the power to "control" the world. Believe me, there are a whole load of things that are going on in the world that the American government wished it could change if it had the power...but it doesn't. Loomis 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Because communism is the epitome of godliness and as such, unattainable. That's why people hate communism. -- Миборовский 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I had never thought of it that way, Миборовский, you're absolutely right. We're all jealous of that wonderful utopia in which the state essentially murders millions of its own people, throws those who dare speak their own mind into gulags, or better yet, machine guns them en masse in Tiannenmen Square, leaving a lucky few who could avoid those fates lining up for toilet paper. Oh how I wish I had been lucky enough to have been born in a communist country. Ya ochen revnivii, Миборовский. Loomis 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh. A few things.

1. Nobody was killed in Tiananmen Square.
2. Those who were, were the real communists.

-- Миборовский 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It was rather like the entry into Fallujah in terms that the troops struggled to enter the capital. I guess you could call it a massacre, but plenty of soldiers got killed as I recall. I don't think there was machine-gunning en masse so much than lots of bayonet fighting and tank rolling. Also, there were "real communists" (those singing the Internationale), and then there were those who simply wanted to return to the old regime. Alas.

And, besides the fact that one is describing that oligarchial state, not communism. I'm pretty content with my place of birth, though. I wouldn't have it any other way (though I do dissent against LSL et al.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Christianity, we should model ourselves after Christ even though it's impossible to attain perfect righteousness on Earth. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Give to Caesar..." BTW, Christ never advocated communism. Merely, his disciples lived communally. -- Миборовский 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And organise what is ours. But communalism is rather a good choice anyway. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Family groups are family groups whether the relationships are based on DNA, adoption, platonic love, alcohol, crack, or even the same career, subway route or fashion style. The problem with Communism it that it hates Capitalism so much it rejects prosperity of its own while encouraging postal workers to open packages from somewhere else and to steal most, if not all, of the contents (Cuban postal operations). ...IMHO (Talk) 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the term is "platonic". ;-) A high amount of wealth isn't necessarily needed for a HDI or eudaimonia, but now this entire thing is degenerating into generalisations. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, you haven't been listening. Communism is that ideal state that is unattainable, as Миборовский puts it, not what those countries have that are called communist (but aren't). But he also states that Christ was no communist, which he was. Living in a commune is the only attainable form of communism because only if you all know each other will you be willing enough to sacrifice your own needs for those of others. Actually, the best example of communism is friendship. DirkvdM 07:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pengyou, camaraderie, etc. but living in a very extensive network of communes can work, too. In a city-states I think this is especially applicable....I'm thinking of environments like the HDB with their common void decks, markets and corridors...Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How is Christ a communist? Bear in mind there is a fundamental, indestructible, unbridgeable class difference between Christ and Christians. King of Kings? LORD? Hello? His disciples later lived communally. That's it. If you choose to emulate them, go ahead, it can't hurt you. But you can't call Christ a communist. -- Миборовский 18:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• All very complicated, but maybe this idea is worth considering, since self-interest is always a very potent force. Communism is (widely held to be) about redistributing capital (money and stuff). On this basis, you might expect that people with little stuff or money might think it was a good thing. Similarly, people with lots of stuff and money want to keep it, so they might think communism is a bad thing. Now, there are of course more people without stuff, than there are people with stuff. But, almost all the people who own newspapers, TV stations or politicians have lots of stuff. They can therefore try to use their power to say communism is Bad. In fact, the amount of energy put into saying communism is Bad suggests that some of the people (with stuff) thought there was a really good chance that other people (without stuff) would want communism, but that it was possible to influence them by putting out real facts, or lies (according to your opinion) about life under communism. Notinasnaid 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a great theory on paper but the facts are that the people who have a lot know that the way to keep a lot is to appease the people that don't have a lot with actions and material goods and not (just) words. Even though it might be through taxes and welfare the haves even in this country pay the bills of the have nots. There are exceptions and accidents and other problems but for the great majority of cases in this country the haves provide a far greater portion of what thay can have than is provided to the poor Communists by the wealthy Communist. ...IMHO (Talk) 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what country you are talking about (you don't say, so it's probably the US), but the poorest people on Earth are to be found in non-socialist contries. More specifically the most die-hard capitalist countries. True, in Socialist States the Communist party doesn't provide the poor with as much as it does for even the unemployed in the Netherlands (and possibly even the US), but that's simply because those Socialist States are not as rich. And before you turn the causality upside down, if they're poor that's because that's what they were to start with. Which was the reason for the revolution. After that, the 'poor' fared a whole lot better than they did under the Tsars or Batista. Before the revolution, Russia was only just escaping from the middle ages. Half a millennium too late! DirkvdM 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a given that whoever is in power will have the opportunity and the means to do better that whoever is not. Some people are happier being poor so they would revolt just to stay poor just like the rich would revolt to stay rich. The great thing about America is that it embraces a form of government that allows opposites to exist almost side by side and instead of killing each other rely upon the other to help maintain a balance so that both can continue to live. Anti-totalitarianism is the thing. Whereas Communists don't have a clue about compromise and believe totally in the totalitarian state. China, however, is showing some of its anchient wisdom in the phrase "One country, two systems." We may yet have a world filled with opposites and yet that offers prosperity for all. ...IMHO (Talk) 21:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but I think you are part of those who have misdefined communism. For us, the true form of communism is anarchist communism, and all other forms must be rejected. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has clearly taken a turn for the absurd. Sure, the communist "ideal" may be kinda nice, despite the fact that each and every country that has given communism a shot has deteriorated into a totalitarian hellhole. There are indeed "true" communist communes, such as the kibbutzim in Israel, for those who are attracted to that lifestyle. They join voluntarily, and are free to leave any time they wish.

Still, I'd find it kind of dull to live in any kind of "communist utopia" whether attainable or not. Humans are meant to compete with one another, it's what makes life worth living. Imagine showing up to play a game of football, and finding that rather than play the game, both sides have apparently agreed that it would be in the greatest good for everyone to simply declare the game a tie, shake hands and go home. What a dissappointment that would be.

That's not to say that the less fortunate should not be guaranteed a comfortable life. From my perspective, the fairest, the most humane, but at the same time the most invigorating and the most human society to live in would be one where all are guaranteed a comfortable life, yet those who strive for more are given the opportunity to satisfy their basic human impulses to compete, to better oneself, to strive for personal achievement. It would seem that social democracy, not communism would provide that perfect "utopia". To be quite blunt, to live in a "communist utopia" would, surprising as it may sound, be duller than death itself. Loomis 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The football analogy is a logical fallacy. Rather, it is like instead of infighting among a team, it is like pursuing an adventure as a united group, rathe than have mutual strife. Mutual cooperation is more effectie than mutual strife. The other thing is that you are asuming a country must form. Sovereignty and international recognition is superfluous (except for popular sovereignty). As for being dull, you are describing Brave New World more than you are describing communism - for example take the free software movement, which espouses copyleft cooperation, rather than competition and copyright. I really bet that's a "duller career than death".

And, not every country which has pursued it has degenerated on its own accord: there was the Paris Commune, anarchist Catalonia, the egalitarian armies...(ie. that of which is described in Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that the football analogy is a logical fallacy, yet you don't identify which logical fallacy you're refering to. A logical fallacy is not a simple vague term for something that you "instinctively sense" is illogical, rather, each logical fallacy is refered to by name, such as the "ad hominem" logical fallacy, the "begging the question" logical fallacy or the "straw man" logical fallacy. But then again, communists have never been accused of being overly dedicated to logic, so I'll leave it at that.

In any case, correct me if I'm wrong, but for a football game to occur, there must be two "competing" teams. That's what makes it so much fun. That's what put's the "life" into the game. I'm not sure what you're suggesting. If you're suggesting that each team member cooperate towards the common goal of defeating the "other" team, then you don't seem to be suggesting any sort of communism I've ever heard of. Rather, this "cooperation", it would seem to me, would be more aptly described as nationalism, rather than any form of communism.

On the other hand, if you're suggesting that "both" teams join forces and cooperate mutually for the common good, well, I'm afraid we're back to where we started. The game would be called off, and the members of both teams would join together and go see a good ballet. Not that I want to put down ballet, it has its place for those who enjoy it, but it clearly doesn't satisfy the basic human need to compete, to constantly better oneself, to dare to reach for objects beyond one's grasp, to self-actualize, to evolve as human beings, and ultimately, to constantly improve the human condition. Communism, even in its most benevolent possible form offers none of that. It offers stagnation. It offers complacency. It's devoid of all the invigoration and excitement that life has to offer. Once again, it's duller than death itself. Loomis 21:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fallacious by wrong association. For a football game to occur, it sets an objective, and to do the objective the best way possible. Life is not about competing against each other - because the objective is not to destroy each other, unless you are in a state of war. Rather, there are a whole host of objectives - to build, to construct, etc. which poses a difficulty in itself without mutual strife. Even a game in itself is based on harmonious consequences. Communism rejects nationalism, and you totally misinterpreted me - the point is that all of humanity is in one team - and the universe on the other. You are totally miscorrelating the game to an economy. It's also rather arrogant to assume people's interests...;-) To reach for objects beyond one's grasp? The universe poses that. Soccer is fun because tests each other, but it is a set competition, as opposed to an economy. A society cannot be compared to a soccer game. Within a society there might be a competition to see who can complete the most ambitious things - but still freely cooperate with each other to bring each other up. To constantly improve the human condition is communism, because in a gift economy each advancement is bestowed upon the other.

To say that it offers stagnation would follow the logic that you might as well not have familial or friendship relations because your family offer you complacency and you might as well start demanding payment whenever you do anything for them and to pay them whenever they do anything for you. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're making a whole bunch of baseless assumptions about familial relations etc...However, rather than argue the issue point-for-point, as that seems to be going nowehere, (as I'm sure you'd agree :)) let me ask you one simple question: Do I have the basic human right to prefer to live in a social democratic society rather than a communist one? I would assume that you believe in the basic right to human self-determination and agree that I have that basic human right. Therefore, let me take this opportunity to wish you the best of luck in finding that society that suits you perfectly, while I'll continue on my way living in the social democratic society that I live in. I assume that's your position, as it's the only position possible for one that believes in the basic human right to self-determination.

However, in the unlikely scenario that you believe that I don't have the right to prefer social democracy, what in hell's name gives you the right to tell me that I don't know and have no right to determine what's best for myself? I suppose then that you'd say that I really don't know what's best for myself; or that my decision is an offence against "the people", and I should be punished for my dissent. I sincerely hope (and I actually believe) that that's not your position, as that would put put you in very undesireable company. Loomis 00:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it absurd that you would think I am the latter. Most people, even when excluding the PRC, don't live in a social democracy btw, more like an plutocratic oligarchy. ;-) One doesn't force people to join the society, we just shower them with propaganda (propaganda isn't bad by itself, as long as everyone has the equal capability to spread their own views as equally as others, unlike a plutocracy). I'd say you were mistaken, and you can have the right to prefer what you choose, but that also means we have the right to keep disseminating information about it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, anti-communists need better online presence or we'll lose every debate/argument/demagoguery. Puffing up like a puffer fish and invoking Hell ain't the way to win an argument. -- Миборовский 10:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad we seem to agree on one thing, Elle. Now I don't see what your problem is. I don't know what country you're from, but if it prohibits communist parties from running in elections then it has no right calling itself a democracy. I know that when I enter the ballot booth, there are not one, but several communist candidates to choose from. We simply choose others. As for your comment, Mibrovsky, I'm not looking to win this argument. Communists have every right to hold their views. My argument is that so do I. As for my style of argumentation, my use of the term "hell" seems to have been fruitful, as it cleared up a miscommunication between myself and Elle. What I truly have trouble with is your complete lack of communication. You're an anti-communist?? Could have fooled me! Loomis 11:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose this discussion be moved to Talk:Communism. ...IMHO (Talk) 14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, that would clog up the discussion page, which is for resolving issues for the article itself. Besides, that's what RD is for. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sephira (goddess)

When you type 'Sephira' into the search bar one of the results is a sentence stating that Sephira was a Spanish goddess of intelligence and creativity. However, there is no entry with further information on this site, nor can I find any mention of this goddess or pantheon anywhere else... so my question is, where did this information come from? Yes, this is important to me.

--Elara

Sephira is a Hebrew term meaning to count or number. Try Sefirot, Sephiroth, Sefira, etc. Most of these refer to enumeration (such as the parts of the Trinity in Christian faith) that constitute the whole meaning of God (when taken together) in a particular context. ...IMHO (Talk) 09:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. On the page for the Tales of Symphonia anime, it says that "Many legends and works inspire the game’s story... Even obscure characters such as Sephira of Spanish mythology make brief appearances." This led me to here, where it describes "Sephira: Sephira was the Spanish Goddess of intelligence and creativity. Also, in Hebrew Sephira is an alternate spelling for Sephirah or Sefira, one of the ten Sephirot, or mystical “Divine Emanations” in the Kabbalah of Judaism." Hmmm. A Google search turned up mostly mirrors of Wikipedia, and surprisingly, back to Wikipedia, to an unusual place; List of montes on Venus, which lists Sephira Mons as coming from "the Spanish Goddess of intelligence and creativity." This appears to have been taken from here, but i can't get any further. Sorry. Hope this can help someone go further in tracking the mystery of this unsourced statement. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 16:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sophia =wisdom and is seen as feminine,particularly I think in the Greek Orthodox religion,hotclaws**==(217.39.10.51 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

  I don't know why the discussion jumped from Sephira to Sophia, but the "Holy Wisdom of God" is generally seen to refer to Jesus Christ, from 1 Cor. 24: but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Jesus is generally not seen as feminine, also not in the Greek Orthodox Churches. --Lambiam^Talk 20:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as computer games adopt themes and characters from virtually anywhere I am not surprised there might be multiple references (and apparent competing sources) for the true meaning of the word Sephira or even some created intentionally for the express purpose of desecrating the original meaning. A historical document check is the only way I see of resolving this apparent inconsistency ...IMHO (Talk) 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

JERMAINE DUPRI

CAN I HAVE A LIST OF ALL THE SONGS THAT JERMAINE DUPRI HAS PRODUCED TO DATE???

Only if you promise to stop SHOUTING at us. JackofOz 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please don't type in ALL CAPS. But concerning your question, you can usually just type in the name of the said artist and there is usually a section that contains a list of their works. schyler 12:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry< my caps key is stuck and i didn"t know i can use the shift key to make lowercase letters> can i have the list< please?

Click the links in my earlier post. schyler 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for "shouting" that is just how i write but the thing is the list given on the list of works is not precise.JD has produced a lot more songs than the ones mentioned. Have a look at Kanye West's page for example. It has a list of all the songs he has ever produced but unfortunately it is not the same for JD who has produced loads more than Mr West.

The Producted By Database is a good place to start. Also try searching google for "Jermaine Dupri Production Resume" or something like that. Also this page is a listing of album credits if you wanted to manually check to see what else he's produced.--69.171.123.148 06:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Duke Magnus II of Sachsen -Lauenburg and wife Princess Sofia (Gustavsdotter) Vasa

I would like to know any information on Duke Magnus II of Sachsen-Lauenburg (1543-1603) . I would also like to know if there are any pictures of him? He was married to Princess Sofia Gustavsdotter (Vasa) ( daughter to King Gustav Vasa I (KIng of Sweden) and Margareta -second wife of King Gustav Vasa.

They had a son Gustaf af Sachsen - Lauenburg born 1570 and died 1597. He had a wife Anna Knutsdotter Lilllie and they had a son Gustav Gustafsson Rutenkrantz (1590-)

What confuses me is that in some places Duke Magnus is listed as Magnus II and others Magnus III . Now , was Princess Sofia married to a Magnus II of Sachsen - Lauenburg or Magnus III of Sachsen- Lauenburg?

All we seem to have on Wikipedia is Magnus I, Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg (who died in 1543), and the list on Duchy of Lauenburg, which has only this one Magnus. But perhaps that might be somewhere to start. Adam Bishop 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've seen makes them Magnus I and Magnus II. It would come as no surprise, though, that someone, somewhere, had developed an alternative numbering system, (thoiugh it is hard to imagine who might be the third Magnus—perhaps someone was enumerating the Dukes of Saxony, rather than the Dukes of Saxe-Lauenburg—all of the latter are the former, but the reverse is of course not true, so the enumerations wouldn't match—this is most likely what you are seeing). Genealogical data (but no picture) can be found here. You're safe saying Sofie of Sweden was married to Magnus II of Saxe-Lauenburg. - Nunh-huh 06:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris

I have been trying for several weeks, to find a recording of the soundtrack from Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris - and whilst I am able to find very many copies of this they sound nothing like the copy I grew up listening to.

The LP I remember listening to in the late 70's early 80's was comprised of the songs predominatly featured in this musical but with one difference - they were performed by a woman with a deep, sensuous jazz club voice - deep, husky, laid back - you know the sound I am talking about!! For some reason I have the name Edith Piaff in my head and can't help thinking that the title was something like - "Edith Piaff Sings Jaques Brel is Alive and Well.. etc". I was just a kid at the time so my recollection is poor to say the least, none of my family have been able to assist, the LP is of course lost forever....

Please guys and gals - any assistance would be great!! And any suggestions of where else to look would also be appreciated.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my email. Best regards Mithril

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacques_Brel"

(duplication of question removed)

According to our articles, Edith Piaf died in 1963, whereas the Jacques Brel entry indicates that JB Is Alive ... did not premiere until 1968, so it seems unlikely that she could have performed the musical. The Edith Piaf entry at The All Music Guide shows many songwriters under "Performed Songs By", however Jacques Brel is not one of them. If you further search the AMG for any albums entitled "Jacque Brel Is Alive ..." (sorry, that's just too much to type), you will find dozens, including mention of the first original cast recording from 1968, under which it states "[...]the reedy-voiced Elly Stone, who recalled Edith Piaf." Unfortunately, this album appears to be out of print. You might want to search at used record stores, on the 'net or in the real world. -- LarryMac 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not out of print. Here's the Amazon link. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

salary

can anyone tell me what is the average income of a voice actor? some sources say $2000 for 8 commericals and others just say things like not a whole lot.

Salaries for VAs vary depending on the product being produced. During a seminar I attended a while back with an industry professional, for animation work the rate can run from upwards of $300 per half-hour episode of a new series, down to half that roughly for doing a dub. Having said that, it appears I need to move to LA, judging from this article which states the salary for union members has a base of about $600 an hour. Tony Fox (speak) 16:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Regional Symbols

I asked this a few days ago and got referred to FotW, but that didn't go anywhere so I'm asking again. If you know any visual symbols for a Chinese province, autonomous entity, city, large region (the West, the South, Manchuria, etc.), ethnic, cultural, or linguistic group, or any other sort of inter- or subprovinical cultural area, I'd like to know. I'm especially interested in traditional or at least pre-PRC things. Any sort of symbol, like a flag, crest, particular plant or animal, or even just a color or colors, is fine. -- 207.255.69.226 18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I answer this a few days ago? They don't have any. -- Миборовский 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Marchese Dias Torqas, Viceroy of Naples

We have inherited from grandparents in Norway a painting of Marchese Dias Torqas (Torgas?), Viceroy of Naples. I would love to know who he is but cannot find him in Wikipedia or in any lists of Viceroys of Naples I have come across. Can anyone help?

Perhaps you should try using the title Margravio instead of Marchese. Russian F 20:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Antonio Álvarez Osorio, viceroy from 1672-1675, was the Marqués de Astorga, which in Italian would be Marchese di Astorga. You are probably misreading di Astorga as Dias Torgas. --Cam 20:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this look like the guy in your painting? --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the description, that painting's inscribed with the year 1775; that must be a later marques. --Cam 20:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On this page in Spanish we find a reference (in Italian) to one "Antonio Pietro Alvarez Osorio Gomez Davila e Toledo, marchese di Astorga di Velada", apparently ambassador in Rome in early 1671, who is undoubtedly the same person. On this page in Spanish we can read that he only became marquis after a succession problem with four contenders, the previous marquis having died in 1659 without a male descendant. Our friend then apparently was already Marquis of San Román. We also find that he died in 1689 without descendants. Further (somewhat undigested) genealogical information is in this Word document: [1]. --Lambiam^Talk 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Really grateful for the above - thanks very much Lambian. The reason why we were confused was that - at the top left hand corner of the painting - the marquis name is inscribed exactly as follows:

Marchese Dias Torgas Vicere di Napoli

so the painter has split Astorga into two words and added an "s". May indicate the painter wasn't Italian? It would be interesting to know why the painting ended up in Norway - and who painted it. -¨¨¨

State Schools

Which article tells me when the state started providing schools? --Username132 (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Which state? Emmett5 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

History of Education in the United States.Patchouli 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe Education in India. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Education in Rwanda anyone? --Downunda 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Education in the Netherlands. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Public education, Sparta was the first to provide education as a government service. --WhiteDragon 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sirhan Sirhan's Parole Hearings

Good evening everyone: I have a question that might seem a little macabre, but, nevertheless it is very serious. I am doing a very detailed report about Sirhan Sirhan and would like to view his parole hearings if at possible. However, I don't know if they are made available to the public. My question is, "Does anyone know where I can either buy or borrow them?" I've checked at the local libraries in my area and none seem to have them. I suppose I could always contact the California Department of Corrections . . . As always, any and all information is greatly appreciated :-) --Cross31 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, don't know how neutral that article is; anyone reading it is left with the impression that Sirhan Sirhan most likely did not commit the assassination. As for reading the transcript of his parole hearings, your best bet is probably to contact the parole board. You might also try asking a reference librarian at the library of a law school in California. --Mathew5000 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

U.S. House to Presidency

Has there been a United States president who has gone straight from the House of Representatives to the White House?Patchouli 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not in the past 50 years...beyond that I'd have to do some research. Loomis 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any; the closest looks like James K. Polk, who was five years out of the House when elected. —Zero Gravitas 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

However, one President went from President to the House of Representatives - John Quincy Adams. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln. Though at the time of his presidential campaign, he wasn't an elected member of Congress or any other legislature, he did serve one term in the US House of Representatives in the late 1840s. --Revolución hablar ver 02:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry Clay tried in 1824 but lost (sort of) to John Quincy Adams -- Mwalcoff 03:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis adoption story

Did Jefferson Davis really adopt a black son? Seems contradictory, for someone so racist and the President of the Confederacy, a regime based upon the continuance of the forced slavery of all blacks in the South, would adopt a child of a skin color he hated...yet the story persists, both in this article and here --Revolución hablar ver 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! It's not at all good practice to assume that Jefferson Davis disliked, much less hated, black people. The issues were tremendously complex, and Davis himself was split on the matter. He certainly didn't think that he was fighting to preserve slavery, although that was an issue, and people don't cease to change the moment their time in the historical spotlight ends. He could well have changed his mind entirely, and it's never a particularly safe thing to equate the causes with the leaders of the causes. That said, I don't know if he did adopt a black son, and I do find it unlikely, although he was a devoted father who was heartbroken when his own son died in childhood. According to reports, that caused him far more grief than the loss of the war. Geogre 02:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... about the best thing I could find is this (google "Jim Limber") for more. There are few references online for this story, and almost all are decidely pro-Davis. The account may have some basis in truth, but it would be an exxageration I think to say he was adopted. Apparently there's a portrait of "Jim Limber" at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia (though I would be very surprised if this wasn't an "imagined" modern-day pinting). I guess they would be a good place to e-mail for more info. Oh, and someone posted this photograph to a genealogy messageboard.--Pharos 03:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to be pro-Davis than to be pro-Confederacy, I'd say, as he was never a "fire breather" or one of the ones chomping at the bit for slavery's preservation. There were surprising people who wanted to get rid of slavery, but "not now." (Stonewall Jackson, for example, believed that slavery was going away...but not now.) There was on general reprimanded for sending a letter to Richmond advocating the immediate freeing of the slaves and their arming. However, the nasty racists who attach themselves to this element of history make it hard to research cleanly or present honestly. Geogre 13:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a compelling idea. Everyone likes the redemption angle. Robert E. Lee was another one who is popularly held to have opposed slavery. But it would be silly to say any Confederate placed any great priority on the emancipation of slaves, let alone took practical steps to this end. If any major figure had done so, he would have been branded an abolitionist traitor and estranged from the Confederate leadership. Certainly there were Confederates who didn't mind the idea of eventually freeing the slaves, but it's difficult to say whether this was an earnest and deeply held belief, or a fiction projected onto Confederate heroes to make them more palatable. As for Jefferson Davis, he was certainly unusual in his attitude to slaves. He was without a doubt a racist, in the sense that he considered blacks inherently inferior. He also considered slavery a benefit to them, which makes me doubt that he would have had any sympathy for abolition. He did own more than a hundred slaves. Among other slave owners, he was ridiculed for being too lenient. According to some sources, Jim Limber was an abused black child adopted by the Davis family in 1863 who lived at the Confederate White House. Several Internet sources say that he was "forcibly removed by Union soldiers and never seen again", possibly bundled off to DC, which sounds to me like utter bullshit and makes me doubt the veracity of the entire story. All information about Jim Limber states that he disappeared after 1865. Naturally, he must have been dragged kicking and screaming from massa's house. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico's status in the UN

What status does Puerto Rico have in the United Nations? --Revolución hablar ver 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See the section "Puerto Rico's political status and international law" in the article Puerto Rico, where this is explained in some detail. --Canley 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

June 29

Political compass questionaire

Anyone brave enough to send letters or faxes or emails to all of the politicians asking what their answers to the questions reveal their true political profile to be? ...IMHO (Talk) 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would politicians answer it (assuming they don't had done the test allready)? And even if they did answer it, don't you think that they would lie? Flamarande 09:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us what you think about politicians, Flamarande. And then, I'd be interested in knowing why you're interested in politics. JackofOz 10:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I'm a politician, and I just took this questionnaire. The questions are loaded. Define "rich"--eg. the rich are being taxed too highly. I am 'rich' in the sense that I make say twice as much money as the average bear, and I am taxed quite highly in Canada for it. "Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism": yes, I agree. What the question doesn't grasp is that I also think this is necessary in a time of trouble. When things relax, liberties can relax again. "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system"--gaaahh??! Of course, one could agree with the theory of this. Yes, totalitarian states have always been better equipped to turn on a dime and head off in a new policy direction; so in this sense, I must say I 'agree' with the statement or be caught in a falsehood. However, I strongly disagree that this is a good idea, so I actually have to answer the question 'incorrectly' and respond to its intent. Incidentally, I came out as: Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62 which surprised me as I'm a Conservative.--Shandon 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Same here, apparently, according to the test, I'm a leftist! Loomis 19:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's American, so a Canadian conservative would probably be a hippie freak commie in the US. :-( (I came out -8.5/-4.5, so I'm a Gandhi.) Geogre 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

All in all, I must say this questionnaire really doesn't tell you anything. It doesn't, in my opinion, have any reasonable basis for it's "0,0".--Shandon 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As I was saying, above, these things are worth what you pay for them. If a person really wants to know whether she is a Democrat or Republican in the US, the best idea would be to go to their respective websites and look for their legislative and judicial positions. Being a Democrat or Republican really shouldn't be like being gay or straight, much less like being Russian or Chinese: one ought to be a fully developed human being who changes her mind from time to time, is capable of voting for persons who agree with her goals, and yet not put on some silly tag that says, "I'm sorry, but I am a Republican, and I shall be a Republican because of the tattoo." Geogre 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The methodology behind the analysis of such questions is neural networking as in the game of twenty questions analysis. The idea is to use the results as a basis for comparison with others. I agree that the method is not fool proof (as you can easily see by going to the above web site) but it can be made more sophisticated and improved to the point of almost infallibility. Most companies such as sports authority and blockbuster and wal-mart, etc. now use the same method on an everyday basis to screen applicants. ...IMHO (Talk) 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a methodology which can give very rough answers to very specific question. The problem I have always had with the political compass is that it is clearly set up in order to favor a "libertarian" approach—everything is in the terms of freedom versus control, rather than the terms that people who believe in other political systems would actually self-describe as. As such you end up with a scale which is predetermined to emphasize certain similarities while ignoring key differences. Which is fine -- if you are trying to convert people to the benefits of one political philosophy. If you are trying to actually understand what sort of political opinions people hold, it is not that useful. --Fastfission 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm almost completely neutral on the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale. What does that mean, I'm not sure. My political compass:

Economic Left/Right: -2.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.05

--WhiteDragon 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Hello, can you say me, when the qualification for this tournament (Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics) start, and can you give me a list with all games of the preliminaries? Thank you and greets from Germany 84.186.90.23 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the region. The FIFA Executive Committee, allocates a certain number of teams per confederation and then each region sets up the qualifiers separately. This year the distribution of teams is:

- Men's tournament: AFC (4, including the host nation), CAF (3), CONCACAF (2), CONMEBOL (2), OFC (1), UEFA (4)

- Women's tournament: AFC (3, including the host nation), CAF (1.5 - one direct qualifier and one team to play-off against representatives of CONMEBOL), CONCACAF (2), CONMEBOL (1.5 - one direct qualifier and one team to play-off against representatives of CAF), OFC (1), UEFA (3)

(see press release here: [2])

Most confederations organize a special U-23 competition, but UEFA uses the finalists of the UEFA Under-21 Championship. Obviously the dates of the preliminaries will be different for each region. Germany would be playing in the UEFA conference and thus I would look at the official website [3] for the U-21 Championship. It seems that the CAF qualifiers are starting this fall [4] but none of the other confederations have listed anything about the 2008 Olympics on their sites. Crito2161 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do nomads get their food?

Hello, I really enjoy your site! I have been pondering this question, what do you call people who eat only meat? Secondly, where do nomads get their food? Do they kill off a lamb once in a while, and where do they get their veggies? If they only eat meat, would they not die of meat-poisoning? And do they carry chicken with them for the eggs? Thank you in advance!--Kaasje 09:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Present-day nomads may get their food from Wal-Mart. Nomads from hunter-gatherer societies got their food by hunting and gathering. --Lambiam^Talk 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you only eat meat, I guess you'd be a carnivore. Or a meatatarian. You would die, eventually, of some kind of vitamin deficiency, though; perhaps scurvy, or rickets. It's basically an Atkins diet, without the celery and egg whites (ie, eventually fatal). Proto///type 11:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Even moderate amounts of (raw) animal liver such as calf liver and fish liver will be sufficient supplies of vitamins A, B, C and D. Heating will destroy much of the vitamin C. Vitamin E is more problematic for meatonliers, but if you eat 1 kilogram of meat a day you will get more than enough to avoid a deficiency. --Lambiam^Talk 12:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm, raw fish liver.  ;) Proto///type 13:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly they would kill off a sheep - that's half the reason for having them. Or goat or horse or cow or reindeer, according to their lifestyle. Killing off a lamb would be less common as, while the meat is more tender, immature sheep yield less meat. Most nomads would not/do not keep chickens - although they might gather wild bird's eggs. Except for the Polynesians, who brought pigs, dogs, and chickens from island to island but weren't exactly nomads, I can't think of any nomads with chickens. Perhaps some nomads had ducks or geese? Rmhermen 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(I wonder if people who get their food from windows in little boxes on the road are nomads?) Geogre 18:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)*

Many pure meat-eaters eat partly digested stomach contents of animals for the vegetable contents.---hotclaws**==(217.39.10.51 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Yet another good reason be an omnivore. DJ Clayworth 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Do historic nomads not also devote some resources to sedantary agriculture in some cases as well?--Amanaplanacanalpanama 07:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Some, more often they'll trade some livestock or livestock products like milk, butter, and meat for grains with nearby sedentary agrarians. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 03:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

World poulation if no wars/disease

Hi

I wonder if anyone could give an estimated guess (I reliase it's a question riddled with variables) as to what the population of the world might be had there not been any wars, majoy diseases, catastrophes etc?

Thanks

Joe

Consider populations of wild animals: typically, the population is limited by disease, starvation or predators. (Natural disaster is so rare to generally exclude). There isn't really anything else: talking of ideas like "limited by territory" really means the animal breeds more, but disease, starvation or predators kill every animal in some areas. In humans it is the same, except that we've removed the predators, and we sometimes kill each other (in effect, we are the replacement predators). So if we removed all other limits on our fecundity you can be sure that starvation (or inward predation) would have done its bit to limit the population, but perhaps not before we had so overworked the land we could no longer sustain ourselves at all. Of course in the enlightened modern age, humanity is fundamentally different. Notinasnaid 11:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

At a guess, not much different than currently. Consider that World War II was the most recent war to affect the population on a global scale (the estimated 30ish million deaths were around 1% of the total population). That's a crazy huge number, and I don't want to denigrate it, but given that the question is "riddled with variables", you're not going to be realistically estimating to within 1% of a value, so you can basically ignore this. Also consider that, at least in the US, the end of WWII sparked the baby boom, a population jump that might not have occurred without the societal pressures of the war. (For what it's worth, the 1918 influenza epidemic killed around 3% of the world's population; however, this was probably less biased towards killing the breeding portion of the population)

The other major point that I see, which you've not indicated, is the starvation bit mentioned above. It becomes increasingly difficult to estimate how much more pressure the food supply (and so forth) could have sustained. Suddenly add 100 million to the population in 1919, and could then-current technology have not only fed (and so forth) them, but also allowed for a comparable population growth rate? Beats me. — Lomn | Talk 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Spanish influenza was noted for killing young healthy victims while WWII was so large that large numbers of "overage" men fought so the "[bias] towards killing the breeding portion of the population" may be less than you expect. Rmhermen 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Malthus (or Thomas Malthus) for the Malthusian hypothesis. However, Germs, Guns, and Steel argues, along with a number of other recent works, that there is just no way that we avoid disease when population pressures grow, as, if nothing else, population density makes us move, and moving puts us in the realm of new pathogens. Geogre 13:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Limits to Growth model is a more realistic statement of what Malthus was getting at; however, the (beautifully simple) arguments against Malthus and LtG put forward by Ester Boserup are very persuasive indeed. --Dweller 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a Malthusian, but I find him historically compelling. That his question, which is all he really began with, has perturbed thinkers for centuries is, I think, really quite interesting. Very few theories from that era have remained viable without significant modification, but Malthus simply pointed to a very fundamental discrepancy between food and population. I think that sort of puts him up there with Zeno. I don't think Zeno is right and that there is no motion, but he continues to cause one's mind to go all fuzzy for a while, and that's valuable. (That said, I also think that the progressive and technological theories about solving population are inherently fallacious. You cannot put a potentiality in the bank, in my opinion, and that's why any "the market will solve" or "technology will enable" or "outer space will be settled" or "Gaia will make room" argument, for me, is simply illogical. The future may solve things, and it may not, but arguing inductively about anything as multicausal as population pressure just strikes me as much more religious than empirical. (And now I'm going to read that article on Boserup).) Geogre 14:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the strongest argument against Malthus and evidence of Boserup is that increase in food production has become exponential too. And we're not even trying that hard. (See European Food Mountain!)

When the supervolcano that created Lake Toba erupted some 70.000 years ago, mankind almost became extinct. Only a few thousand survived. I suppose that was the biggest blow we ever got, so had that not happened ... who knows? Impossible to speculate. We might have been quite a different animal, so it might have increased our fecundity, or decreased it. Given that this big one had results we can't say much about (I suppose), all the other speculations are pointless. Sorry, guys. :) DirkvdM 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Difference between terms

Hi all. Hope you are well. What, if anything, is the difference between a legal requirement, and a statutory requirement? I'm having issues finding this. Thanks. Proto///type 11:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In most context these are synonyms. A statute is often just another term used for a law. However, the word can also be used for a (formal, written) rule of a corporation or other organization, and requirements of that kind of statute are not in general requirements of law. --Lambiam^Talk 11:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context. A "legal requirement" could mean a number of different things, including "we are doing this because our lawyers told us to and we don't really know why". A statute is generally a law passed by the legislature. Often there are various types of secondary legislation made under the authority of a statute. To take one example in Canada, there is the Marine Transportation Security Act (a statute) and the Marine Transportation Security Regulations (secondary legislation). The Regulations are more detailed, and they are made by the Governor in Council pursuant to section 51 of the statute. If you are required to do something by a provision of the Act, you could call that a statutory requirement. But if you are required to do something by a provision of the Regulations, you wouldn't call it a statutory requirement but you might well call it a legal requirement. However "legal requirement" might refer to a host of other things as well, for example a requirement under a contract. The term is often used to mean something that is "legally prudent" although not technically required. I don't agree with the person who said that these terms are in most contexts synonyms. --Mathew5000 13:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I'd put it is that a "statutory requirement" is a subset of the broader notion of a "legal requirement". In other words, all statutory requirements (as long as they're constitutionally valid!) are legal requirements, but not all legal requirements are statutory requirements. Mathew came up with one example of a legal requirement that isn't a statutory requirement, that being "administrative law" also known as "regulatory law". But I don't think that's the best example, as administrative law still depends on an "enabling statute" to be valid as administrative law. In other words, if a statute called the "xyz Law" was passed by the legislature, within that statute there must be some section that says something to the effect of "an xyz commission will hereby be established, with the power to pass regulations concerning the xyz law". At that point, the "xyz commission" would be passing what's called "administrative law". But there are two better examples of legal requirements that are not statutory requirements. One is a constitutional requirement, for example the US Constitutional requirement that "There shall be an election for President of the United States every four years" or similarly, the Canadian Constitutional requirement that "a general election must be held at least every five years", and the other would be an "unwritten" common law requirement, such as the basic "tort" requirement: "one must compensate another for damages caused by him/her due to any act of negligence". Loomis 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Book publishing

I'm curious as to what the numbers shown on the publishing history page of most books signify. I assume they are something to do with the stile of print, but I'm not sure. I can't look it up on Wikipedis because I don't even know the proper name of these numbers ! Two examples I have recently seen are: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and 1 3 5 7 9 2 4 6 8 10.

RASAM 12:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

These numbers indicate which reprint the book is part of, and arranging them like this enables the publisher or printer to indicate this with the minimum amount of work, i.e. they simply delete one digit for each print run. When copy is centred, reprints can be indicated by a centred line of alternating figures; each digit stands for the number of the reprint. One figure is deleted with each subsequent printing so that the smallest remaining digit marks the reprint number. When copy is full left, figures are in descending order. --Shantavira 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's particularly easy when you store the film images used to create printing plates. (These tend to be stored rather than plates). You can just use masking tape to cover another number, before making a new printing plate. With direct systems that go from computer to printing plate without any film, the technique is lost, and so the style is likely to vanish over time. Notinasnaid 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard it referred to as the impression number. If there are two sets of digits, then the year of printing is indicated as well. The first set of digits, read right to left, indicates the year; the second set, read left to right, indicates the impression number. The following example represents a fourth printing in 1998

06 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 4 5 6 7 8 —Wayward ^Talk 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

smoking

I would like to have an articles about the effect of smoking

• And you do. See Tobacco smoking. Notinasnaid 12:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

AMI Musicale

Hello, My husband was given an AMI jukebox without the box. It contains sixty 45's, plays continuously until one side of all records have been played, then automatically reverses and plays the other side of all the records. We were told that it came out of a hotel or casino in Las Vegas and was placed in a closet where it played and piped the music throughout (probably just the lobby area). This piece is called AMI Musicale, and we can't find any information on it as to either confirm or deny its usage or origin. If you can help us, we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you so much, Paula Knight Arcadia, Florida

This page lists several models of jukeboxes that were produced by AMI (Automatic Musical Instruments company). Scroll down for the list of models that play 45s. I don't see a "Musicale" listed, but there are many photographs, perhaps you can find your machine that way. --LarryMac 13:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Baby boy's name

My child is due in December. Over the past five years or so, my wife and I decided that we really like the name Adaline Marie (though Adaline Love was a close second). However, we found out on Monday that we are having a boy. So, we've spent the last few days pouring over lists of baby names. It appears that we simply don't like boy's names. If you were having a son right now, what name would you choose? If you feel it important, our last name is Wagner, but we have no German. I'm adopted (half Blackfoot/half English) and my wife is Italian - which is why she's against anything that can be shortened to Vinny or Nick or the like. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you've considered Kurt (Kurt_wagner) already, but Why not just masculinize the name you already selected, something like Adrian Marcus? Fine Arts 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Or William or Walter. I rather like alliteration. Seahen 15:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Josef, Yuri, Sergei, Boris, Vladimer, Dmitry. Russian F 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Johannes is nice and baroque, but it's too "John" for my taste. Know what concept you like (joy, chance, love, amity, honesty, strength), and then look for translations into languages that work -- Hebrew, obviously, but also Latin, Greek, etc. You'll find that many will already be names. (Sigurd for victorious!) Geogre 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116

You could pop onto any one of many, many baby naming sites (like this one, which seems pretty good from a quick browse) and see what happens. Here's a page that gives trends in one Canadian province that's pretty multicultural, so might be interesting. I personally kind of like different names from the norm. Creativity is good! (Not too creative, though, or your kid will have therapy bills to deal with.) Tony Fox (speak) 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mib. -- Миборовский 18:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure you don't pick Richard! Loomis 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well why not? We have at least two Richard Wagners in my community, and the name hasn't hurt them. One was a head social planner. Most people wouldn't even know about the composer.--24.80.70.174 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. It would be paying too much respect to that utterly repugnant excuse for a composer to allow him to ruin a perfectly fine name like Richard Wagner. Loomis 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure it doesn't rhyme with a common "put-down." Like my first name is Jay and idiots at school say "Gay Jay," therefore I go by my middle name which is Schyler (pronounced Shyler) and no one can ever pronounce it right, which is a sacrifice I rather take than a put down. Other names can suck too, so put some thought in to that. BTW, what do you have against Wagner, Loomis?schyler 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Wagner the name, only Richard Wagner the composer. Have you read the article? I'm sure if you gave it a quick read you'd understand where I'm coming from. If not, just say so and I'll be glad to clarify my POV re Richard Wagner. Loomis 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But he'll unfortunately never escape "Fagner"!

I think thats a myth, if people want to take the mick, they will wether your name rhymes with an obvious put-down or not. Just because it forces them to be more imaginative, or just offensive, doesn't mean they'll stop. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything that's not on this list. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 23:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all suggestions. It seems like nothing sounds good. I wonder if my mother had this much trouble naming me... oh wait. I'm named after her two favorite soap opera characters from 1969. I only watch cartoons on Adult Swim. Peter Fry Wagner... hmm... --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be Peter Philip Wagner? ;-) Good News, Everybody, the possibilities are endless! How about Brian Zoidberg Wagner? Chris Kif Wagner? . . . --LarryMac 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My wife and I really like the name "Kai". TacoDeposit 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Being the possessor of an unusual name myself, I strongly advise you give a name which doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in whatever community you happen to live in. Kids are cruel, so why give the playground bullies unnecessary ammunition. The exception I'd give is if you use a name which can easily be shortened to something "run of the mill", but I see your other half doesn't like shortenings. --Dweller 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'd also avoid overly long names, alliterative names, famous names and names which are funny when used as an initial!

There have been lots of comments about avoiding names that have potential for being made fun of. I disagree, because if a child is not made fun of about their name, they will be made fun of for something else. Kids are cruel. However, if you have a name that has a personal meaning to you, you can share that story with your child that they will be proud of it. --WhiteDragon 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An "A" name would be nice, Allan, or Alex... Template:Political mind signature

Population of Akihabara?

What is the population of the town of Akihabara? What percentage of residents are male? What is the age distribution? Seahen 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Akihabara is not a town. It's a district in Tokyo. I don't think there are any residences in that district as it's a commercial district and the prices would probably be even worse than Tokyo proper. --ColourBurst 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Albert Francis Cross

I'm looking for more info on this author but there is hardly anything out there - can anyone suggest any sources?

Did you try the search box?Click this. schyler 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple of pages I'm not too sure about...

I'm not sure if there's a better place to ask this, if there is, let me know and I'll move this there.

I just noticed two new pages (Senate Report 93-549 and Senate Document No. 43), which strike me as sounding alot like borderline conspiracy theory documents, one of which is unreferenced, the other referenced with questionable sources. Does anyone know if they are legit and should be cleaned up, or if they're actual hoaxes and should be deleted? Thanx. 68.39.174.238 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the article on Senate Report 93-549. There really is a report by that number. All in all, it was a 1973 special Senate committee's request for more time (and money) to determine if and how the state of emergency that existed in 1973. The article, as it was written, implied that the report was by the current sitting Congress in opposition of Bush's war on terror - which is not remotely true. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanx alot. 68.39.174.238 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hello people. I will be needing your help for the final time now. You guys have been great at helping me answer these Questions and now are the fianl 3 of 5 i`m stuck on.

http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=27eg2.jpg Which Geographical Landmark is this situated in America.

Cheers David

Much appreciated for your help through this quiz.

The model is for Vladimir Tatlin's Monument to the Third International, aka Tatlin's Tower. David Sneek 17:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And the statesman is George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, KG, GCSI, GCIE, PC. See Curzon Line. David Sneek 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers The American one is hard i`ve been through all the rock formations on wiki..

Could it be Independence Rock (Wyoming)? ( [5]) David Sneek 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate thats correct http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Independence+Rock - Cheers for all your help.

How to write/ petition the court to seal criminal record

Hi! I need a sample form for petitioning the court in seminole county florida

Have you tried contacting the Seminole County Court? --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Most atheist nations in the world?

I sometimes hear that my country, Belgium is one of the most atheist nations in the world. The dominant religion is Belgium is catholicism, but only three percent of the population still seems to be going to church on a weekly basis. Over the last five years, I have seen only one Belgian praying before having his meal, and he was actually a converted protestant. However most of these people were baptised though, and thus are on the church's list as members.

I am not talking about separation of church and state, I am talking about active believers

Is this true, or are there other nations that are even far more atheist? (Perhaps the Netherlands? Perhaps nations that have been communist or still are?) Thanks,

Evilbu 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

China officially, as if I remember correctly religion is illeagel. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Although the state has a hostile attitude towards religion and creates problems for its free exercise, religion has not been outlawed. See the article Religion in China.

As to Evilbu's question, you can not so easily equate not regularly going to church and being an atheist. Many non-churchgoers still consider themselves Church members, and among those who don't, many nevertheless believe in some kind of God. --Lambiam^Talk 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You also have to consider whether those who do not worship a deity are truly atheist, or just agnostic. Road Wizard 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The atheism article has a section on statistics that may answer your question. Road Wizard 23:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You remember incorrectly. -- Миборовский 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Philc _T^E_C^I 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• On a side note, I would like to say that being atheist is not necessarily evil in and of itself. I have seen many ethical atheists, and I have also seen many unscrupulous religious fanatics who use religion as a means to assume a holier-than-thou demeanor and to claim that they should never be suspected of any wrongdoing.Patchouli 23:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What on earth prompted that, talk about guilty conscience!! Shot in the dark but, are you from the american mid-west? Philc _T^E_C^I 01:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well of course they are not evil! I myself believe in compassion towards all humans, and I don't believe in any god at all. Thanks for that link. What I essentially wanted to know is, in which countries are people spending the smallest amount of time. The question 'do you believe' is also a good indicator but still different, my own parents haven't gone to church in ten years except weddings and funerals, yet they persistently refuse to answer that question, and never critize their own catholic (forced) education. Evilbu 23:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The one country which actually outlawed all religion was Albania (not China). See also Society of the Godless. AnonMoos 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a hard atheist myself (as I'm sure many of you know by now), but I don't think that is a particularly common position. There is an increasing number of weak atheists and nontheists, who lack a belief in a deity but do not actively reject such a belief. There are many countries, such as Japan, where belief in a God-style deity is not part of the traditional religion, but belief in other supernatural things is common, albeit not as common as it once was. In Communist states such as the PRC, conventional religion is rigidly controlled because it represents a competing dogma. I say "conventional religion" because I consider Marxism-Leninism to be a religion in its own right: it demands adherence to a set creed (which may be changed only by a few guys in a position of power), adoration of past heroes, unquestioning support of the party line, and faith that obedience and hard work will yield a future of prosperity and joy. In the USSR, no real effort was made to equip people with a rational argument for atheism. The government simply introduced Marxist-Leninist doctrine and whatever came into conflict with that doctrine was declared counter-revolutionary. Once the government stopped enforcing the doctrine, religion recovered rapidly because most Russians had never been exposed to anything that made them seriously question their old beliefs. The majority of Soviets were never atheists. In my opinion (and this obviously conflicts with the view of a religious person), atheism is what happens when people have enough money, enough education, and enough political stability to stop thinking as a group and start thinking for themselves. In all the world, I would say Western Europe is currently the most conducive to personal, non-political atheism. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Library of Congress

Is there a law requiring every publisher in the United States to submit one copy of all its publications to the Library of Congress? If you know the title and section off the top of your head, please cite it.Patchouli 23:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See Library of Congress. The literal answer to your question is "no". There is no such law. The law is that anyone seeking an American copyright registration has to submit two copies to the United States Copyright Office, which happens to be part of the Library of Congress. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code Prose Style

There have been a lot of fuss made by critics about how bad Dan Brown's prose style is in the Da Vinci Code. Can someone tell me specificlly what is wrong with Brown's prose?

Try this: [6]. --Lambiam^Talk 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

June 30

Seven fathers of federation

Who are the Seven fathers of Australian federation?

I'm not sure there is a universally agreed upon set of "seven fathers of Australian federation", so the answer is probably "whomever is listed in your textbook". --Robert Merkel 01:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Neocaloric

I'm a freshman at the University of Arizona and I'm currently taking a ANTHRO course, I was hoping that someone would have some info on Neocaloric and how it came to be.-Thank you

To my knowledge, "neocaloric" is a word that some guy (Shusky if I remember correctly) tried to coin. It means: "Using non-human energy for food production, ie: crops that grow themselves and oxen to work the fields." It didn't catch on. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hogarthery

I've been looking at "The Five Orders of Perriwigs" by William Hogarth (smallish pic here: http://tang.skidmore.edu/documents/images/h-n/hair_004_lg.jpg) and have been wondering: Given the nature of most of his work, is that a real advertisement, or another parody? I can see it both ways, and wonder if anyone else knows... Thanx. 68.39.174.238 01:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not an advertisement, it's a caricature. It exaggerates to some degree for humorous effect, but it's based in reality -- however, certain varieties of wigs shown (such as those with black patches on the crown) were specialized for the traditional costume of some types of legal professionals, and would not ordinarily have been encountered outside of legal contexts. Churchh 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. Do you know if there's a bigger pic around somewhere? The one I've got is off the back of a book, and has been nicely defaced with an ISBN, which ruins the text. Thanx again. 68.39.174.238 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dover Thrift had an edition of 101 Engravings by William Hogarth. It covered his "studies of nine heads," but not the wigs. The point, though, is that it costs something like $8, in the US, and has very nice notes by Sean Shesgren. It's a very good thing to own. (I scanned the A Harlot's Progress plates from it.) For a full sized book with more illustrations, and one that would include the paintings and not just the engravings, Ronald Paulson's edition would be preferred, but you'd best get it from a library, as owning it would set you back some money (unless you found it on sale at a 2nd hand shop and got lucky). Geogre 03:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Probabilism in moral theology

This question was asked about a week ago at Talk:Probabilism. It doesn't seem to have secured an answer. If someone has one, could they answer it there (and note here that they've done so)? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[copied question]

Does the magisterium of the Catholic Church approve or disapprove of probabilism? 69.140.157.138 03:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[end copied question]

Probably. --DLL 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Afterlife in Islam

In Islam, if a person is very moral and has alot of good deeds, but he or she is not a Muslim, then will he or she be able to go to heaven?60.241.147.187 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the point without the 72 virgins? --mboverload@ 10:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking no , but it is not in the Islamic belief that a specific person is judged to enter Heaven or Hell unless that person was mentioned in the Quran or Authentic sayings of the Prophet ( meaning named to be in heaven or Hell ) . It is acceptable to say a person who dies a Muslim without committing a sin that nullifies it ( Kufr ) will enter Paradise even if he is punished for his sins before it , but not by naming someone . Same applies to martyrs , its acceptable to say a martyr will enter heaven and be rewarded accordingly but naming a specific person as martyr is wide spread mistake within Muslims . On the other hand , Muslims believe that anyone who hears of the message of Islam an then does not follow the prophet Muhammad will not enter Heaven . But like I said before , not a specific person . This is because of the Muslim belief that that which is in the heart is only known by God . A person may show Islam an be a infidel at heart ( hypocrite) , and a person who may seem to be fighting for the sake of God may be doing so for other reasons then what appears . As for those who appear to be non-believers it is possible that they are hiding their belief , or that they became faithful prior to their death . Another thing I would like to point out is that some times there are legitement reasons for not accepting Islam such as complete ignorence regarding the religion or significant misinformation , these people are believed to be tested in hereafter and rewarded or punished according to the results . Of course all this is regarding the afterlife , as for treatment and relations in this world , Muslims are ordered to treat people as they appear yet their fate is in the hands of God ... Hope this helps :) Hhnnrr 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean, what about good and moral believers of religions other than Islam?

Like I said before : no . It is conditional to believe that there is only one God and that Muhammad is His messenger . Doing good without this belief is not enough to enter Heaven . Of course , with the same exceptions I stated above .

note : Before the prophecy of Muhammad Muslims believe that the true followers of the prior prophets enter heaven ( ie Jews Christians .. ) but not after he was sent . Hhnnrr 12:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Credibility and Relgion

It vexes me how religon is able to exert it's authority with NO conclusive evidence to prove the existance of certian dieties, Qui, fate, karma or any other metaphysical entities/powers/influences. So, HOW exactly do they do it?

To me, this seems like an adequate example that illustates my frustrations with strictly religious people:

If someone said, "Well, Mike, there are many different species of horse."

I'd think about all the different horses I'd seen in my lifetime, and say, "Well, ok, that seems plausible. Show me some pictures of them."

If someone said, "I have discovered the unicorn."

I'd think, "Well now, I've never seen a unicorn. I'm going to need to see some pictures, X-rays of the Unicorn's skull, eyewitness testimony, DNA evidence, geneology of the Unicorn and etc."

If someone makes a fairly rational claim, they only need fairly rational proof. If someone makes an extravagant claim, it seems quite fair they need some pretty damn extravagant proof. However, religion needs no such proof and makes and will make no effort to provide it EVER.

Therefore, why do people believe it? 69.138.62.148 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

People believe because it makes them feel good to believe. As far as I know, no religions are out to convert people based on convincing arguments; instead they always talk about faith, which for you and me means "totally unjustified belief". —Keenan Pepper 06:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider this idea: Even though no one has ever seen infinity we are aware of its existence through the effect it has on numbers such as when you multiply it by 1 or try to divide any number by zero. We have never really seen infinity but we know that it is there because of it's effects. ...IMHO (Talk) 09:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan

Like it was said above, religion is comforting. There are people that believe that their daughter who was abducted 20 years ago is still alive. It's irrational but it's comforting. --mboverload@ 10:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say, it's quite comforting for people who aren't religious to explain religion as an inferior coping strategy. How do people get away with characterizing beliefs that they do not have? How can they convince themselves? If you are not religious, you really don't have much right to say why people are religious. Geogre 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking the specific question: how "religon is able to exert it's authority" which seems to have been ignored... historically successful religions have legitimised those with power. Those with power therefore support the religion, and may grant it power over their subjects; especially if the preaching is compatible with preserving the status quo. Religion in the west these days has no authority as such over people who don't choose to participate, only influence. Notinasnaid 11:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Again take the role of infinity. Its authority is exercised over us all the time just like gravity. Primitive man probably questioned as well how the Earth could get away with exercising such "authority." Maybe in terms of understanding religion we are stil as equally primitive. ...IMHO (Talk) 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That, of course, is imperial religion. All religions get co-opted at a certain point. The question is always degree, and, of course, is not really a fault of the religious system in particular but a function of the growth of the nation-state. Whether the religion is Roman polytheism (the emporer became Pontifex Maximus so that impiety and treason were synonymous and Christians could be put to death), Hinduism, Taoism, Confucism, Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, religion and state power go through phases of opposition, adoption, co-option, alteration, and, usually, opposition again. Throughout, however, the principles of the religion remain the same and are non-secular. Note, though, that most religions do not use coercive force. States use coercive force. Geogre 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The key for totally unjustified belief is stupidity and/or overwhelming lack of experience, in other words, non-scientific reasoning. The only thing worse than plain belief in an unjustified statement is giving a certain degree of credibility to the same statement, instead of just rejecting it, until conclusive evidence is given. Quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_%28novel%29): "Applying the scientific method, she states the agnostic viewpoint that "there isn't compelling evidence that God exists... and there isn't compelling evidence that he doesn't."" Sorry, but this is not the scientific method. There will NEVER be any compelling evidence to prove that an "invisible, eternal, intelligent" God does not exist, it's absolutely impossible to deny such a "theory" through any intelligent reasoning... Religion will reside always outside science in its advance, always getting around any disprove attempt. Such a "theory" tells you nothing, and any possible prediction using that knowledge will obviously be wrong.

There are many forms of stupidity and/or overwhelming lack of experience. A 3 year old child will believe in Santa Clauss, not because of stupidity, but because he's too young to know that such a possibility is impossible. Another example is superstition, people are threatened with hell and "in case it's true what this dude says, I'll obey him, since I lose nothing in the worst case and MAY win in the best one" (see Pascal's wager). Others think that being a believer makes them "happier" by having a futile hope in so-unlikely-it's-impossible things. I argue that living in the real world and facing it how it is will make you "happier" since you will not face countless disappointments; moreover, as reportedly Nietzsche said once: "Hope only makes the sufferer suffer longer".

Religions, by convincing with fallacies (as in Pascal's desperate case, he became an idiot; not just innocent faith propositions), amass in some cases thousands of millions of followers. Those followers are power. GTubio 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Labelling religious people as either "stupid" or suffering from an "overwhelming lack of experience" is offensive. All you have proved above is your own stupidity, lack of experience... and intolerance. --Dweller 12:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, likewise the labelling of atheists as "ungodly ppl" = evil persons. I really like it when preachers (including the pope) proclaim the "wickedness" and "evilness" of Atheism in this current era". Flamarande 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It's a priori. Those who do not worship God are the un-Godly -- they are not members of the religion. What's the problem there? That the churches see atheism as a corrosive? If you're really atheist, why should you care? Of course those who believe that God is the source of goodness will believe that those who deny God are a force of evil? It's logical and nearly mandatory. That doesn't mean hate. It doesn't mean prejudice. It means that they regard atheism (not atheists) as a force that harms society. If your version of "atheism" (quotes because true atheism implies total indifference to the beliefs of the religious) sees theism as bad, weak, stupid, etc., then how, exactly, have you achieved any superiority? Intolerance is intolerance, but at least the religious aren't, here anyway, saying that atheists are petulant and blind non-thinkers so soaked in private arrogance and historical unawareness that that they can't see, much less reason, straight. Geogre 14:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to summarise what you just wrote: A atheist should not care what his fellow religious man thinks about him? Sorry, but everyone of us care what other ppl think about us. "They regard Atheism as a force that harms society" and a atheist is suppossed to like it? But to say the reverse "they regard religion as a force that harms society" would be acceptable, right?

Is ungodly the same as evil? --Dweller 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

According to these preachers, yes. But is a very outdated view. Flamarande 13:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Humans have over-active pattern recognizers, and over-anthropomorphize. They see malice where there is only incompetence, fate where there is only coincidence, cause and effect when there is only correlation, healing when there is only a placebo, and people in the sky where there are only stars. Popular religions are also wrapped up with taking a strong stand for good against bad, whether through altruism, pacifism, or a moral system. That goes a long way toward making them seem intuitively correct, even if they are rationally dubious, and a subject matter of non-provable statements makes it very hard to concretely dispel myths. It's hard to let go of intuitively satisfying, comforting, deeply held beliefs. Though a rational examination of religion often leads to disbelief, I've also plenty of smart people who are religious. They often have more nuanced views, and at least have some intuitive answers for many of the tough questions. -- Beland 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

An answer to the original question. Belief is exactly that... a belief. Religion isn't a science. It doesn't need proof (although many great theologians, notably Maimonides tried to prove the existence of a Creator). Faith demands of us to put something of ourselves in. And as with the rest of life's experiences, the more you put in, the more you get out. Science is the new religion... people want to understand everything (or at least to be reassured that someone else understands it). That approach to life makes a lot of sense.

Religion is content with lacunae. I don't expect an irreligious person to agree to this. I'm not sure I'd expect them to understand either. But I would expect them to respect it.

Your frustrating arguments with religious people come down to the fact that you're arguing oranges and they're arguing lemons. You're looking for them to prove something they probably don't want to prove and certainly don't need to prove, even if they could (which they can't).

Perhaps you'll be mollified by the knowledge that frustrations exist in reverse too; when religious people living in irreligious societies find that their actions are misunderstood, ridiculed or flatly blocked. --Dweller 14:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Than you Carl (new to the RD ? :). So you say that you live or that someone loves you : where is the evidence ? Faith is an human need and finding a cause for everything we perceive also. Very few religions make a reprehensible abuse of those needs :)) --DLL 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Loving isn't extrodiary. I would guess at least a billion people on earth are in love. Faith is not a human need, I'm not sure where you got that idea.--mboverload@ 05:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be interested in reading our article about Carl Sagan. He's dead, btw. --LarryMac 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm starting to become offended by all the recent questions and comments by people who seem to find no fault in ridiculing other people's religious beliefs. I agree, that when people of certain faiths begin to use their religious convictions to justify otherwise immoral actions towards others, they are clearly crossing the line. But this doesn't seem to be the case here. Here we seem to be ridiculing people of faith for their faith alone. This is unnacceptable, and, in fact, rather bigoted. Just as we've all come to accept (or should come to accept) that whatever goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults, bizarre and incomprehensible as it may be to the rest of us, is none of our damn business, similarly, so long as nobody gets hurt, what goes on in the minds of people of faith, bizarre and incomprehensible as it may be to the rest of you, is none of your damn business either. Loomis 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? We are saying is that there is no proof for god and we are discussing why people would believe in something with no proof. I really couldn't care less what you believe. Just don't say we can't discuss something because you're "offended". --mboverload@ 05:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK then. Consider the question: "Credibility and Homosexuality: How do they get away with it? It vexes me how homosexuals are able to exert their authority with NO conclusive evidence to prove that thir lifestyle is natural. Qui, fate, karma or any other metaphysical entities/powers/influences. So, HOW exactly do they do it?"

Would that not be offensive?

No?

OK, How about this one: "Credibility and Judaism: How do they get away with it? It vexes me how Jews are able to exert their authority with NO conclusive evidence to prove the existance of their particular beliefs. Qui, fate, karma or any other metaphysical entities/powers/influences. So, HOW exactly do they do it?"

No? Well I suppose you don't know what it means to have your personal convictions to be under attack. If you'd reveal yours in particular, I'm sure I'd find a way to offend you (not that I want to, but just to prove a point). Loomis 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your arguement is completly invalid. Homosexuality has been identified in AT LEAST 350 different species. I don't know what authority "homosecuals" and "Jews" have other than the right to exist. I have trouble understanding most of your post. --mboverload@

It always amazes me how many people use terminology such as "your argument is invalid" without themselves having a clue as to the "logical" definition of a "valid argument". In any case, I'll rephrase:

As has been said time and time again, persons of faith (by definition! look up the word faith in a dictionary!) believe in God, despite a complete lack of proof. We RECOGNIZE that we have no proof. How many times do I have to repeat it? We BELIEVE in something that we RECOGNIZE we can't prove. THAT'S HOW RELIGION WORKS. I believe in God, and I don't pretend to have any proof of His existence. Period. I just believe. Call it bizarre, call it an inexplicable quirk in my brain, but I simply believe. Please, though, don't have the arrogance to tell me that my "belief without proof" is "stupid" or that I'm suffering from an "overwhelming lack of experience". Once again, this is both bigoted and intolerant, and, if I may add, rather narrow minded.

To assume that all that exists, both natural and supernatural, must, by definition make sense in our tiny primate brains is just plain arrogant. All we all are are simple humans, and to assume that anything our tiny primate brains can't "scientifically" explain, by definition cannot be true is just plain arrogant, or dare I say, hubris. As a matter of fact, most of the greatest scientists to have ever existed, scientists like Newton, Einstein etc...those icons on "rational, scientific" thinking, people who have a grasp of the nature of the universe far greater than any of us can claim to have, generally tend to conclude that, to the best of their knowledge, their must be, to one degree or another, some sort of "prime mover". So keep in mind, when you refer to people of faith as "stupid" or suffering from an "overwhelming lack of experience", you're actually accusing people like Newton and Einstein as being "stupid" and suffering from an "overwhelming lack of experience".

In any case, even if religion is indeed a silly superstition, with no basis in reality, still, to mock and ridicule those who believe is no less offensive. For example, you may believe that humanity originated from the planet Neptune. In fact, a great number of persons, possibly in the millions, may share your belief. I may feel that your belief is the uttermost in stupidity (which, in this case, it likely is!). But that's simply how I, and all other reasonable people may see things, and for all intents and purposes, we'd be right. Still, it would be wrong, bigoted and offensive to mock and ridicule those who believe that humanity originated on Neptune. Yes, we can argue the point in a friendly manner, trying to convince our "Neptunists" that their theory doesn't seem to make sense to us, but to call them "stupid" or demean them in any similar manner would still be wrong. Loomis 01:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For "religion" in general, how "they" (?) exert their authority without proofs will probably differ from one religion to another. Being a Christian, I can answer from that perspective. I became a Christian when I picked up the New Testament and started reading it. As I read it, I thought, "Yes, this is true, this has always been true, and I'm just now discovering it." I didn't feel the need to rush out and attempt to scientifically prove the integrity of every stated fact - at least not immediately. After a while questions began to come up in my mind - "What about the dinosaurs?" etc. So I went and looked for answers. Each time, for each question that I have ever asked, I have found a satisfying answer sooner or later. If they weren't satisfying, I wouldn't continue to be a Christian! I'm not a Christian because "they" (whoever they might be) exert some authority over me. I would continue to be a Christian even if I was the only one in the world. I like this quote, from the book Tortured for Christ by Richard Wurmbrand (improsoned in communist Russia): In prison, the political officer asked me harshly, “How long will you continue to keep your stupid religion?” I said to him, “I have seen innumerable atheists regretting on their deathbeds that they have been godless; they called on Christ. Can you imagine that a Christian could regret, when death is near, that he has been a Chris­tian and call on Marx or Lenin to rescue him from his faith?” The officer laughed, “A clever answer.” I continued, “When an engineer has built a bridge, the fact that a cat can pass over the bridge is no proof that the bridge is good. A train must pass over it to prove its strength. The fact that you can be an atheist when everything goes well does not prove the truth of atheism. It does not hold up in moments of great crisis.” BenC7 11:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's wrap it up with saying that when they near death and scarred, many turn towards religion. Don't forget though that religious ppl have tortured too. You seem to believe in the New Testament. Well tell me, how do you know what Jesus did and said in the garden of Gethamane as all his disciples were sleeping, how do we know his words? If right after that, he was arrested, he couldn't have said anything to anyone (according to the New Testament) and in his trail he didn't say it. So how do we know what he said to his father as he was praying in his last free hours? The New Testament is full of such unclear issues, but if you believe in it, fine by me. I am not scared of rational, peaceful, and tolerant religious ppl. Flamarande 12:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

While a bit off topic, I am somewhat new and am not sure where an appropriate place would be to answer the above question. I don't imagine that Jesus' disciples fell asleep the instant Jesus left them. Jesus repeated the same prayer three times; they wouldn't have had to stay awake for the whole hour each time to know what he was saying. I am a bit wary of posting my email address but you might be able to access it from my user page (?). Feel free to talk to me about such things. BenC7 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a bit far down the chain, but to try and find a rational answer for the original question - it seems to me that the on thing that all religions offer as aa core tenant is some form of being able to live forever. While our genes will go on, any particular individual will not and that awareness that we posses is very difficult to accept, at best. So it stands to reason that our mind would come up with some coping mechanism, and no rule says it has to be rational. I’ve always thought the main driver for religious belief at its core was the desire not to wink out of existence when one dies. Then we mix in our core sense of troops and tribes and we for a club that has rules for inclusion and exclusion. A religion is born. If you follow the rules as set down in this book, you won’t die. It stands to reason to me that people would jump all over that.

68.198.15.239 00:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has a different idea about religion is...you are being a troll by asking someone to prove it or disprove it, because no one has a very agreeable answer. Let it die. Religion is up there with "Political views" and "Sexual experiences".....you only discuss it with people who unconditionally accept you for who you are.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. As the original poster of the question, I am rather shocked at the debate that has erupted. I agree with the point that the question was rather bias, especially 'how do they get away with it?' A more civilized version of the question would go more like this:

"As a human being, if someone suggests an idea to me, I require strict proof of the given idea through repeatable tests and extensive data in order to find that idea 'believeable'. However, religion (from what I have seen) seems to operate extremely effectively outside this framework; that is, it manages to take in vast amounts of resources in the form of currency, man hours, food, and etc. Religious sects also exert a rather large amount of influence on politics and world government. How is it that they are able to achieve these feats while operating outside of this framework?"

From what I have gathered from the posts made by others, I have come to these conclusions:

1. Not all human beings, like me, require STRICT proof of an idea for him or her to find that idea 'believeable'. Therefore, if an idea sounds good, and it has a little, or even a decent amount of proof, they are able believe it.

2. Some human beings find religion comforting as a lifestyle, and choose to believe in it without strict proof for this reason. To me this seems like a mild form of hedonism.

3. Some people are religious because they are told to be and lack the mental facilities to properly question it and/or grasp the idea that there might be a deviation from what they have been told to believe.

I figure, when God comes down from the sky (or-where-the-hell-ever it is he comes from) and says, "Hey, Mike, here I am, motherfucker, I'm GOD. Watch this," and then brings some dead guy back to life right in front of me, then, indeed, I will believe him.

Have you never read the Bible, or even just the New Testament, where this happened numerous times? BenC7 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In respsonse to Loomis's comments on what it is that I believe, and the offendability of such: it should be quite obvious what I believe based on the question I asked. Athiest, a College intellectual, White, 19 years of age. Offend away, my friend. I happen to believe that relgion is a HIGHLY effective form of population control with beliefs that have no real basis in reality. Religion, I beleive, stunts rebellious leaders and turns the masses into what the current leaders of the world want them to be: docile consumers.

All right then. What you're saying is that as a 19 year old self-styled "intellectual", your position is that you have some insight into the nature of the universe that somehow escaped the likes of Newton, Einstein, Darwin (yes Darwin! to his dying day he insisted that he was NEVER an atheist, rather an agnostic), Stephen Hawking (who, in one of his famous quotes, referred back to that famous quote by Einstein, that "God does not play dice with the universe" with his own take on God: "Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." And no, this quote does not appear to be a flippant remark aimed at ridiculing the faithful. In fact, if one reads the many quotes of Hawking, though he doesn't ascribe to any particular faith, his belief in that "inexplicable something" rings loud and clear.

To summarize then, as a confirmed atheist, you believe that, in rejecting atheism, such minds as Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Hawking etc... simply don't measure up to your own 19 year old "intellectual" mind's understanding of the universe. They were (were for the other three, I recognize that Hawking is still alive) just a bunch of fools, who simply didn't seem to get, as you seem to so easily, that they were simply the victims of "a HIGHLY effective form of population control", and like the masses, were nothing more than the docile consumers their contemporary leaders of the world wanted them to be. Wow! You sure think a lot of yourself! Nevermind the opinions of the greatest scientists to have ever graced the earth! You know better! Perhaps you're God! Loomis 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Touché BenC7 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, Loomis, I do. The example which you so delicately weaved is inherenantly flawed: you produced three great scientists who disagree with the ideas I have presented. Allow me to break down the fallacies of your argument into bite-sized pieces:

1. Newton was born in 1643 and lived until 1727. During this time, if you even suggested the fact that there might not be a god, they probably stoned you to death and then pushed your body over a cliff. It was in his best interests (that is, if self-preservation WAS one of his interests, and I believe it was) to claim that he did believe in a God, and preferably, and Christian one.

2. As for Einstein, Hawking, and Charles Darwin, what of it? Let me portray the argument you are presenting here in a sentence: "Because Einstein, Hawking, and Charles Darwin were considered brilliant, and they believed there was a god, they must be right, and therefore everyone should believe there is a god." Do you see the slippery slope you have created with this argument?

While they might have been brilliant in their field(s), in the end, they were just men, fallabile as any other men before or after them. Perhaps they were WRONG. Perhaps they did believe what I believe, but, in order to avoid public outcast and shame, believed (or said they believed) what most of the population around them believed. Perhaps they WERE the (unwitting or not) victims of a highly effective form of population control. I see absolutely no reason why this is not possible.

3. As for comparing my age and relative wisdom with the greatest scientists of the world, again, what of it? These men were great scientists, not great philosophers, religious leaders, or political scientists. While they were great scientists, perhaps they were narrow-minded in terms of religion or the anayization of it. I DO know better about it than they do, there, I said it!

4. As for being God, that is just silly. There is no god.

I enjoy such a vigourous argument. It has been awhile anyone actually provided good examples. 69.138.62.148 06:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Our mysterious friend, you might be digging your hole deeper with those last comments. 1 is not factual by any stretch of the imagination. 2 is an inaccurate paraphrase of Loomis' argument. Perhaps you should read it again. 3 and 4, well - hmmm. I'll call Mensa. BenC7 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UT

It should be noted that the religious beliefs of Newton, an Englishman, were such a departure from the dogma of 17th and 18th century England that he was clearly regarded as a heretic. Newton's religious beliefs are characterized by most historians as closer to that of Eastern Ortodoxy. If you truly understood the nature of religious politics in this time period, you'd understand that Protestantism was regarded as heresy by Catholics, Catholicism was regarded as heresy by Protestants, and both regarded Eastern Orthodoxy as all the more heretical. It should also be noted that heretical beliefs were considered so evil by each branch of Christianity, that to hold and espouse them was at least as bad, and probably worse, (as it would have that much more of a tendency to "warp" the minds of the rest of society,) than to simply state that you don't believe in God. If Newton was truly concerned about being "stoned" to death (which in and of itself sounds extremely odd for that period. Are you sure you're not confusing it with the 17th century BC?) wouldn't he at least conform to Anglican beliefs in his writings?

As for Darwin, I never said he believed in God. All I said was that he was a confirmed agnostic, and that he rejected atheism. You say that it's possible that Darwin actually was an atheist, but hid that fact in order to avoid public outcast and shame. Darwin trying to avoid public outcast and shame? That's so absurd it's actually funny. Darwin thrived on controversy. He was the ultimate "shit-disturber" for the religious establishment. Yet for some reason he stopped short of proclaiming the truth of his atheism? Believe me, if Darwin was truly an atheist, he would have revelled in proclaiming it loud and clear.

As for Einstein and Hawking hiding their true "atheist" convictions, while the above may have been absurd, this is beyond the absurd. In fact, if anything, their apparent belief in God could only have hurt their credibility rather than helped it. Don't tell me that 20th century quantum physicists gave a damn whether these two icons were believers or not. If anything, it would seem to me that it could only have helped their reputability all the moreso if they simply avoided the topic of God altogether.

What you're actually doing is the old "shift the premise" logical fallacy. My argument is NOT that you should believe in God. I'm no bible thumper. You can believe what you wish. In fact I have a great deal of respect for agnostics, for they have the courage to simply admit "I don't know". As for atheists, though I completely disagree with their "beliefs", I can agree to disagree. If an atheist told me he believes there is no God, but respects the fact that I believe that there is, I'd be perfectly fine with that. What irritates the hell out of me is when an atheist not only tells me that he believes that there is not God, but that I'm a stupid, ignorant fool for believing in Him. So please don't put words in my mouth. My argument was NOT: "Because Einstein, Hawking, and Charles Darwin were considered brilliant, and they believed there was a [G]od, they must be right, and therefore everyone should believe there is a [G]od." Not at all. I only brought these "scientists" because you seem to be base you atheism on the "scientific method". By bringing them up, I was simply trying to illustrate that their seems to be a consensus among the best "scientific" minds of all time that there is a God. This is by no means meant to convince YOU to believe in God. Not at all. It's merely to display, that among the scientific community, to say the very least, "the jury's out".

I'm glad, though that I seem to be making at least some headway. I'm starting to see you using words like "perhaps" and "possible". This is indeed very encouraging.

Finally, you mention that the men I've referred to so far "were great scientists, not great philosophers, religious leaders, or political scientists". Fair enough. The scientists have spoken. It's curious though that you would be interested in the opinions of "great religious leaders". Huh??? Seems to me you'd be utterly disinterested in their opinions. That leaves us with philosophers and political scientists. I think I'll leave political scientists for now, as I don't see how their opinion would be of any interest, but if need be, I can quote a few.

As for philosophers, let me quote perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time: Socrates. "True wisdom exists in knowing that you know nothing."

I admit that I may be wrong and God may not exist, for, in the Socratic sense at least, "I know nothing". Do you have the courage and the wisdom to admit that you may be wrong and God may exist after all? Loomis 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be more than happy to say God exists when I see some proof. I just don't find it reasonable to assume he exists. --mboverload@ 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY respect your position, Mboverload. You have no proof, so you don't believe. Perfectly understandable. I only wish the original questioner would be as open minded as you are. You don't believe (until proven otherwise) and I do (until proven otherwise). Basically we agree to disagree. That's all I'm looking for. Too bad the original questioner REFUSES to agree to disagree. Oh well. All the best. Loomis 00:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

mboverload, what types of "proof" would you require? Could you please provide some examples? Instantaneous healing? Raising the dead? Would these be enough (considering that they have already happened and continue to happen all over the world)? In not, then what? Do you want God to appear in visible form (eg. as Jesus)? I'm not sure what kind of "proof" you are looking for... BenC7 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am forced to admit that Loomis and other's presented arguments are correct. There is no way to prove through logic or science that God exists or does not exist; this presents a problem to both believers and nonbelievers, because if something cannot be proven to exist, it cannot be proven to not exist, either. I rescind my previous statements and apologize to all.

After much contemplating, I have decided that I believe that it is highly UNLIKELY (that would put me firmly in the realm of agnostic, admitedly) that there is a God (especially of the Christian variety) because of the series of rules presented by the Christian bible and other relgious texts that are very similar in structure to those used by dictators or other world leaders in order to maintain control over a population, which would make God a man-made entity devised for such purpose. For example, if one looks up the brainwashing entry:

1. Milieu Control (social pressure)- Churches and congregations, church confessions, religious dogma, reading scriptures aloud as a group, and etc.

2. Mystical Manipulation - The use of mysticism via the inner want of all human beings to find meaning of life given through providing a god.

3. The Demand For Purity - Removal of sin and sinful acts.

4. Confession - already mentioned above as part of Milieu Control.

5. Sacred Science - Although there are many things that happen in the Bible that seem scientificly impossible, they are possible though God's power, i.e. stopping the sun.

6. Loading the Language - God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful, perfect, unaffected by time, and his and the acts of his apostiles are glorified through similar 'loaded' language. While some might see it as a defition, why not just say, 'all-powerful' and leave it at that? I wish I could give better examples. If I could give a sound byte of a typical Southern Baptist preacher, whom groups of I have listened to many times, that would capture this point perfectly.

7. Doctrine Over Person - Upholding the laws of god is more important than the person obeying them. (i.e. "if a hand causes you to sin, chop it off, if an eye causes you to sin, gouge it out", and similar passanges if taken literally, however some groups do not take these passages literally)

8. Dispensing of Existence - When you die, you will go to Heaven, Hell, Nirvana, be reincarnated, and your existance will cease to have any meaning.

These similarities lead me to believe, but do not definitively prove, religion is man-made population control device.

In response to BenC7's comments about resurrection in the New Testiment, yes I have read these stories. I need God to come down, indentify himself as God, and then bring a dead guy (or some similar feat) back to life right in front of me, preferably while I am videotaping it with a high-definition camera.

69.138.62.148 23:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, it seems that we have finally gotten to the point "to agree to disagree" which is all that I was ever after. As I mentioned, I'm no bible thumper, and I too have issues with those "religious" people (like the Southern Baptist preachers you've referred to, or certain mullahs and imams) who simply accept the "Christian Bible" or the "Quran" word for word, and use circular reasoning to prove the existence of God, and prove that if you don't believe as they do, you'll go to hell. I reject these approaches as being simplistic and irrational, and, if I may say so, an insult to the intelligence of human beings as thinking creatures.

My belief is of an entirely different nature. It's personal, private, and based on as much rational contemplation as my limited mind is capable. Yes, I do belong to an "organized religion", yet my religious leaders actually encourage as much questioning and dialogue about the existence of God and His nature as possible. And once we're done, we go back to resuming our daily lives, and then, whenever we wish, gather back together and debate these difficult concepts once again, and again, and hopefully for the rest of our lives. But I'm not here to preach my own faith so I'll leave it at that. My apologies to Ben if any of this is offensive to his faith, as I'm very grateful to him for backing me up when no one else seemed to have the courage and/or interest. All the best, Ben, and God bless you.

I'm just curious about the author of the post just previous to the last one, who "rescinded his/her previous statements". I'm flattered, but in this mess of a discussion it's difficult to follow who said what.

In any case, all the best to all of you in your respective spiritual adventures, especially the original poster. Take care and thanks for the invigorating debate! Loomis 11:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. I do accept the Bible word-for-word, although I recognize that sometimes there may be minor mistakes or ambiguities in translation. I feel that it is important to try and understand the spirit of what is being said; it is the Bible, not a computer code. Notwithstanding, I have read the Bible through 6 times, and the New Testament probably an additional 10 times besides - I'm not one of those people who may have read the Bible in the distant past and choose to remember of it only what I want to remember. God is who he is, not who we want him to be. BenC7 01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish beliefs

I've heard that the reason Jewish scientists are often not welcome in research labs is because of their belief that since they are the "chosen people" and therefore no one else who is not also a Jew is not entitled to have the same knowledge, i.e. there is a greater risk they will not report a discovery to their employer. For instance: even though most people know of Einstein’s famous equation $e=mc^{2}$ most people do not know the details or steps and experiments in physics that led to its formulation whereas the details of each step and experiment are simple and rooted in basic physical and mathematical concepts and relations. I have heard that by keeping the knowledge to themselves as though it were a trade secret Jew's preserve a role for themselves in the secular world which would otherwise be diminished. Is this true? (By the way I am not anti-Semitic.) ...IMHO (Talk) 09:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is true that "Jewish scientists are often not welcome in research labs" in some unspecified part of the world, and the reason is because "since they are the "chosen people" and therefore no one else who is not also a Jew is not entitled to have the same knowledge" it's a ridiculous misunderstanding of the concept of the "chosen people". To coin a phrase, misunderstanding is the father of prejudice and the grandfather of persecution. --Dweller 09:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment begs the question: What is the correct understanding then of the concept of the "chosen people?" (Don't want any misunderstanings here.) ...IMHO (Talk) 09:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. To elaborate, there's an excellent article at Jews as a chosen people, but I'll summarise it (hopefully without too much POV). Chosenness is about being given and accepting a heavy burden of commandments. Jews believe they have 613 commandments and if judged to have done well, they get rewarded with a place in the next world. Jews further believe that non-Jews have just 7 commandments. So, it's easier to get to heaven as a non Jew, which explains the Orthodox Jewish practise of deterring conversion.

None of that is about keeping knowledge a secret. That's anathema to Jewish traditions of learning and developing the mind. Some of the worlds greatest published scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have been Jewish. It's strange that you cite arguably the world's most famous theory/equation as an example of a Jew keeping a discovery quiet; perhaps I've misunderstood you!

The usual issue over "chosenness" is about superiority, rather than secrecy. The usual response on this score is "not better, just different". Frankly, it's not easy trying to keep Jewish law. --Dweller 10:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense. I can accept that. In reference to Einstein’s famous equation for the laymen it usually stops there. There seem to be no step by step details to accompany the development of the equation or the electrical or electronic or mechanical experiments which led to its formulation whereas the device that was first used measure the speed of light accompanies almost every text that discusses it. In regard to Jewish difference being interpreted as Jewish superiority could this misunderstanding be based on the nature of the difference as the idea that since Jews are required to please God to a greater and deeper extent than non-Jews that subconsciously this makes them feel superior to others or at least present themselves as being superior without actually doing so consciously and intentionally or this idea being on their minds? ...IMHO (Talk) 10:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"In reference to Einstein’s famous equation for the laymen it usually stops there" that's because most laymen don't know anything about general or special relativity, and don't want to..for instance, here is an article showing the E=mc2 derivation of the term--71.247.107.238 16:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, most laymen don't know anything about the Time-independent Schrödinger equation, beyond a string of horrible puns revolving around cats, is that because it's a secret? no Is it because the average person is too lazy to actually care about something that requires thought? I'll let you answer that one--71.247.107.238 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also let me add that although many non-Jewish religious groups have a set of laws they follow many other religious and non-religious groups and individuals have but one rule (although some have perverted its meaning to justify certain evil doings) which I suppose is really insufficient when it comes to human nature of maybe forgetting certain details. ...IMHO (Talk) 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that several groups have seen themselves as the Chosen. For example, it was common language invoked by protestant Christians who believed that they were the true Jews, as Jews had forfeited their chosen status with the rejection of Christ. There is plenty of that language used by the early American settlers, and it was reinforced by the Calvinist notion of The Elect. Japanese people have at least been accused of believing themselves to be the Chosen people. Several American Indian tribes had beliefs that they were "the people" (as opposed to the other things that looked like people). Icelandic travellers regarded strangers as scælings, which is a term that indicates both "slaves" and "demons" and "non-humans." In contemporary prejudice, Chinese and Korean laboratory workers have been known (by me) to refuse to work in a lab with Japanese researchers. Geogre 11:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh I would imagine that the refusal of the Chinese is based more on the practice of belief during the Japanese occupation of China. Every now and then you hear stories from former British and American captives. Most anyone with an ego probably at some point in life considers themselves to be better and become as a result fair game for con artists no different than those who feel themselves to be worse are fair game for certain preachers. As for Jews maybe its just this idea that many non-Jews seem to have that they are unable to remove the "difference" referred to above just as one is unable to change their place or date of birth except through a "final" solution. ...IMHO (Talk) 13:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

About discoveries : Not all theories derive from experimentation. Albert devised his theories because some old experiments of thought (made without any lab) did not match existing theories. He was alerted about those mismatchs while in a patent bureau ; some patents dealt plainly with "coordination between clocks" (or something close to that) which was already extremely difficult in our accepted, non-relativistic, reality. He just put the problem farther. So he hid nothing and someone had to devise experiments to prove those new theories. --DLL 19:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein wasn't even a practicing Jew. Mo-Al 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you heard about Jews keeping secrets from Gentiles because Jews are the "Chosen People," but I can assure you it is not true. Judaism doesn't really have much in the way of secrets, except stuff like Kabbalah. But failing to fulfill reporting obligations to one's employer would undoubtedly violate all kinds of Jewish tenets about dealing honestly with people. -- Mwalcoff 23:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

All of this is very good to hear. Thanks to everyone for your comments. ...IMHO (Talk) 10:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Heinrich Hitzinger

I am looking for a little more information on a peripheral figure from the close of world war two. A number of sources state that when Heinrich Himmler was captured by allied forces in 1945, he was travelling under an assumed identity, a policeman called "Heinrich Hitzinger". There is also a whole mass of confused and sometimes contradictory information about his appearance, the presence or lack of an eye patch, etc. Some sources suggest that Hitzinger was a non-entity and had never existed in reality, but others say that there was such a man, and his papers were appropriated by Himmler because of a resemblence between the two men. I have tried and failed to turn up any information about the real Hitzinger, if he ever existed. If anyone can help me with this one, I would be very grateful. --Hwater 11:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)HDW

Perhaps a controversial suggestion, but have you tried David Irving's website www.fpp.co.uk ? He has a picture of the dead Himmler and the report to go with it. It shows spectacles rather and no eye patch. There is, among the conspiracy-mongering, quite a lot of plausible detail, but nothing on Corporal Hitzinger. My recollection, from Peter Padfield's biography of Himmler - which I don't have to check - is that Hitzinger was real but dead. Hope this helps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Democracy

"In a democracy the people are their own masters". With reference to this statement, explain the role played by the parliment as the body of people's representatives.

In how many words? David Sneek 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And when is it due? Notinasnaid 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And how much does it count towards our final grade? Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"I can help to sack my M.P. and thereby change the government" That's 12 words. Tip: When you do submit your essay, spell "parliament" correctly. --Dweller 12:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You can claim the assertion is false. In a democracy the plurality are the masters of the majority. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But then again, if the statement is speaking of people as a single whole body including everyone, it is true to say that the only masters of people, are people. In any situaution really invluding dictatorships, autocracys, or anything. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was born in a tyrannic regime and I always wanted to know how my grandmother who told me ghost stories and swore sincerely that they were real would be able to make laws; she was totally illiterate, too. She was a kind and fine lady, though.Patchouli 15:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem ... illiteracy and believing in ghosts is not a problem. If you can conduct your life and order your house and your relations with neighbours, you can devise very good laws. Some more literate people shall then try to bypass those laws, and good representatives are there to help you against that. This is not so simple, but the tune of the air is there.

This said, DYH (by you your homework done must be) and PSBTFT (four tildes by typing please sign). --DLL 19:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighting Website Contents

If a person updates a Website, does he have to pay a fee again to obtain a new copyright? http://www.gwu.edu/~mpb/betaox.htm has Copyright © 1998 Karl J. Miller. Would the owner thereof have to pay a new fee to the Library of Congress's copyright office if he were to update it today?--Patchouli 15:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright is granted automatically as soon as something is written down or typed in; I'm not sure what benefit you get from paying anything to the Library of Congress, other than better documenting authorship. -- Beland 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about other countries, but as I understand it in the US, it only costs if you want to register your copyright. Copyright itself is automatic and free [7].

Registration confers certain legal advantages over not registering, but the basic rights of copyright are available without registering.

Basically, one usually registers before filing an infringement suit. Otherwise there is little reason to register unless you are a major content producer (and will be filing lots of infringement suits), as I understan dit. --Fastfission 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the related question is whether you would have to renew the registration when you update the web page. Just a guess, but I would suppose you would periodically renew the registration. This would be purely for additional legal protection. I will have to defer to others for more specifics.

Nowimnthing 16:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why does the Website owner not change Copyright © 1998 Karl J. Miller to Copyright © 2006?--Patchouli 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Either he hasn't updated the page since then or he hasn't bothered to. Nowimnthing 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not really necessary for him to put any date on there. There is no possibility of it expiring anytime soon. --Fastfission 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the Five Elements Theory ?

How does the five elements theory contradict with scientific studies and - if possible - with religious beliefs ( Christianity , Islam , Judism ) regarding God and creation .Hhnnrr 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Assuming I'm not doing homework for you.... First it depends on what theory of five elements you are talking about: Five elements then you might look at Classical element, Chemical element and Periodic Table. Nowimnthing 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple ancient theories that involve five elements. For a description of what material substances are actually made of, see chemical substance, chemical element, and atom. Some of the element theories also involved mechanics - for example, why some things fall and other things rise. Classical mechanics is the modern theory which is correct on normal human scales. The five element theories also have astrological components, which are simply untrue. The visibile stars and planets are usually made of the same elements we see on earth, not something like aether. -- Beland 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of the Five Elements theories address the question of how the universe was created. Though the monotheistic religions you mentioned do have historical and creation accounts which conflict with scientific discoveries, I'm not sure that they firmly address the question of what material substances are made of. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there were some obscure passages in one of their holy texts that did do so, either literally or metaphorically. -- Beland 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is the Chinese theory , Is it acceptable ( scientifically ) to say the world is composed of only five elements ? And when I speak of creation I mean that this theory is related to the Yin Yang theory which is related to creation .. so now what ? ( this is not home work - does it look like it ?? ) Thank you all Hhnnrr 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No offence intended, it was just worded in a test question like manner and I get suspicious. There are some who support the general idea of the classical five elements as solid (Earth), liquid (Water), gas (Air), or plasma (Fire) with aether being the more odd matter in experimental physics. I'm not sure you could make the same argument for the chinese elemetals, wood, fire, earth, metal, and water. Nowimnthing 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think most would not consider elemental thinking to be totally incorrect, just an oversimplified earlier version of the knowledge we have now. See History of the periodic table. Nowimnthing 17:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Genesis tells (quick glance) that elements were not created, just separated from the chaos they made before. Those elements refer to primordial sensations and are no more accurate than ... good and evil for a mature mind to describe the world (s)he lives in. But our memory associations, history, memes (do I have to bluelink it ?) and myths are strongly based on those primordial sensations. --DLL 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean Jews today dont believe the elements composing the world were created ? Sounds strange .. My understanding was that this idea of being generated from chaos was in the eastern philosophy . Hhnnrr 19:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The five elements theory contradicts science because it has no scientific basis whatsoever (no evidence for it at all). Mo-Al 23:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems simple to me. There are 118 elements, not 5, so it is completely and totally incorrect. --mboverload@ 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see , and I feel the same . Is there a web site I can return to that discusses this issue scientifically ? Thank you all Hhnnrr 07:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not :). I'm sure if you look scientifically at it, you might begin to notice some discrepancies. For example, metal does not 'generate' water, under any circumstances. To answer your original question as a Christian, I suppose that one way it conflicts with Christianity in that it is assuming that wood, fire, earth etc. have some innate spiritual qualities about them - i.e., in being associated with particular body parts, 'heavenly beings' etc. The Bible does not teach any such thing. BenC7 06:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Tax Cuts

From time to time, especially in the late 90's, a proposal is made in Congress for across-the-board flat-rate tax cuts. For example, all income taxes are to be cut 5%. Thus, someone otherwise paying $1,000 in taxes would save $50, and someone otherwise paying $1 million in taxes would save $50,000. This seems to me as fair as fair can be, because each person is saving the same percentage. But the mere mention of such a proposal causes many politicians (mostly liberals) to go abolutely ape, screaming "tax cuts for the rich!" Of course these would be tax cuts for the rich, but they are tax cuts for everybody. To put it simply, what is unfair about this, and why do many politicians insist on higher and higher taxes on the way up the income scale, but cannot abide any tax savings "for the rich", even though THEY ARE PAYING MORE? 66.213.33.2 18:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the arguments against it would be the same as those for Progressive tax. One of the arguments is that the rich have a higher level of disposable income and are therefore more capable of contributing to the common welfare. Issues of class and opportunity also come up. Nowimnthing 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Contributing ... imagine that you are an adult and your baby, your daughter and your son, notwithstanding their age, capacities and all, should do an equal part of home jobs and bring the same amount of money ? Equity is not mathematical equality. The design or the level of progressivity is a true question : no level at all is mere demagogy and never observed. --DLL 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing of such a proposal, but it would leave the level of "progressivity" the same, provided there wasn't also some hidden change to the level of deductions, the alternative minimum tax, etc., which we haven't accounted for here. So, the tax code would be just as "fair" as before. StuRat 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, as for the need for progressive taxes, they are needed to counter the natural tendency of wealth to concentrate in the hands of the few, which happens because they are better educated, have better connections, have starting capital, accountants, etc. So, without a progressive tax, eventually 99% of the wealth ends up in the hands of 1% of the population, then you get something like a communist revolution from the starving 99%. This is something we would prefer to avoid. StuRat 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have a progressive tax in the first place, and the government needs more money, it might put the taxes up by 1% for everyone. Interestingly, this probably wouldn't get headlines "big tax rises for the rich". If the economic situation improves, then reversing this increase would indeed by a "big tax cut for the rich" but no more unfair than the initial situation (and no less). Of course, when politicians say things it is designed to appeal to their current and potential electorate. Why else would they speak? Notinasnaid 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If a flat tax rate is introduced, to cover the money that they no longer collect off of rich, they add a bit on to everyone. Which means that for the people who were rich, the taxes still go down. But for others they go up. Did you honestly think that they can just cut taxes if they feel like it? where did you think they were going to get the money from, that they weren't getting from you? and did you think they've been taking money all that time just to piss you off? no its because they need it, so if they stop taking it, they stop spending it. And then the government doesnt do its job. Basically governments shouldn't promise lower taxes, but lower spending, which means definite lower taxes. Philc _T^E_C^I 02:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the original question, they weren't actually asking about a flat tax. I read it that way, too, the first time, however. StuRat 21:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Title of a youth or young adult sci-fi book?

Hope you guys can help. I am trying to figure out a patron request for a sci-fi book that features an alien boy with amnesia who carves figures in wood. They think he is a a human and in the end he has to escape the planet as the authorities chase him. Oh yeah, he alos has telekenisis, thanks Nowimnthing 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds extremely familiar, but I can't quite dredge up anything from my memory right now. I'll keep thinking, but in the meantime, here is a site where you can submit just such a question. And please post the title when you find out. --LarryMac 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but as a public librarian, I can't go about spending money answering reference questions. Librarians have their own free version here: [8] but since it is a listserv it can be a bit slow. I'll let you know if I figure it out. Nowimnthing 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that they wanted money. My first search had taken me to a "mysteries solved" page and I stumbled around from there. I just know I've read this book. --LarryMac 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think i may have read that a long time ago. I'll ask a friend who would know and get back to you --Bmk 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read it too, I'm sure. It's not Stranger in a Strange Land, I assume, but it does sound like it's from that era and maybe by Heinlein. Geogre 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If the novel features travel (long distance teleportation) by walking through doors, I think I've read it. If so, it's rather short, but damned if I can remember the name of it... - Nunh-huh 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, that does ring the bell. Frank Herbert Whipping Star or Roger Zelazny's non-Amber novel he did really early? It's a 1970's thing, I feel sure, that I read, anyway (as I only read science fiction during my teens). Geogre 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it's been percolating for a bit, I think it might be something nondescript like "The Secret Door" (and not by a well known author like Herbert, Heinlein or Zelazny). - Nunh-huh 23:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking a stab here. It's not The Worthing Saga (which is collected from the books Hot Sleep and Capitol) by Orson Scott Card is it? It involves telepathic powers as opposed to telekinesis though. But it also features a boy running from the authorities and eventually attempts to escape the planet. - Zepheus 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The People" stories???by Zena Henderson???-hotclaws**==(217.39.10.51 06:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

Oooh! Oooh! How about "The Forgotten Door" by Alexander Key? I think that might be it! --Bmk 13:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely the book that I recall!! --LarryMac 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Renior Gabrielle Renard Print

I have a print of Gabrielle Renard and Jean Renoir. I'm told it is a print from the last plates that Renoir made before he died but published after his death. The plate was signed, but the print is not. I was also told that the plates were destroyed after some prints were made. Does this sound legitimate? If so, does it have any value?

Thank You,

Sorry, I forgot to add my return e-mail... removed email to save you from gobs of spam

It sounds possible, but there is a lot of art forgery going on that is very sophisticated. To be more certain, you need a documented history of the print, showing the chain of ownership from the (estate of) Renoir to you. Alternatively, you need an expert to examine whether it is an orginal print, which will cost a small fortune. How old does Jean look on the print? He was almost 31 when his father died. --Lambiam^Talk 10:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You could take it to an auction house and ask them how much they think you might get for it. That should produce some information. You don't of course have to sell it. The choice is yours. Tyrenius 11:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

lt.Col. G.A. Custer's missing pistolas

I once heard a nasty rumor that the sioux have custer's personal brace of handguns that were taken as war trophys after the 7th cav fell at the little big horn. This is supposed to be one of the deep and dark secrets of the tribal elders as the weapons would be nearly priceless to us gun nut collectors. Supposedly yellowhair's pistols were lost to history. What do you think? 19:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)(Hobgoblin)

I think that if it's a deep dark secret of the tribal elders, it would be difficult to answer. Unless one of them came here, and it was true, and he felt like giving up the secret. Why is this rumor "nasty"? Sounds a reasonable enough trophy; earned fair and square. Notinasnaid 20:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Earned is right - they certainly paid the price for them. --Bmk 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

After the battle it is completly possible that the took Custers pistoles. However if they took custers pistols they likely sold them. There would no reason now to keep their possescion secret. The government would not demand them back.

Psychology of Coloring Interior Spaces of Universities Buildings

Hi I am looking for the methods of using different colors and their Psychologic effects on Students.For Example I want to know if there is a specific and Psychologic reasons on coloring interior spaces of different faculties such as Law,History,Art,Mathematics,Medical and etc. I want to know ,ore about relations between Psychology of colors and studying different courses in universities. I Will be glad if someone Help me to Find a good answer Thankyou Sincerely A.A Nadi --80.253.142.101 19:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While not restricted to univeristy settings, we have a pretty good article on Color psychology. Nowimnthing 19:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The professor who lectured me on architectural psychology had designed several university buildings and gave the strong impression that colour theory had very little part to play in the designs. He was keen on decorating each floor in a building, or each building in a complex, in a different style, to reinforce a sense of location. Warofdreams talk 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, because at my university, there were several buildings where every floor (and indeed areas within each floor) looked exactly alike, so if you didn't know your way around, it was easy to get lost. --WhiteDragon 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange questions about the British monarchy

Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch of sixteen different countries. If she wished, could she move to, say, Canada, and style herself "Elizabeth I of Canada" (or would it be "Elizabeth II of Canada"?), then appoint a governor-general to represent her in the UK? Or is she obligated to remain in the UK? If the Commonwealth Realms are all equal partners, it seems to me she should be able to float around.

If for some reason the monarchy should be abolished exclusively within the UK, Elizabeth would remain the queen of fifteen countries. Would she be expected to select one of these as her new royal home-base, or would she remain in the UK (UR?) as a pretender to the throne? I know these are pretty frivolous questions, especially since support for the monarchy is significantly higher in the UK than in most Commonwealth Realms, but I'm very curious as to Elizabeth's exact status. Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're asking a very hypothetical question, and since I left my tea-leaves in my other jacket, I'll restrain myself to the more concrete question: Elizabeth's present style as queen of Canada (proclaimed on 28 May 1953, the Parliament of Canada assenting) is ""Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". So she would probably continue to be "Elizabeth II" even if she lost the UK: ""Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of Canada and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". " Of course, she and Parliament could decide otherwise. On the other questions, I suspect it depends mostly on the circumstances of the elimination of the monarchy. - Nunh-huh 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But she doesn't have a special relationship with the UK? That's essentially the core of my confusion. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

She very clearly does have a special relationship with the UK, but the official position is that at least insofar as her position as head of state is concerned, by the Statute of Westminster 1931 she holds those positions equally, and no nation takes precedence over any other. - Nunh-huh 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Brits pay millions each year to keep the royal family in mistresses, and I doubt if any other country would be willing to foot that bill, so I'd say if the UK dumps them, so would everybody else. StuRat 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Its ridiculous that people complain about how much money they cost. Even if we get rid of them, a head of state will still have to go and give speeches and do relations, and the palaces and stately homes will still have to be looked after, so no money is saved, at all. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when does the queen "give speeches and do relations"? She gives perhaps one speech a year, and barely ever leaves the country. All the functions normally performed by a head of state, including foreign relations, are handled by the prime minister. And as for the castles and stately homes, a government-appointed curator is less obtrusive, more accountable, and more efficient with money than any royal. When I was in England, half the castles were closed. But we have begun to digress. Bhumiya (said/done) 09:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are in fact totally wrong here. The Queen makes many speeches and goes abroad quite frequently (very frequently considering that she's 80). Buy a newspaper and read the court section and you'll find out what she does. Much of what she does is ceremonial of course, but it's still stuff that in the US for example has to be done by the President, forcing him to take time off from actually governing the country. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The big palaces, like Buckingham palace, could probably pay for themselves if open to paying tourists after the royal family was evicted. Lesser estates should probably be sold off to some historical society so they can pay to maintain them. The biggest financial loss might be the poor scandal sheets, who wouldn't have any royal toe-suckers and tampon-wanna-bes to report anymore. I suppose they would have to switch over to alien babies, like in the US. :-) StuRat 22:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, The Brits pay 62p each year for Liz & co to sit on the throne. [9]  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to say that support for the monarchy is "significantly" stronger in the UK than in other commonwealth countries. I would actually venture to estimate that support for the monarchy is actually stronger in (English) Canada than in Britain itself, probably because for us it's far more symbolic than real. We look at the Queen in a far less "personal" sense, not as some royal snob who lives in the most ostentatious mansion in our most important city, but rather as a mere symbol of our history, and an important element in our constitution. In addition, the Queen provides us with a sense of identity to differentiate ourselves from the Americans, and so to lose her would almost be like losing a crucial element of our own identity. Knowing Canadians, we'll likely abolish the monarchy only after England does. And finally, there seems to be a great deal of respect for this Queen, as she tends to conduct herself with a rather admirable degree of poise.

All that being said, while Queen Elizabeth can probably assure herself that she'll always be respected as Queen of the Commonwealth, I find it extremely difficult to imagine anywhere near the same degree of respect being given to her heir apparent, the future King Chuck. I can only imagine that if the monarchy would finally be abolished, it would be during his reign. Loomis 23:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The queen has a mistress?? (Not that there's anything wrong with that). Hmmm ... maybe she should change her name to Elesbieth.  :--) JackofOz 02:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Monarch is not constrained by a set of distinct and unbreakable laws and principals. Many of her actions, roles and responsibilities are determined by previous practise. The question mooted is totally hypothetical, and as such has little relevence as if the actions mentioned above did happen, there would be a range of actions which could be taken, depending on specific circumstance at the time. One point should be bourne in mind, which is that some countries have removed the Queen as head of state and become republics, and yet still stay in the Commonwealth. It is possible that the UK become a republic yet other nations retain the Queen as head of state, although personally I find that unlikely. However it is possible.--Dumbo1 11:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I know of no republic which has maintained its monarchy in any capacity, although (contrary to common view) it is at least theoretically possible. The monarchy could be administered by the government as a cultural program. In a country like the UK, where the royals are (allegedly) a boon for tourism, this would probably be considered. Frankly, I think it would help tourism if they were kicked out altogether, thus allowing castles and such to be open to the public full-time. When I was in the UK, it seemed like half the royal residences were closed. Bhumiya (said/done) 09:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said that it is possible for the Queen to remain head of state of other Commonwealth countries, whilst no longer being the head of state of the UK, but that would be unlikely. The Queen is Monarch of each country independently. Anyway this is a non encyclopedic hypothetical question so it shouldn't really be here. --Dumbo1 23:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Subsidiary of a corporation

In New York State, must a subsidiary of a corporation itself be a separate corporation, or may a subsidiary of a corporation be an unincorporated entity? Is there a reference in the law?

jefitzge--jefitzge

What do you mean by "an unincorpotated entity"? Loomis 22:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about New York law in particular, but in general it's common for a corporation to set up "divisions" that are not separately incorporated but function to some extent as a self-contained unit. However, you wouldn't normally refer to such a division as a "subsidiary". In my view the term "subsidiary" implies a separate corporation. --Mathew5000 23:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither am I all that familiar with New York law in particular, but laws relating to this subject tend to be similar across North America. It would seem that your question is more semantic than legal. The term "subsidiary" is more of a business term than a legal one.

Yes, the law is very concerned with "related corporations", and whether corporations are dealing "at-arms-length" with each other, as these issues are incredibly important to corporate law in general. But whether or not a certain "entity" should be properly termed a "subsidiary" of a corporation or merely a component of the corporation itself is basically an issue of business semantics, and rather irrelevant to the law.

But I sense there is more to your question than this. Perhaps if you would expand on it, I could be of more help. Loomis 00:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses and input. Here's why I'm asking: In New York State a corporation cannot sue in Small Claims Court. I have a letterhead that says "ABC Services", and at the bottom of the letterhead it says "A Subsidiary of the XYZ Corporation", which I added a long time ago thinking, on my own and without legal advice, that if I ever needed any "protection" that incorporation could offer I might be able to build a case. The XYZ Corporation is a real S-Corporation that I formed long ago. So I go into the local Small Claims Court in an attempt to recover money from a deadbeat client, and the judge says I'm a corporation and can't sue in Small Claims Court. I said, no, I'm not a corporation, I'm a "DBA" that is a subsidiary of a corporation. He said, no, you're a corporation, and in my court I always win (just like on TV). He really didn't sound like he knew what he was talking about. If he was wrong, I'd like to go back with a reference in the law, or something so I can get my money back without pursuing it in the regular court and having fees use up all of the recovered money.jefitzge--jefitzge 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to pursue the matter, you should get some advice from a real lawyer. --

Mathew5000 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not familiar with American Law. What's a DBA? I'm actually facing a very similar situation up here, so I'm actually pretty concerned with what happens! Keep me posted! Loomis 23:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

DBA stands for "doing business as." I might own and run a corporation called "Larry Mac, Inc." but conduct day to day business as "Mom's Homemade Apple Pies." Thus various legal filings would indicate "Larry Mac, Inc. DBA (or perhaps d/b/a) Mom's Homemade Apple Pies." --LarryMac 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand the whole situation better. I've often heard the term "Doing business as", and possibly even the abbreviation "DBA". But I've never heard of any entity being described as "a" DBA. I guess that's what threw me off. Again, I should warn you, don't take what I say as the indesputable truth, as I'm not a member of the Bar of the State of New York, as so whatever I have to say is simply educated speculation.

Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a DBA. The term DBA is merely used to explain the case of when a corporation is using a name other than its "official" corporate name to do business with. I'm pretty sure the concept of a "numbered company" exists in the US as it does in Canada, but even if it doesn't, I'm sure the following example will be helpful.

Here, the "official" name of many corporations is very often simply a number, as in "123-456-7890 Canada Inc". Of course nobody would actually use a bunch of numbers to do business, so, one would incorporate a company "123-456-7890 Canada Inc." and add in its corporate articles "Doing business as 'Joe's Pizza'". Everyone would know the company as "Joe's Pizza", yet officially, its name would be "123-456-7890 Canada Inc."

"ABC Services" is nothing more than a corporate pseudonym. Unfortunately, that prick of a judge was actually right (trust me, I've encountered my fair share of that kind!) "ABC Services" is not a subsidiary of "XYZ Corporation". In fact, it's not a separate entity at all. That's what totally threw me off about your question. You asked whether a subsidiary of a corporation must itself be a separate corporation, or whether it may simply be an "unincorporated entity". In fact, "ABC Services" is neither. It's neither a separate corporation, nor an unincorprated entity. Rather, "ABC Services" is merely the name that "XYZ Corporation" decided to go by in conducting its business. Sorry I couldn't give you better news! Best of luck. Loomis 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

July 1

A Place for Political Questions

This reference desk is the place for asking encyclopedic questions. Humanities is a broad set of subjects including politics and personal opinion. One would expect to get some unusual questions, and sometimes for them to break down into debate. But is this the place for wikipedians to place questions designed to illicit political debates? --Dumbo1 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if they are illicit political debates :) Warofdreams talk 00:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

i.e., the word you wanted was "elicit". - Nunh-huh 00:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I must've been tired to make that mistake.--Dumbo1 11:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Most people have stated in the past, "Wikipedia is not a message board." There are the few that say, "Why not turn Wikipedia into a message board." The generic response is, "If you turn Wikipedia into a message board, then it won't be Wikipedia anymore. It'll be just another message board (as if there aren't enough already)."

As for asking political questions - if you are asking about a fact, this is a great place to ask. For example, you can ask, "I saw an ACLU commercial that said the Patriot Act allows anyone in government to search my home at any time without a warrant and without telling me if I'm not at home at the time. Is that true?" You'll get a factual answer (which is "no" - that is an exaggeration). However, there are things that won't provide you with any benefit, such as asking a loaded question ("How long until Bush kills everyone in Congress and declares himself dictator?"), asking an opinion question ("Why would any sane person vote for Bush?"), or just rambling with no question at all ("I am tired of wife-beating, bible-thumping, deer-hunting, oil-burning.... Republicans ruining our country!!!"). Sure, you get to scream and yell, but all you get in return is negative comments. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, wikipedia isn't a messageboard, rather a soapbox for complaining about and/or mocking the ACLU! or other people you don't happen to like--71.249.29.10 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The ref desk should abide by the basic spirit of WP's rules, but it seems to me there has always been room for considerable latitude, given that these pages do not contain "articles" that purport to be authoritative about a particular subject. That's not to say the answers provided here are not correct; however, the debates seem to have a much shorter life span than a general WP article. Once a particular discussion is finished here, we all usually move on to the next question, and old ones are rarely updated - precisely the opposite of what happens with our general articles. There is a lot of room here for POV statements that would not be tolerated elsewhere on WP. If it's not taken to excess or done gratuitously, I don't have a problem with people expressing political points of view here. As long as they always agree with me, of course. Mind you, I do not regard statements such as "XYZ is an arsehole" as a political point of view; that is a judgement about an individual, not about his/her politics. :--) JackofOz 02:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dumbo1. When an incendiary, troll-food political question comes along (like the one on gay marriage, below), my first response is to ignore it. This is a reference desk. If there is a specific answer to a specific question that can be found by research, we should offer it. The political and religious questions ("how can anyone believe that junk" or "why are all the heathens allowed to run free") are way out of bounds. Every time I have expressed an opinion on one of them, it has been because someone "answering" the question has gone off with a soap box announcement, and every time I've regretted it. This is not a web forum. This is not a message board. This is supposed to be a research wing of an encyclopedia. Geogre 03:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Really.. because I try to give sarcastic and/or off-topic reponses to incendiary political questions, different strokes and all that--71.249.29.10 03:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Philanthropy to Corruption

Let us say that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation goes to Lesotho, DRC, or Swaziland and spends money to provide immunization, vaccination, HIV/AIDS testing, and hospitals that provide basic medical care for the needy.

The money is spent by these non-profit organizations without any involvement with the host rulers.

Next, the leaders of these poverty and disease-stricken countries, which typically don't have governments framed by philosophers and experts like the U.S.A., Europe, and a few other places, see this as an excellent opportunity to not spend money on the aforementioned areas and engage in embezzlement.

So what measures would this philanthropic organization take to not engender corruption?--02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Patchouli (fine-tuned)Patchouli 21:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, they don't and thats why africas still in such a mess, they all think that they're doing such a great job sending bucketloads of money over, they dont know where it goes. Philc _T^E_C^I 02:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

They do know where the money goes to a degree. There are still many warlord areas of Africa. In those areas, the warlord takes all the money, medicine, food, clothing... and either keeps it or sells it to get money to buy more guns, explosives, ammunition, light-armor vehicles (I don't think they have tanks yet ... yet). --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? From reading the article, I'm not aware that they're doing anything of that sort (plopping the money in countries in Africa and saying "here you go" - I think that's silly. They'd probably send expertise to do infrastructure type stuff, like engineers, doctors, etc.)... I haven't followed up on what they do in the news, so I may be wrong, but it looks like that the money mainly goes towards research and minority scholarships (and some of it goes as aid, but in material goods). Foreign aid is probably what you're thinking of more, that's more of a government to government type deal. --ColourBurst 07:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am leery against all philanthropic organizations. (I opine that the Gates Foundation and HALO Trust are good and transparent ones in a world where thousands such organizations operate without transparency like churches in the U.S. that don't have to reveal the donations received.)

Not a single organization that I know is willing to provide even a one-time handout to any other individual human — they always give it to other organizations or spend it on projects. I was an orphan (not like Roberto Madrazo who inherited a huge sum from his PRI father at 17) when I was 12 years old for a little over a year; the only institution that provided housing and food was the government and no other human or organization; at that time I was in Germany and had no relatives.--Patchouli 02:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"I was 12 years old for a little over a year". I think the mathematicians might have to rethink the calendar. (sorry, couldn't resist)  :--) JackofOz 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems possible, if you had your 12th and 13th birthdays in different time zones. StuRat 22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• The conjuction when makes "I was 12 years old [pause] for a little over a year" a dependent clause and radically different from your humourous culling out a context of a group of words. I should have written, " I was an orphan for a little over a year when I was 12 years old."Patchouli 04:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Live Aid, most reputable funders will send their money via Non Governmental Organisations rather than through governments, reducing or preventing embezzlement by governments. --12:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

How? Why?

I recently watched a show on ABC about political views and it got me thinking. How can a state or the country (The U.S.) outlaw Gay Marriage when freedom to do what you want is what the country is based on? I understand that some people think it's "immoral," but why do the countries leaders who feel that try to make their feelings a law. I personally don't care. And even if it were outlawed (Gay Marriage) throughout the country, wouldn't it be declared unconstitutional by the (US) Supreme Court? Or would the religious beliefs of the judges interfere with their political duties? Thank you for helping me comprehend the incompetence in the U.S.'s leadership. schyler 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• cuz..--71.249.29.10 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• "How can a state or the country (The U.S.) outlaw Gay Marriage[?]" The country can't because you need 2/3 of House and Senate to support the ban + 75% of all two legislatures in each state in order to preclude any SCOTUS decision striking down the outlawing statute. The framers set up the country in such a way so as to make it impossible to deprive a minority of its rights without the consent of the supermajority.

"...countries leaders who feel that try to make their feelings a law[?]..." Well, those particular legislators need to get elected so they must pay a little attention to the constituents in their districts. In addition, they have memorized The Prince.--Patchouli 04:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Which by the way is one of the finest books of the western civilization, and should be mandatory reading for everyone in the scholl. Look believe it or not, US politicians which oppose Gay marriage will win many votes, particularly from the Bible Belt. Open-minded ppl can support the equal rights for (almost) everyone, but the majority of them won't really fight for the rights of the LBTG community. But ppl which are uncomfortable (and a bit scared) with the issue will vote on a politician who screams that he is against it. Therefore many politicians oppose it, simply to gain votes. It is a bit like the history of Racial segregation, until the public really changed their mind, politicians were all in favour of it. As the political clima (the masses - and their votes) changed so did they. Flamarande 09:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Any activity can be banned if it can be framed as an encroachment upon something sacred or important, and therefore "special". Abolition of slavery, which we today regard as a cut-and-dry issue of personal freedom, was once a fairly contentious issue. Many people were convinced that abolition was an encroachment on their all-important right to own property, and widespread racism certainly made it easier for them to present that argument with a straight face. Supporters of slavery simply framed their position in a favorable light: they were supporting property rights, and they had the Bible on their side. As reflected in Dred Scott v. Sandford, many accepted this argument. Today, Americans opposed to gay marriage frame their argument as a "defense of marriage". In their view, marriage is threatened by the prospect of its "redefinition". This argument is contingent on the tenuous and anachronous notion that marriage has gone unchanged since the beginning of human history, with men and women of roughly equal ages joining in a consensual union inspired by mutual romantic feelings. This is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the undeniable fact that virtually all marriages in the pre-Romantic era were cutthroat business deals in which young girls were sold to men as personal servants and engines of procreation. Our notion of marriage has already undergone repreated, albeit incremental, redefinition. The current opposition to gay marriage will wither away, to be remembered as an embarassing historical fad. Soon most of the western countries of the EU will legalize it. Soon California, New Jersey, and New York will legalize it. When people notice society not collapsing and marriage not being destroyed, the issue will become fully mainstream. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Asset Registration Before Marriage

I have heard that all the earnings of a married couple gets divided 50%-50% after the marriage in the United States. But the initial assets are not divided should a dissolution occur. What is the legal term for registering one's assets?Patchouli 03:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is it the prenuptial agreement?--Patchouli 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Division of property is different from state to state. Some states are community property states, in which all of the couple's assets are divisible when they divorce, but many of them are not, and the assets after the divorce are divided based upon what each partner brought into the marriage. A prenuptial agreement is useful when one partner enters a marriage with considerably more assets than the other partner. It isn't mandatory, though. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

soccer

I notive in the fifa website where it lists the scores in the world cup it lists it X : Y 1:0 (0:0) - what I would like to know is what are the numbers in the brackets? Xtra 04:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The half-time score. --Robert Merkel 05:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom Halls of Jehovah witnesses

Why are there only windows in the frony lobby or entrance, but never in the meeting areas?

• Are you nitpicking and splitting hairs? Perhaps the ministers are scared of the imminent armageddon and the current global instability they typically hash out.Patchouli 05:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Well I know from personal experience because my mother is a J/W and when I'm at her house she insists I go with her to the meetings. I was in a meeting when there was a rock thrown in the window with some bible scripture written on it and a 6 yr. old girl got hurt. I would imagine the reason is purely fear of vandalism. schyler 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that JW meetings are 'closed', in the sense that outsiders are not permitted, so presumably they don't want people seeing what goes on there. DJ Clayworth 16:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

history and facts about st. josephs (all girl) academy in st paul,mn.

I would like to know about St Josephs Academy, for girls, in St. Paul, MN. The address was on Western Ave. and is now closed. I think since 1971. As much information as possible would be apprrciated. Thank you very much.....

Try doing a google search. St. Joseph's in wikipedia isn't the one you're looking for, so I have to believe there isn't any information in wikipedia about it. --ColourBurst 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I doubt anyone on the Reference Desk can help you directly, and I doubt a google search will help. Was it run by some part of the Catholic Church? If so, I'd consider contacting the Catholic diocese responsible for that area and asking them if they have any records (the Catholic Church is pretty good at long-term record keeping...) - or, if it was run by a specific religious order within the church, such as the Society of Jesus, you might enquire with them.

If not, the usual place to start is checking the local papers (particularly suburban papers) for any articles written when the school closed (libraries in the area will probably have collections of these newspapers on microfiche), as well as contacting libraries and historical societies in the area. --Robert Merkel 07:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the city itself will know exactly when it went out of business. The local school board probably won't know, but the tax and business offices will. The school would need to file for a tax-exempt status, and therefore the tax offices, both state and federal, will know when it went "out of business," as it were. Geogre 12:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alaska purchase a conspiracy?

Here's the deal... My mom tells me that when she was in school (she went to school from about the 1970's-1980's and she lived in Poland at that time) they learned in history class that Alaska was not actually 'purchased' by the Americans from Russia, but rather, Russia bet Alaska in a poker game with America. It was the leaders of Russia and USA that met, and played poker over Alaska. And Russia lost Alaska in the poker game, and USA got it. She says that it's just a conspiracy that USA bought Alaska for $7.2million, and that USA just made up the 'purchase' claim so that it would sound good. (It would sound bad in American history if they were playing poker over some land mass, apparently). Anyways, Russia was betting Alaska and USA was betting something else, but I'm not sure what; if at all; either I forgot or she never told me. OR they were just playing poker and Russia's leader bet Alaska because he was sure he'd win.

Could there be any truth to this?--Valuefreeperson2 06:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There couldn't be any truth to it, because no one in America at the time had the ability to bet land masses or anything owned by the US of equal value to Alaska. Assuming it was the president who agreed to that, if he lost congress would still have to agree to the "treaty," which it certainly would not do. So there is no reason that the Russian leader would accept whatever the American leader placed to meet that bet. If the American president lost the hand, he wouldn't have been able to give up whatever he bet. Crazywolf 07:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your mother went to school in communist error poland. As part of the communist block, the government was enemies with US and friends with Russia. As such the government ordered teachers to teach history in away which made the US look bad and Russia look good.

It is highly unlikely that the President of the United States traveled to Russia, or that the Czar of Russia traveled to the United States during that time period. Unless they played poker by mail, such a game is impossible to have occurred. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• She says that it's just a conspiracy that USA bought Alaska for $7.2million, and that USA just made up the 'purchase' claim so that it would sound good. Actually, wouldn't this be more of a conspiracy to make the Russian leader look less stupid for gambling with his land? Anyway, kind of a moot point now. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Russia as an idiotic government" motif is not surprising given the context (Poland in the 1970s-1980s), and so I can see the appeal of this sort of fable. But no, it is almost certainly not true. The circumstances behind the purchase of Alaska as well known and well documented and are far more plausible than a far-fetched story about a poker game. --Fastfission 22:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, in this morning's newspaper, there is a mention of a book called Our Documents, compiled by the United States National Archives which in their estimation, are the 100 most important bits of paper in the History of the United States. One of them is a copy of the check written to Russia for the purchase of Alaska. IMO, it's ironic that, although this is a book produced under the purview of the United States Government, it's published by the Oxford University Press. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have heard a conspiracy theory that the transaction wasn't an outright sale but only a long-term lease that was about to expire. Rmhermen 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that houses in USA deteriorate faster?

Hi,

I live in Flanders (Belgium), and it is often said that a Flemish is born with a brick in his stomach : eventually he wants to build a house. Bought or built by himself, usually a Flemish person continues living in that house until his death (or until the time he goes to a retirement home).

Anyway, my family in the USA move a lot more. They say it is because the "neighbourhood goes bad".. and if you want to sell your house at a reasonable price, you have to hurry up to go along. One of the reasons for this would be that other materials are used in the USA to constructs, which are less durable, so their houses don't stay 'good' that long.

I was also told that the taxes in the USA on selling and buying houses are much lower than here (in Belgium, but perhaps that can be generalized to most of Western Europe).

Is this correct?

Evilbu 10:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When people say the "neighborhood goes bad" they are not usually referring to the quality of house construction. They are talking about the other people in the neighborhood. David Sneek 12:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. That phenomenon exists here too...but what causes the first person to sell, what makes his house less valuable, and THAT is what my family in the USA explained by less durable construction material.Evilbu 13:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

They may be referring to a falling income level, rising crime rate, or changing ethnicity of the people in the neighborhood. When it changes, the old residents usually see a drop in the equity level of their home. Thus, they want to move before this process takes full flight. There are some articles on it...like White flight.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a drop in equity - several areas in New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, Vancouver - North American towns with good amounts of Asian immigrants - have either had their equity stay the same or even risen (in which case the other people complain instead that the house value, and therefore the property tax, is rising instead. There's no way to win with these people.) --ColourBurst 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah... the opposite of white flight in a sense is gentrification, where wealthy people move into an area, drive up the price of the area and drive out the often low-income former residents due to increases in property values and rent. --ColourBurst 22:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the quality of the houses...Suburban sprawl has caused a lot of companies to build many houses quickly and badly in a new development, so they inevitably deteriorate faster than the carefully built houses of Europe because less time is taken in making sure they are strong and secure.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The first person to sell is almost always a racist or paranoid person who wants out because someone of a different race moves into the neighborhood, and the existing resident fears the neighborhood is going to become a ghetto. If more people join the first emigrant, housing values drop, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Eventually, even the most-liberal middle-class residents, irrespective of race, feel they have to move because the schools are full of troubled kids and the crime rate is high. Historically, neighborhoods in some cities have gone from upper-middle-class to lower-class in a couple of generations. This is a major reason for suburban sprawl in the US, since the wealthier people are always trying to move farther away out of fear of the inner-city residents. Fortunately, I believe this is changing, and most white people no longer freak out when a black family moves onto their street. -- Mwalcoff 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of other reasons people sell their house; they may get a job in a new city or on the other side of town, they may have kids or their adult children may move out, they may marry or divorce, they may experience a rise or loss in income/wealth that makes them move to a nicer or a more modest home, they may retire and move to Florida, and so on. North America in general has a higher degree of mobility than Europe does, I think, so most neighbourhoods, particularly in cities rather than small rural towns, have a certain amount of turnover. The first people to sell might have been laid off and want to move to a more economically prosperous region, so they sell their house cheaply and some sort of undesirable neighbour moves in, for instance. Yeah, the quality of construction is fairly low in the North American suburbs, but the average American moves (depending on who you ask) once every five years or so. In contrast, this report suggests that the average British household moves every 15 years. So the high mobility enables the people in a neighbourhood to change much faster than the buildings could ever decay. --ByeByeBaby 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, typical house construction in much of Europe is brick or stone, whereas in North America it tends to be wooden frame with plastic or aluminum siding. So yes, houses in North America tend not to last as long. DJ Clayworth 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had many conversations about these sorts of things with my dad (a master plumber). He says that, considering the materials, houses in the u.s. are built to last an estimated 40 years (yes, 40) before needing extensive work. Often they're built with wood from young fast-growing softwood tree plantations that were hastily dried and chemically treated. Needless to say, they're not going to settle as well as better constructed houses. There's a good chance with a lot of these developments that, depending on the ground and some other factors, many of them will develop cracks in the walls and other related problems much quicker and to a much greater degree than other houses that were built in the same area, of similar size and floorplan, but were built at least 50 years ago when the materials were generally, but not necessarily, better. -LambaJan 03:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wild Thing

This song was a big hit for The Troggs in 1966, and is often heard today. But does anyone else remember a version done in spring 1968 by "The Senator"? The song was more spoken than sung by a man with a distinctive Boston accent - obviously, Robert Kennedy. It was pulled from the airwaves after his murder in June. Thanks for your help. 66.213.33.2 15:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sure! I can even do it in the RFK voice! The flip side was Everett Dirksen. The record was made by "The Hardly Worthit Players"; "Senator Bobby" was James Voight, brother of John Voight. Allen Klein owns the rights and refuses to release them. (I don't have good sources for any of this.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hussein of Jordan, a 'good' ruler?

When Hussein of Jordan died, it was told here in the media that he was so important for the peace process, that he had a very positive influence. My mother told me the same.

I am not asking whether or not he was 'good' as that is so subjective, but why do western media do this? I mean, he did go to war with Israel several times, wouldn't you except them to focus on that??

Evilbu 20:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Much as Anwar Sadat led Egypt to war with Israel, but later was influential in starting the peace process, Hussein also gets "graded on a curve". This is versus other Arab leaders, like Sadam Hussein of Iraq, who continued to attack Israel, and Iran and Syria, who finance terrorism against Israel. StuRat 22:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think part of it has to do with the fact that his fourth wife was American. --ColourBurst 22:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hussien was consider a good leader for many reasons. After Egypt he was first leader to seriously pursue peace. Furthermore, unlike other leaders such as Assad and Hussien, he did not support terrorism. Furthermore throughout his career he was a friend the US. Finally he ruled Jordian with a great degree of pluralism. (That edit by user:68.112.242.121, I presume.)

One of the reasons that the west has seen him as positive is that he had a generous immigration policy with regard to Palestinian refugees. That displaced population was/is very much of a problem in the peace process. Because he welcomed displaced Palestinians, he essentially relieved some of the pressure that would have otherwise been dealt with by something much, much worse. This is in addition to his relatively economically liberal (in the economic sense) policies that western corporations like, his moderate stances, and his willingness to sponsor and endorse a European/American line on the peace process itself. Geogre 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why noone has mentioned his (then) secret links to Israel yet. He secretly meet with Golda Meir and cutting a uneasy deal with Israel, crushed the PLO in a event called the Black September. King Hussein turned against the PLO because they were becoming "a state whithin the state" and dangerous for his regime and his country. After that Jordan never attacked or supported any violent action against Israel. De facto, Jordan (like Egypt - and Anwar Sadat paid with his life for that action) acknowledged Israel and turned against terrorism. Flamarande 09:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping someone would mention Black September. Could one say Black September, sending many Palestinians into Lebanon, is one of the causes of the Lebanese civil war? And is that completely correct about no violent action against Israel, weren't there some troops in the Yom Kippur war from Jordan fighting in Syria against Israeli troops?

Anyway, what you people are saying is that he had two chapters : one in which he opposed Israel (like participating in wars against it) and one in which he turned to the west and fought terrorism?Evilbu 12:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The article Yom Kippur war says that Jordan also attacked Israel. Notice however that As for the issue that "sending many Palestinians into Lebanon, is one of the causes of the Lebanese civil war" well, King Hussein is only responsable for his own country and not for the mess in Lebanon. You can argue that he is morally responsably though. To answer your last point: Everybody will be judged differently by several viewpoints. Hussein was no innocent, but at least he didn't too many mistakes. He seems to have been a cunning politician (read the The Prince if you want to really know what a leader should be). Flamarande 12:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You presume that being at war with Israel is by definition a bad thing. That's taking sides. Anyway, Israel started the war. Flamarande, you do something similar by implicating the opponents of Israel are terrorists. Who you call terrorists is taking sides. Better to avoid the word because it is so ill-defined. DirkvdM 15:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Which war are you refering to that Israel started? Israel has NEVER startd a war. Yes, when the armies of Lebabonon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt all mobilized at Israel's borders in June of 1967, Israel took the hint and pre-empted their attack. But the fact that these countries were on the verge of attacking Israel is not fantasy, it's a fact that all sides wiil ackonowledge today.

You say that [To] presume that being at war with Israel is by definition a bad thing is taking sides. Are you pro-war Dirk? Shame on you for that. No reasonable human being actually prefers war to peace. If you believe that to start a war with Israel is not necessarily a bad thing, I'm afraid that our views are different to ever be reconciliated. Loomis 21:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hold it right, boys. First of all, Israel also clearly started a war, read Six-Day War. I never said that the Arab nations are terrorists. One thing is a recognized country waging a clean war against another country. Thereby, I mean that military forces fight against military forces in the field of battle. Terrorists are non-military ppl who do not target military opponents. They are unrecognized by almost everyone and target mainly civilians. I had hoped that you could understand my English: "this a relativly "clean - legal" war between recognized states against (mainly) military targets. It is not the same like unrecognized organizations making terrorist attacks against (mainly) civilians." but I guess the phrase is badly written. Flamarande 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that Israel "started" the Six-Day War? Are you aware of the circumstances? In that case, you might as well say that the US "started" a war with Germany in WWII, because, after all, the US declared war on Germany earlier than Germany declared war on the US. Take this absurdity to the extreme, and you can conclude that the US turned what was up untill then a "regional" European conflict into a "World War". Shame on the Americans! Loomis 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Under a purely legal point of view Israel started that particular war (I agree with their reasons though, and would have done the same). Read Military history of the United States; Germany declared war upon the US after Pearl Harbor, not the other way around. Get your facts straight. Flamarande 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Under a purely legal point of view", if I point a gun at you, and you respond by shooting me, though you have fired the first shot, I am clearly in the wrong and you are clearly acting in self-defence. Please get your "legal" facts straight. Loomis 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing with a gun in the first place? Israel was the first to purchase the guns, point them and fire. First there was no Israel and then there was. Assuming no original inhabitants gave land to Israel (and the country didn't buy it either), all wars between Israel and neighbouring countries were ultimately started by Israel. The whole notion of Israel was a very bad idea, asking for trouble. Just like Liberia and Sierra Leone.

Flamarande, saying that an army has no right to fight because you don't recognise it is circular reasoning. Why are the Palestinians terrorists and Israel not? I don't see any basic difference. They're all murderers, be it for a good cause or not (and then who decides whose cause is the right one?). The word 'clean war' sounds horrible. War is filth. And who is to say who the soldiers are? As I understand it all Israelis are armed and trained as soldiers. So the whole Israeli nation is a 'clean' target by your definition (excepting babies). Palestinians, on the other hand, don't all have guns, which is why they still use bricks. If you're faced with an overwhelming invading force you do what you can. Anything you can.

Loomis, Germany declared war on the US right after Japan did. Only after that did the US enter the war officially. DirkvdM 09:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have read my statement backwards. I'll repeat it then, taking you through it step-by-step. If I (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt) point a gun at YOU (Israel,) and YOU (Israel,) respond by shooting ME (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt,) though YOU (Israel,) have fired the first shot, I (Syrian, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt) am clearly in the wrong and YOU (Israel) are clearly acting in self-defence.

With regards to the statement: "Israel was the first to purchase guns", again, this is a simple case of taking the chronology of events and looking at them in reverse order. Of the five countries mentioned, Israel was the last to be established (or I should say, re-established). Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt were all established (re-established in the case of Egypt) in the aftermath of WWI, when the Ottoman Empire finally lost control of the entire area. The modern state of Israel was actually the last of the five, being created in 1948. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt certainly had armies, which purchased guns, which were pointed and fired, long before 1948. Therefore the statement that "Israel was the first to purchase the guns, point them and fire", is, quite simply, dead wrong. It's actually a totally upside-down assessment of the chronology of events.

With regards to the statement: "First there was no Israel and then there was": again, a misreading of history. The only true "artificially created" nations of the region are actually Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, which were "created" (or shall I say "invented") as a result of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Israel and Egypt, on the other hand, are two nations that were conquered by outside powers, and were only "re-established" once their controlling "outside power" (the Ottoman Empire) was defeated in WWI. If you really want to talk about "artificially invented countries", Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are clearly much better candidates.

With regards to the statement: "Assuming no original inhabitants gave land to Israel (and the country didn't buy it either), all wars between Israel and neighbouring countries were ultimately started by Israel": First off, the original inhabitants of Israel are in fact Israelis. Nonetheless, even if you disagree with recorded history, your argument remains absurd. No original unhabitants gave land to the United States either. Further, European-Americans never even had any sort of claim whatsoever to the land. It's not like the European explorers set out to rediscover a land that had been taken away from them 2,000 years ago, in fact, they simply outright took the land, yet your reasoning, even in the case of the US remains absurd. It would stand to reason, therefore, according to your argument, that any attack on the United States by any neighbouring country was ultimately started by the United States. Huh???

While I agree that ancient Israel predated the Palestinians, they were not the original inhabitants. The Canaanites, Philistines, and others were there before the Jews, and likely there were others there before them, as well. Interestingly, though, the Philistines, who appear to have come from Greece (before it's peak), may have become the Palestinians, after their successors were converted to Islam. StuRat 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As always Stu, you make good, valid, historically accurate points. It's true that ancient Israel displaced the Canaanites, but now you're going beyond historical records and relying on the Bible for your information! Nothing wrong with that though! I'd be more than glad to debate and discuss the whole issue as far as you'd like, as I respect your dedication to truth and honest debate.

I trust that the Bible didn't just manufacture entire civilizations. Remember that the people alive at the time those parts of the Bible were written would have known if the Philistines existed, so they couldn't have just made it up and got away with it. Also, much as recent archeological evidence seems to show that Troy, from the Iliad, actually existed, there also is evidence that a rather primitive civilization of Greek origin existed in the place and at the time identified as the site of the Philistines StuRat 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Dirk, however, his statements, in particular the statement "The whole notion of Israel was a very bad idea, asking for trouble" was rather inflamatory and, (though I've gotten in trouble for saying this in the past!) dare I say, downright anti-semitic. I only wish Dirk would explain to me why a Dutch homeland is perfectly acceptable, not to mention, worth the sacrifice of the lives of quite a few of the youngest and most promising of my fellow Canadian countrymen to rescue it from the Nazis, yet a homeland for the Jews was "a very bad idea". Really? "A very bad idea"? Thank God for Israel with such altruistic, fair finded Dutchmen as Pim Fortuyn to flee from! Perhaps I've shamed him so that he can't bring himself to defend his original outrageous statements. Hopefully, Dirk will have the courage to explain his comments, and explain to me how I took them out of context, and that Israel was in fact a very GOOD idea. Loomis 00:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me argue that a Jewish state should NOT have been created. I see the world not as a battle between Christians, Jews and Muslims, but as a battle between all religions and the secular world. As such, I see any religious state as dangerous, whether Jewish, Muslim, or Christian (although I doubt if Vatican City will be launching any Holy Wars anytime soon). Thus, a single secular state should have been formed to include all Semitic people in the region (perhaps named Semitica ?) and any other ethnic groups as well. This would have avoided the whole Arab-Israeli conflict and hopefully could throw all the extremists, of any religion, in jail where they can't hurt anyone. StuRat 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Stu, I'm afraid you've fallen victim to a common misconception. It's actually an honest mistake, because the term "Jew" has two VERY different definitions. The best word I can compare it to would be the word "Anglican" yet even that one fails to be a true analogy. Let me put it this way, imagine if an atheist Englishman were to refer to himself as an "Anglican". We'd assume he'd be referring to the "Anglican" religious faith, but what if the English language had no such term as "Englishman" and that the only way that he could describe his English ethnicity would be to call himself an "Anglican"? Alright, I should, and with a bit of effort probably could come up with a better analogy, but I hope you get my point.

Most nationalities are able to be described without any religious connotations, such as French, Irish, Russian, Dutch etc....However most languages are unable to distinguish between the Jewish nationality and the Jewish faith, which is unfortunate.

It may surprise many, but the bulk of the founders of the State of Israel were actually socialist, atheist Jews. My own grandfather was both an ardent Zionist, as well as an ardent atheist. Israel was never meant to be a theocracy, and to this day it is not. Yes, it's true, the leftist, socialist founders have lost favour in the eyes of the electorate, but Israel remains a COMPLETELY secular state. About 20% of the Israeli CITIZENS are not Jewish, yet they enjoy every civil right that their fellow Jewish Israelis enjoy, including, the right to vote (in fact, before the American invasion of Iraq and the recent Palestinian "election", Israel was actually the only place in the middle east where Arabs have always enjoyed the righ to vote,) the right to run and be elected to the Knesset, the right to be chosen as members of the government cabinet, and yes...the right sit as an associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Israel!

With regards to religious freedom, Israel is governed by a democratically elected prime minister, not by any Rabbis or any other clergy. Quite the opposite actually. According to Judaism, any sort of possible "theocracy" must be preceeded by the coming of the Messiah, therefore, the religious themselves refuse to recognize Israel as any sort of theocratic state. The idea of Israel embarking on any sort of "Holy War" is absurd, as not only is Israel not the "theocratic" homeland for the "Jewish religion" as many seem to believe, even if it was, Judaism, be a non-proselytizing religion, never has and never will have any designs on conquering any territory outside the ancient land of Israel. The idea that Jews want to take over the world is pure projection on the part of Christians and Muslims. We're not missionaries. We're not interested in converting any "infidels". We're not interested in buliding empires. I seriously wish Christians (perhaps not the Christians of today, they seem to have evolved beyond the goal of converting the world to Christianity) and Muslims would quit projecting their own designs on world domination on us. All we wish is to be left alone. And, if possible, to develop friendly, mutually beneficial relations withour neighbours.

In addition to offering safe haven for the Jews, Israel also happens to be a safe haven for many other persecuted religious groups:

One group are the Samaritans. Truly a fascinating group of people. I recommend the article to anyone with a basic curiousity with regards to comparative religion. Unfortunately for the Samaritans, their holy city (which one it is escapes me for the moment, I believe it's Nablus, but I'll have to check to make sure,) being in the West Bank, was seized and occupied by Jordan in 1948. This forced many of this extremely tiny group of people (they number only in the hundreds) to flee their holy city, and settle in Israel, in Cholon, a suburb of Tel Aviv, where Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, developed a strong affinity for these people. Hopefully now, finally safe from persecution, this fascinating people will once again thrive.

Another are the Bahai. Though originating in Iran, the Bahai people have established their "headquarters" in Haifa, a city in northern Israel. Again, free from religious persecution in their native Iran, the Bahai people have begun to finally enjoy the religious tolerance they deserve.

I'm therefore bewildered why anyone would say that "Israel was a bad idea". Look at all the good it's done, not only for Jews, but for Israeli Arabs, Samaritans, Bahai, Druze, Armenian Christians, and pretty much every persecuted minority in the region.

Finally, many may take issue with Israel's controversial "law of return", basically giving ethnic Jews the benefit of a "fast-track" to citizenship. First, as I've tried to explain, this is a fundamental requirement, if Jews are to have a safe haven from persecution. Second, though, it's odd that nobody ever brings up the dozen or so other "laws of return" in various other countries in the world as being racist. For example, if you're a member of the "Irish Diaspora", the Republic of Ireland has laws set up to get you "fast-track" citizenship into Ireland. Same goes for Russia, for those who exiled themselves during Soviet rule. Same goes for a whole handfull of nations.

In any case, here I am bewildered as to why anyone would be against one ethnic group, (the Jews) having a state, while it's perfectly alright for pretty much every other ethnic group to have a state.

To finalize, it has been said that a civilization can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Though I by no means wish to compare Jews to animals, I believe an even better judge of a civilization is how it treats its Jews. By this measure, the US is the most civilized nation on the planet. The idea that a tiny homeland for Jews in the middle east is a "bad idea" as it may "upset the locals" speaks extremely poorly of the people of that region. Loomis 22:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the statement: "The whole notion of Israel was a very bad idea, asking for trouble. Just like Liberia and Sierra Leone". If I were you I'd defer to Israelis and the world Jewish community on that one. Are you aware of the possible attrocities against Jews that were averted due to the existence of a Jewish homeland? No, I'm not talking simply of the Holocaust, that would be too easy (though the best possible example). I'm talking about all those other instances of anti-semitism, that, whenever and wherever they seem to rear their ugly head, Jews have an option they haven't had before, that is, to pick up and head to the safety and protection of Israel. With the fall of the Soviet Union (which, for all its evils, was exemplary as a repressive regime, repressing EVERYTHING, including anti-semitism,) the ugly head of Russian anti-semitism actually thrived with the new "freedoms" handed to it. Think of such figures as Vladimir Zhirinovsky for one, who was finally able to spout his ridiculous garbage with his newfound freedom of speech. Fortunately, Jews now had the option of fleeing to Israel, and so they did, numbering in the millions. Even in western Europe, figures like Jean-Marie Le Pen and his counterparts, such as the recently assassinated Pim Fortuyn, have begun to spring up once again. No problem. No need to once again hunker down and accept what miserable fate their "hosts" have to offer this time. This time, all the Jews need do is flee to the safety of home.

Finally, "Why are the Palestinians terrorists and Israel not? I don't see any basic difference. They're all murderers, be it for a good cause or not (and then who decides whose cause is the right one?). The word 'clean war' sounds horrible. War is filth. And who is to say who the soldiers are?" Interesting. So is it your position that you don't see any "basic difference" between those brave soldiers from my native Canada who risked their lives to free your beloved Netherlands from their Nazi occupiers, and the Nazi's themselves? I suppose we were all murderers, be it for a good cause or not (and besides, as you say, who decides whose cause is the right one? Perhaps the Nazis were right after all!) In this case, I wholeheartedly apologize to you, Dirk, for my country having the arrogance to risk our lives and enter the Netherlands and free it from Nazi occupation. I only hope you can find it in your heart to forgive us, for such a terrible misdeed.

Just a word to Flamarande: It seems that with all the fuss I mistakenly attacked one of your arguments. My apologies for that, I find myself in agreement with most of what you say. I suppose the confusion of it all just had me attacking the wrong argument! All the best. Loomis 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank all contributors, but it was never my intention to once and for all solve the Israeli dilemma. I just wanted to know why Hussein was portrayed here as a good peaceful leader the world will miss (almost like Gandhi etc.) while the west does tend to choose the Israeli side.Evilbu 13:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering how much threads can move in directions totally unrelated to the original subject, this one wasn't too bad. :) DirkvdM 13:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Help linking an orphaned article about culture

Does anyone know of any articles that Black American Princess can be mentioned in? I recreated it as a stub, but it's orphaned, and not really linked to any other article.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why would you recreate it? Adam Bishop 21:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I recreated it because I hear the term often....so I figured it's notable. The reason it was originally deleted was because the first version was a single, angry sentence directed towards blacks. I'm surprised no-one had recreated it earlier.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There's always B*A*P*S. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would fall under WP:NEO would it not? --ColourBurst 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think Jewish American Princess would be the place, since that was the original term from which yours was derived. StuRat 22:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I already listed it there. I just don't want it to only be linked to two articles.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also a neologism that entered at about the same time as Yuppy and Buppy (or maybe Yuppie and Buppie) and is supposed to be a sign of an emergent Black middle class. The problem there is that it's one of those lies that the US told itself in the 80's that the Black middle class was emerging (there had always been one, since the 1880's) and was emerging (that the corner on equality had been turned). Geogre 01:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

New North Wales

In Australia, why the New South Wales exist but the New North Wales doesn't exist. If the New North Wales exist, where is it? Maximini1010 23:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Was their ever just a 'South Wales'? Oh wait... Vitriol 23:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It was named after South Wales. I suspect nothing was named after North Wales as South Wales had the major ports in those days. See History of New South Wales.--Shantavira 08:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was taught that the cliffs off Sydney Head reminded James Cook of the cliffs in South Wales. If some feature had reminded him of something in North Wales, presumably he would have named it New North Wales. But that just didn't happen. JackofOz 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And I was taught that it was named "south" simply because it WAS in the south, and reminded Cook of Wales in general (not any particular area of Wales). Battle Ape 05:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Who do you think are scarier, Cybusmen (sic) or Daleks? I actually think the Cybermen are scarier, as I cannot 'relate' (which is the wrong word, but the best one I can think of) to a Dalek in any way (them killing people is normal for them), but the Cybermen are like... scary dudes (who used to be humans, but now have no emotion, which is sad, but they kill people and they don't really know why. Well they do, but purely in an intellectual way). Vitriol 23:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit earlier there is the question about using the Reference Desk to debate political topics. The overwhelming concensus is that the Reference Desk is for getting answers to factual questions, not debating opinions about topics. So, try this again and I'll sic a Dalek on you - and not one of the Tom Baker "I'm a cheap plastic robot being pulled on a string Dalek". I'll get one of the Christopher Eccleston "I can chase you down through all of space and time on my rocket powered jets Dalek". Just try and get one of those puny Cybermen to defend you. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think they're equally scary. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they really exist. Therefore I am not afraid of either. No, really. DirkvdM 15:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be due to the uncanny valley. As a side note, I would personally be more scared of the daleks, because cybermen have one glaring (or should I say glittering) weakness. The daleks of old seemed to have the weakness of only being able to roll, so stairs would stop them, but the whole rocket powered jets (btw, this also seems like a weird but kind of cool retcon to R2D2) make them more plausible. --WhiteDragon 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are in doubt about who packs more punch, I recommend watching the latest episode. --82.207.234.77 22:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Cybermen = Dalek Fodder--71.249.9.254 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

July 2

"Meanings" sections

I see that you've started having "meanings" sections, e.g., "Meanings for K". Have you considered making your meaning entries available as semantic web content or by some other means to ontology/FBR developers?

Thanks,

Ben Olasov UCSF

• Can you give us an example? We really shouldn't be having a "meanings for" section, as that's lexical work, and we already have a very good online lexicon in Wiktionary. Wiktionary is the wiki dictionary, and because of it, dictionary definitions are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia: we simply shouldn't be duplicating our efforts. An article can, and really should, have a link across project space to the entry by the same term in Wiktionary. That's as good a thing as defining in Wikipedia is bad. Geogre 04:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a reference to K#Meanings for K. It looks legit to me. --Shantavira 08:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So, essentially, a disambiguation appended to articles simply on letters/numbers? That is fine, of course, and something we've been doing since dirt. On the other hand, we've been having "meaning" sections sporadically inserted on things like proper name articles and disambiguations that are, strictly speaking, not cricket. Geogre 13:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

was america the first free country

was america the first free country--64.12.116.72 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) [ email removed to prevent spam ]

That depends very much on what you mean by "free". I suspect that in almost any case, the answer is no. The United States was not the first country to become a republic, nor to be democratic, nor to abolish slavery, nor to adopt universal suffrage. Also, there are probably reasonable ways to define "free" which America wouldn't qualify for today. For example, the US is far from being a leading nation in the sense of free trade.-gadfium 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Narcotics for personal use are legal in the Netherlands; so it is freer than the United States. But I personally would object to that degree of freedom.Patchouli 07:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not really, although it was one of the first major modern republics, and much of its culture is based on the concepts (or at least symbols of the concepts) of personal liberty. In practice, Americans have been quite willing to restrict their personal freedoms whenever given the opportunity, as exemplified by the long endurance of slavery, the draconian drug laws, the puritan morality laws, the Ataturkian attitude toward the desecration of the flag, the neutralization of labor unions as a political force, the retention of capital punishment, etc. Of course, many of these issues will be viewed by Americans as a benefit to freedom: my history teacher once opined that "labor unions are anti-capitalist and capitalism is freedom", or something along those lines, and this is a fairly common attitude among middle- and upper-class Americans. Likewise, they view draconian laws and capital punishment as freeing decent people from the threat of crime, despite abundant evidence that the American justice system is deeply flawed. Generally, Americans are taught to believe that the USA is the best, freest country in the world and always has been. As silly as this sounds, if you actually doubt this assessment, you will be viewed as unusual. But I assume it is this way in most countries. In its favor, the USA is not really a nation-state, so there is less bigotry than you might expect. There is also quite a bit of religious tolerance, although some religions are more equal than others. The USA was one of the first large democracies, which is significant, even when one considers that most people were not able to vote. Overlooking the Civil War, it has also been fairly peaceful and has not had many severe political crises. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It was one of the first full-scale countries (i.e. not a city-state) to have a somewhat broadly-based democratic political system. AnonMoos 11:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if you ignore the Parliament of England and the one in Iceland. Flamarande 11:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And the Swedish Riksdag, and quite a lot of other things. So no, the US was not the 'first' free country, and it hardly is one now either. - ulayiti (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

England didn't really have a "somewhat broadly-based democracy" in the U.S. sense until 1867, while Iceland was a rather low-population country (inhabiting only part of the island) which was not all that different from a city-state for the current purposes of comparison. AnonMoos 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't say that England was free before America was established. In fact, since the monarchy still exists (though with almost no power), it is still not completely "free". Besides, the guy who asked the question didn't ask whether America is free now. He meant to ask what the first democratic country was, I believe. Mo-Al 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The best thing would be to read History of democracy. It'd be a stretch to say that the US was the first "free" country by any sense of the word, but it was influential in the development of republican democracy and the party system. The first independent nation to allow universal participation in the political system (including minorities) was Norway. EdC 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it was the first democratic nation, but Athens was a democracy long before the Americas were sighted by Lief Erikson. Not a particularly free one though. Emmett5 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Was Athens a democracy when Socrates was executed in 399 BCE for freely speaking his mind?--71.107.200.35 05:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• A parliament does not automatically create a democracy especially if it is as impotent as the Majles that has to suck the toes of members of the Council of Guardians and has to think twice before any action for fear of asset seizure, imprisonment, disappearance or assassination.71.107.200.35 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Let's wrap it up with: NO, the USA (America is something diffrent) were not the first free country. The question is indeed a bit rethorical as freedom largely means something diffrent during the ages. Flamarande 09:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedians have discovered a new country called America. It will always be USA for me, and its inhabitants will always be USA'ers and not Americans. If one looks at voting rights for women and their participation in elections, couldn't one say that perhaps a country like Denmark or Sweden was the first free country?Evilbu 10:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Evilbu. Long before Wikipedia, the country between Mexico and Canada was called "America" and its inhabitants "Americans", and not just by citizens of the USA, but by Europeans and Asians and Africans as well. We all know those terms are controversial, but at least they're real. "USA'er" is not an English word, and if you use it, people will think you're either crazy or hopelessly conceited. Bhumiya (said/done) 12:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If America is a free country, can I have it? I have a growing family and we're a bit cramped. --Dweller 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Irving Berlin wrote a song called "God Bless the United States of America" but when he realised it didn't scan, he changed it to the shockingly incorrect "God Bless America". Maybe his estate should give back all those royalties he derived from his deceitful and wicked scheme.  :--) JackofOz 06:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

With Socrates, the democracy was an oligarchy where only men (no slaves, so strangers, no women) did vote. But they said that he taught that giving offerings to gods was not necessary, so we have a theocracy too. This means that a democracy is something that you have to built and improve everyday, notwithstanding army justices, Geneva conventions trashed, and rampant ploutocracy, that you can observe everywhere. --DLL 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strangers didn't vote in Athens? I have lived in the United States for about nine years, been out my country of birth for more than a decade, forgotten how to write the original language except being able to recognize the script, have now trouble expressing myself in the language I used when I was a child, learned English beyond the average native speaker, assimilated culturally more than Theodore Roosevelt ever imagined, yet I still can't vote or travel.--06:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you had come to Canada all those years ago as a Permanent Resident you would be able to do both by now. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Naturalization in the United States ordinarily only requires 5 years, not the more than nine of the anon. Rmhermen 18:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• You don't have a clue about the US immigration. 5 years according to the U.S. Immigration Code, but you think the USCIS really cares. The fact that I have adopted English as my best language doesn't mean a diddly-squat. I have sent two letters to President Bush, e-mailed US Representative Xavier Becerra once when I lived in his district, called the CIS customer service half a dozen times, gone to the local immigration office 7 times, and sent letters and e-mails to CIS Ombudsman Prakash Khatri over 20 times. The latter guy does absolutely nothing. I haven't been convicted either. I am currently stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's horrible and I truly wish I had gone to Canada, but I can't because the passport of my country of birth is absolutely worthless. It would not allow me to get a visa to move to any democratic nation with an immigration system which is why I never bothered to ever get it in my lifetime. If I try to move to Canada, I fear getting caught on the border and thrown into an immigration jail. My green card application has been pending since 1999. I really don't blame illegal immigrants. I haven't really benefited much from my 9 years of legal residence.--22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand was the first free country

I'm going to define a "free country" as one where there is universal suffrage, and if you exclude sub-territories such as US states (New Jersey) and mini-nations such as the Pitcairn Islands, then New Zealand became the first free country when it adopted women's suffrage in 1893. That's 1727 years before the USA became a free country by the same definition.-gadfium 21:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

my compatriot also failed to mention that the native Maori people of New Zealand had already had the vote before that time, compared to... when did native Americans get the vote in the US - 1920s? Oddly, the US allowed women to stand for office as early as the 1780s - they just couldn't vote. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

actually england hasnt had a parliament for hundreds of years (i forget how many exactly). neither is it a nation state. britain on the other hand has had a very old parliament and is wonderfully democratic- recognising minorities such as , oh i dont know, the scottish and welsh (and northern irish if we say the UK)

• I'd say that the United States wasn't the first free country, but it's certianly the best example of a functional free state--John Herbert Walker Bush Smith 00:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Which country has the highest rate of...

1. Atheism? 2. Vegetarianism? 3. Education? 4. Premarital sex?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.184.91 (talk • contribs)

Freedonia, no doubt about it. Geogre 13:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps Lilliput :).

On 1, you'd have to guess one of the ex- or current communist countries. Adherents.com lists Vietnam at 81% [10], for instance. Apparently Scandinavia has also become a bastion of atheism.

On 2, India?

Three is a difficult measure. You might see Literacy. I bet the bloody Scandinavians are on top of things again...

On four, I very much doubt you'll find reliable stats. Marskell 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say 1: Pottsylvania, 2: Atlantis, 3: Utopia, and 4: Freedonia, but I don't like numbers 2 & 3 very much. (I suspected that the questioner's question was designed as a web forum thing, not a real answer.) Geogre 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I lived in a Muslim country where everything looked calm and ethical to outsiders. However, many religious folks didn't truly believe in anything they claimed to believe, they lied constantly, education was horrible; premarital, extramarital sex, and child molestation were stunning. Of course, there was a profusion of sermons. However, I had never heard of vegetarianism and people ate anything edible. (I do not choose to give my background info.)19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So they have to pretend to believe in these things or else everyone else will stone them to death (despite the fact that they don't believe it themselves)? --Username132 (talk) United Kindom Netherlands 01:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You just have discovered one the the major secrets of public morals: Hypocrisy (double standarts). It is present everywhere and not restricted to the muslim countries. Remember the American preacher who was caught in a hotel with a hooker (or was it his mistress)? In former times, a good father took his sons to the prostitutes so that they became "real men". But a woman which had done "it" before marriage was considered a slut. Thank God for the 70's and the emancipation of women, besides awfull haircuts and bad clothes. By the way, I don't agree that premarital sex is a bad thing (see above). Quite the opposite, it is fun and enjoyable. It does no harm, provided of course one is of legal age, it is done on free will, and someone takes the proper precautions (condom or the STD test). How are couples supposed to know if they can share an entire live together if they never have done "it" before with each other (or with another person)? Flamarande 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we committed atheism together. With due precautions. Oh, and veggism too, it is so delightful, with such a sense of sin! --DLL 17:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo DS Lite European/German Version In English?

Could someone please tell me if it is possible to set a nintendo ds lite purchased in germany to use english as its default language instead of german. And if it is also possible to change the languages on all the games, or just some, or none? The store workers i asked here in germany do not seem to know for sure, so id like to check before buying.....thanks to anyone who can help.

David

Generally, a game bought in Europe (including Germany) will have five languages available to switch to: English, German, Italian, French and Spanish. Any DS Lite has the option to switch its menus to English. You'll be fine.

Actors

I read your links on Movie actors on a regular basis. Why is there nothing on Jack Elam?? One of the greatest character actors of our time!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.197.248 (talk • contribs)

Did you try reading Jack Elam? Quite a bit about him there.--Shantavira 18:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Try StarSeeker.com, they are pretty good about that kinda stuff. (Hobgoblin)

Image of St. Peter Claver

Image of Catholic saint, Peter Claver posted on your site is an ideal image, which I will like to have as a poster picture of our school, which is named after this saint. How can I get a large poster side copy, replica, or print of this image for framing?

Thank you, Brenda Chee Wah

Please respond to the email address:

(email address redacted)

If you click on that picture, it will take you to the image page. there should be a link on there saying something like "Download high quality version", which will download a copy of that image to your computer. From there, you can get it printed in the same way you would get any other image on your computer printed. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Song about Sharm el-Sheikh

At my synagogue, a lot of people know about this one Israeli song written during the Six Day War about the Egyptian city Sharm el-Sheikh. They said it one some sort of music award in Israel; however, I have been searching around Google and Wikipedia and have not been able to find it.

I don't know who wrote it or if there was a major artist that performed it.

--Foxjwill 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The lyrics are at [11] in transliteration. I believe this is the identical with the one of the same name written by Ron Eliran, but his website is too busy being immodest to make clear if it is, indeed, the same song or not. --Dweller 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much. --Foxjwill 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A tour-de-force of culture

I have always fancied myself a well-read man in his early twenties who enjoys art. However, to my consternation, I have discovered that I am not so well-read or well-versed in art as I previously thought. I have, for instance, never read a great deal of books that it seems every person should: I am just beginning Slaughterhouse Five right now, a book which I always thought of as high school reading. Art is worse; I am going to a museum within a week's time and have realized that I know absolutely nothing about art. I had thought that all that was required to appreciate art was sporadic viewings, but after conversing with an art history friend of mine I now know that there's a whole lot more.

So, if you would be so kind, I am seeking your help to make myself a cultured person. I need a crash-course in art criticism and a couple books to read so as to not to appear illiterate. Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance! Isopropyl 20:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That question will be sure to raise arguments as to which are the books one should read. You might peruse Great Books, although there have been recent complaints that the Great Books curriculum is biased towards dead white European males. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Basic art criticism: if it looks pretty it is bad art, if it does not look like anything for gawd sake don't say so. MeltBanana 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Art is, of course, very subjective, so it is hard to give a single quality that makes art great. Really, whatever art you like is good art to you. I, for instance, like creativity (I consider a lot of the disparaged modern art to be pretty creative, at least the first generation of an idea... eventually people just start copying the good ideas and make less creative art). I also appreciate technical skill (buy some paints and a paintbrush, or even use some painting software, and try to duplicate a painting... you'll find things a lot harder than they look and might end up appreciating the skill it took to make the picture in the first place). I also like anything that evokes emotion or nostalgia (e.g. I tend to like paintings involving snow because I love winter.. I also like desolate landscapes or eerie scenes). I'm no master of art appreciation or criticism, though. 128.197.81.223 23:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Linda Nochlin's Realism is a pretty good basic art appreciation text. (Realism, in her case, means imitative art, as opposed to abstract expressionism.) It's published by, I think, Pelican. There are better texts, but they're long surveys. Nochlin will get you up to speed quickly so that you won't sound like a total tourist. However, for the history of art, the Jansens History of Art is still the book. Geogre 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. Isopropyl 04:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a confession to make here. I work part time as an arts reviewer and have been doing so for four years - but when I started, I knew next to nothing about art and did it all on bluff. The most useful thing I can suggest to you is visit as many galleries as possible and keep your ears open. Listen to other people who are there and may be discussing the art. Talk to gallery owners, staff and curators - many of them will be only too happy to share their knowledge. Go to a few openings, if you can. Not only will you pick up information, but it will help in other ways if you wish to find yourself accepted into a fairly closed world of art cognoscenti. All that, of course, is of little help for next week, but if you really want a good knowledge of art then it's something to consider for the furute. As far as crash-course books are concerned, the standard classic text is Gombrich's "The story of art", but that can be pretty dry. "Civilisation" by Kenneth Clarke provides an overview not only of all the classic arts but also how they fit into the world at the time they were created. The Jansen mentioned above is very good, and Edward Lucie-Smith is a good writer to look out for work by (his "American Realism" in particular is very worthwhile). I'd also recomment finding one particular aspect of art, rather than tackling the whole lot (if you've some idea what sort of art the museum has, this might be useful) - it's relatively easy to pick up an appreciation of the Dutch masters, or Surrealism, or Romanticism, from a couple of well-chosen texts - picking up a global overview of all art is a lot trickier. Grutness...wha? 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Casinos

I know states like Nevada that legalize gambling receive a lot of their revenue from the casinos, but does it come from the taxes casinos have to pay or from gaming license fees?

--AxeMan 23:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one state that I know of has legalized gambling remotely like Nevada, New Jersey. But, New Jersey only allows it in Atlantic City. In all other states, they have allowed casinos on Native American reservations or off-shore. Even off-shore ones are commonly limited to slot/poker machines. Then, there are the race tracks (which I don't think exist in Las Vegas, Reno, or Laughlin - the three largest casino towns in Nevada that I know of). All in all, no state has legalized gambling like Nevada.

So, I think your question has to do with state profits from reservation gaming and off-shore casinos. I do not believe the state can tax a reservation, but they can tax all the businesses around the casino and the state citizens who work at the casino. I'm sure there is some manner in which they tax winnings on the reservation. As for off-shore, the whole point is that it is not in the state (to get around a$nti-gambling laws). But the same holds as for reservations. You can tax everything around the casino. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but speaking of Nevada specifically, are the casinos taxed at a high rate or do they have to pay a lot for their licenses?

• Both. Here's an idea of the structure: In a big casino, each slot machine is $250/year tax plus a $20/quarter license fee, while table games go up to $1000/year tax plus a quarterly fee maxing at $1200 (the structure is complicated and peculiar); plus all gaming revenues are taxed at 6.75%. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Gaming" in the U.S. is far more prevalent than Kainaw says and the laws differ for each state (and probably each city). In Illinois casino are only allowed on navigable waterways - but the gambling boats never need to actually leave dock. In Michigan only cities with more than 750,000 inhabitants can have casinos (the second largest city in Michigan has a population of only 200,000). Taxing is probably just as variable. Rmhermen 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And keep in mind that Detroit's population is falling. There was a crisis recently when the population dropped below a million, and all the tax-law exemptions for cities of a million people or more no longer applied. --Serie 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

July 3

Becoming Dutch Nationa;

If I go and live in the Netherlands (from the UK), to what office do I walk to get information/fill papers to become a Dutch National? --Username132 (talk) United Kindom Netherlands 01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For a start, read the article Dutch nationality law to see if you are, or can become, eligible for Dutch citizenship. You should also contact or visit the Royal Netherlands Embassy in London before you leave the United Kingdom. If you are in the Netherlands, information and applications for residency can be obtained from the Ministry of Justice (Ministerie van Justitie) and the Immigration and Naturalisation Department (Immigratie en Naturalisatie Dienst). --Canley 02:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As a Dutchman let me welcome you. And warn you. don't let Verdonk notice you or she'll kick you out. Though your chances should be better if you're white and well off and not from some weird country she doesn't know about from a western country. Elections in November. Hopefully things will improve then. DirkvdM 17:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a witch! And she's supposed to be liberal? Don't I have the right, as a member of a EU member state, to go and live wherever I want in the EU provided I'm not criminal (and I'm not) --Username132 (talk), UK or Netherlands 11:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot you're from the EU. Well, then you don't need to become a Dutch citizen to live here, I suppose, although I can imagine it would help in some respects. Then again, being a foreigner can make it easier to find a place to live. Some rental houses are exclusively for expats. But the reason for that is that they have fewer rights and can get kicked out more easily (out of the house, that is). So you decide if that's a good thing. About Verdonk being a liberal, in the Nethrelands that term is mostly used for economic liberalism, ie the free market. If you're a non-rightwing liberal you have to specify that (usually called 'social liberal'). DirkvdM 15:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sentence re-writing

do not think these sentences sound good, can someone offer help and suggestions in writing? Do I need to work on word order?

After Artaxerxes I (Longimanus), was Xerxes II who ruled in 424.

In 50 B.C., the Senate, led by Pompey, ordered Caesar to return to Rome from Gaul, where he was fighting in the Gallic Wars, and disband his army because his term as Proconsul had finished.

While Caesar was in Egypt fighting the Ptolemaic forces, Antipater of Idumea, with the High Priest, Hyrcanus II’s blessing, had led 3000 Jewish troops to Egypt to help Julius Caesar.

How about:

• "Xerxes II succeeded Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) in 424."
• "In 50 B.C. the Senate, led by Pompey, ordered Caesar to return to Rome from Gaul, where he was fighting in the Gallic Wars, and disband his army because his term as proconsul had ended." (It's rational, if a bit complex. Maybe it could be split?)
• "While Caesar was in Egypt fighting the Ptolemaic forces, Antipater of Idumea, with the blessing of the High Priest Hyrcanus II, had led 3000 Jewish troops to Egypt to help him." (I'm not sure whether this is considerably better. History articles tend to read like... well, history articles.) SirWoland 06:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't need our opinion at all. You are completly free to improve the articles as you wish. Usually, if it is a genuine improvement noone will oppose it, if it is not, someone will revert it. Remember always: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. And: Be bold! Flamarande 08:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous of Britain

"In York and Norfolk, here the Germanic male sex chromosome occurs in about 60% of men, with indigenous Y chromosomes comprising about 40%" (<--from English people)

By "indigenous," does that refer to the Celts? -Rainsey 02:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• It would. There were people living on the island before the Celts arrived, but I don't think we know much about them. The neolithic peoples were probably not the Celts, so people treat the Celts as the most "indigenous" that they know of, I suppose. The word should, however, probably be changed, as it implies something that can't really be substantiated. Geogre 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If Celts are not Germans and talking about indy genes refers to anything unknown, a statement would be "with Celts and other unknown, called indigenous, Y ..." --DLL 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether the Celts are Germanic or not is yet another question. It kind of depends on what you mean by "Germanic" and how strenuously you want to enforce it and, most particularly, when you want to define it. So far as I can tell, most reference works will use "Germanic" to refer to the peoples living in Germania at the time of the first written historical record of them (approximately 150-200 BC). Those people displaced the Celts as they rushed into "Germany," and the Celts moved to the west. Whether the Celts had come from Germania in any more lasting sense is something that I, at least, do not know, and I have not heard any good, agreed upon, explanation of who had been in the British Isles prior to their arrival, although the Stone Henge culture certainly was there. Had those people, whoever they were, also come from Germania? Had they come from the Urals? Had they come from Spain? Had they just spontaneously generated there? There aren't literate people talking about them at the time, whoever they were, and their material culture is difficult to track. Geogre 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why couldn't "indigenous" refer to the Iberians? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if we know that they're the megalith builders of Britain. I didn't know we knew that. Again, I don't know archeology very well, but I would have assumed that the article meant the Celts. It needs a clarification in any case, because people like me would be confused and think "Celt." (Are there many remains other than the megaliths in the British Isles that can link these people definitively with the Iberians? E.g. the red ochre tombs were, I thought, rather unique, and the funeral barrows were unusual.) Geogre 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are the different places that "they" believe the people came from who were before the Celts? Personally I think it was the Celts that were there when Stone Henge was made-- we hear nothing of people there before Germanic (Nordic, really, since "Germans" came from Norway/Sweden) tribes invaded. I know I may be wrong-- are there any proofs that point to there being another people in Britain before the Celts? What "proof," or evidence rather, points to the Celts being their (and essentially staying there)?

I know we all know that "Germans" as they are now known today came from Norway/Sweden/Denmark, but--wait, the Celts could be Germanic? ^_^ Interesting. --Rainsey 22:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Pantheism,Creation, and Evolution

I have three questions to ask you about pantheism,creation, and evolution:

1.Before the Theory of Evolution was invented, how did most pantheists believe the universe, including the earth,life, and people, came into existence?

2.What do pantheists usually think about the Theory of Evolution and all the evidence for evolution?Are they for it or against it?If they think nature is God, then what do they think about the fact that it is constantly changing and evolving?

3.What do pantheists usually think about creation and Intelligent Design?What do they think about the 'evidences' and arguments for them such as irreducible complexity,specified complexity,fine-tuned universe,the teleological argument, and the cosmological argument?Are those arguments effective to them?

220.245.178.141 05:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pantheism is perfectly compatible with evolution. Divinity is reflected in everything - i.e., what we usually call "nature". As such, the laws of nature - whether referred to as such, known only as well-supported theories, or still undiscovered by humans - govern our existence in exactly the same way as Christians presumably believe God does. Those laws include the "theory of evolution". Pantheism and intelligent design can also co-exist perfectly well, since the divinity of nature is the thing which is responsible ultimately for evolution. As such, the diversity of animal life is caused by an evolution designed to achieve such a diversity. As to whether that evolution itself is divine, no, it is the simplest and most well-suited method for and solution to the creation of such diversity. Arguments of irreducible complexit], specified complexity, fine-tuned universe, teleology, and cosmology are all null-cases that have no bearing on evolution (indeed they don't have any bearing on it from a scientific or Christian viewpoint either, since none of them hold any water). Grutness...wha? 08:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What self repspecting terrorist would send money through banks controlled by the evil Zionist conspiracy?

This is NOT a political discussion.
Dont radical muslims think that all the world's banks are controlled by the evil Jews? Why would they send money through them? If I was a terrorist, it seems pretty straightforward to me. Don't send money through the Jews who are trying to destroy you and sending all the banking records to Evil America.
Frankly, all this bitching on both sides doesn't make sense to me. You'd have to be stupid a moron to send your money this way, and if you're a moron you're probably not much of a threat. --mboverload@ 05:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Who said they were? First of all, right after 9/11 people were talking about the hawala banking system. Second, lightning doesn't strike the same place twice. Hence, I don't really think another 9/11 type of attack could happen in the United States.--71.107.200.35 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A newspaper, New York Times, recently outed the program that spies on millions of bank transfers of people from every country on earth. The republicans want to file treason charges against the people who exposed the information, and the journalists who wrote about it. --mboverload@ 05:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked a Socratic question. This program is something that people knew about before the NY Times publication. Today, Charles Schumer said on Meet the Press that the SWIFT program was hinted at in the 9/11 Commission Report; plus he and others senators knew about it all along.71.107.200.35 05:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I just assumed the program was in place after I discovered that all my web traffic goes through one of the NSA rooms (sorry, can't find the guide they have/had on wired.com). --mboverload@ 06:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we getting Al Quaieda and the Nazis confused again? the nazis hate jews, and think there taking over the world, the muslims just think they're nicking their land, and should be kicked off, and the america is helping them, so should also get a good kicking. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll just abstain from answering this moronic question. Loomis 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do, but next time, dont pot a pathetic, inflammatory response, because you did answer it, and now you look like the moron. But that fact is you are mixing sterotypes of two very different, yet extremist cultures. THe foundation of this question is weak. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did consider that the question was tongue-in-cheek, but it would have helped had the questioner used a few simple "quotations marks" when mentioning a "Self-Respecting Terrorist" or "Evil Zionist Conspiracy" to better display that fact. Yet the question was phrased in far too ambiguous a fashion. But please, Phil, don't try to "educate" me about the "sterotypes of two very different, yet extremist cultures". First, I don't really get why you use the term "stereotype". A "stereotype" is an unfounded generalization about an entire group. For example, to say that it would be a "stereotype" to assume that a nazi or a radical muslim was an anti-semite, would be to give far too much credit to these groups. ALL nazis and ALL radical muslims are, BY DEFINITION, anti-semitic. The use of the term "stereotype" actually gives these groups undue respect. Were you better informed about the anti-semitic propaganda spouted in the middle-east, you'd be aware that the the entire idea of an "Evil Zionist Conspiracy" is more than simply a neo-nazi invention, but rather is ALIVE AND WELL in much of the Arab world.

My apologies to the original questioner for being so harsh as to call his/her question "moronic", yet I still believe it was very badly phrased, if it was indeed meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek in the first place. As for you, Phil, I have no apology, only a request. Please better educate yourself concerning anti-semitism in the Arab world before trying to "educate" ME on the subject. Loomis 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazis are not by definition anti-semitic. Nazis are by definition supporters of the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Which gained support of many grounds other than anti-semitism, including, hard stance on communism, improving structure of germany, and the villification of the Dolchstoßlegende, hence their name (in german its pretty mean). You stated that stereotypes are unfounded, this is not true, its not a coincidence that stereotypical Italians are pizza-pie-a chefs, and like pasta, and have an italian accent, these are all things from italy! Basically there is a foundation, however it is true to say it is an unfair generalization.

Saying all radical muslims are anti-semitic, now thats just rude. That is a generalization. They can go extreme on different things you know, for example the taliban, beat women, hung people, tortured people, banned western culturisms, banned music, but I'm not aware that they had a particular issue with jews. Are you saying they're not extremist.

But anyway my point wasn't that no extremist muslims are anti-semitic, my point was it was different anti-semitism, while the Nazis saw them as money laundering, stealing, power hungry, world domination plotters, the muslim dislike of jews is far more religion based and/or, anger at the acquisition of muslim lands to make isreal.

And now after typing all this, I realised you were reffering to the original question, and not my reply, when you posted!! I apologize for any inconvenience, and/or offence, just as you did. I dont want to be troublesome, though I often am! ;-) --Philc _T^E_C^I 01:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

English in the Netherlands.

How many people speak English in the Netherlands, and how well? Would I be able to get by and not appear idiotic for not speaking Dutch or German? Are there any web-pages intended for English-speakers heading to the Netherlands?

Most people in the Netherlands speak English reasonably well, so there should be no problem; I know several foreigners who have lived here for years without really learning Dutch. But it would be nice if you'd try to master at least a few short Dutch phrases, like "Spreekt u Engels?"^[12] ("Do you speak English?"), because if you just expect everyone to address you in your own language that might make a somewhat arrogant impression. David Sneek 06:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am almost positive that English is the required second language. I know they require all students to be bilingual from a very young age, but I'm not sure what languages they have to choose from. You'd be surprised about the number of countries where English as a second language is just the standard. --mboverload@ 06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, English is the current language of choice for publishing scientific papers, and for business in many parts of the world. Having English language requirements in most countries isn't too farfetched. --ColourBurst 06:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• English, German and French are the most common foreign languages Dutch students can choose. Less common languages, I think includes Spanish and Turkish. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am Flemish, so I live in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium bordering the Netherlands, but I do a couple a things about that country. Yes, they speak English very well, and the Dutch people I know were taught English as a second language. I think they can choose for a third language between French and German. So I don't think that lack of German knowledge is of that relevance, it is not their second language. In Belgium, because we have such a nice bilingual country, we are taught French (not English!) as a second language, and English is the third, but in practice (because of the overwhelming amount of English television shows, movies and internet sites) my English has become much much better. So in short : you will do fine. But that was a very hint by mboverload to learn a few dutch sentences. Or at least asking people whether or not they speak English, they mostly will but yes, it shows that you don't simply expect them. And don't speak incredibly fast, when listening to Americans or British that is usually my biggest problem.

It would be almost impossible to learn Dutch in the Netherlands. If you're a native English speaker, as soon as you open your mouth, people will hear that and start speaking English to you. Only if you come very well prepared, so much that there is little difference between speaking the two languages, might you convince some to speak Dutch with you. By the way, the main reason the Dutch speak English so well is that movies on tv are subtitled. Since most films are in English, we're regularly exposed to English from early childhood. DirkvdM 18:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Time cause of motion?

Hi everyone,

Here is my question: can time be considered as the cause of motion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.125.120.193 (talk • contribs)

Yes. I'll leave it to the philosophers and scientists to elaborate, but see cause.--Shantavira 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophers have said before that it's the other way around: because things move, we have to have before/after (time). Geogre 13:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

According to general relativity, curvature of spacetime is a cause of acceleration. Conscious 13:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Without time, nothing could move. On the other hand, if nothing moved, we could have no sense or measurment of time. On the other hand, as above, relativity does say that time and space (as one) are the basic constituants of the universe itself. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The old joke about the difficulty of axiomatic questions is, "Time really does not matter, and as for matter, who has the time?" Geogre 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yellow River Concerto.

I seem to remember back in the 1960s that the local Classical Music Stations would play some music where the announcements would name the piece as the "Yellow River Concerto, written by a collective (of some group or other, can't remember). The main thrust of the announcement seemed to be that the work was a collective, and not the work of one composer. No name was mentioned.

Thinking about this recently, I checked "Yellow River Concerto" on Wikipedia, and Lo! There it was, complete with the name of the arranger, as well as the name of the composer of the original work. No hint that it was composed as a collaboration.

From my memory, this was the only work I ever heard that specifically did NOT have any names attached (other than the famous A Nonymus), and stressed the fact that it was a collective work.

Not having heard it recently, I wondered if it were originally "peddled" as a collective work, and maybe recently the name was attached, or if my memory about this is faulty. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks for any help. Bunthorne 07:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ehm, Yellow River, so you're talking about China, right? DirkvdM 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The announcements made it clear that it was a composition from a communist Chinese collective. Bunthorne 04:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. You should have made that a little clearer, though, since there are lots of people from the US who talk on the Internet (an international medium) about stuff from the US without making that clear, which can be rahter confusing. :) DirkvdM 04:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

UK Conservative Party

Is the Conservative Party considered a Christian Democratic party? I realize that it has its own history distinct from continental politics, but has it more or less evolved towards a Christian Democratic ideology? Bhumiya (said/done) 08:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no mention of Britain in this section. Personally I don't recognise much of British Conservative policies in the article's definition of what constitutes Christian democracy. --Richardrj 12:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In the European parliament the British conservatives form a party group with continental Christian Democrats (See), but David Cameron has announced that this alliance will end. David Sneek 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The anti-European wing of the Conservative Party, which is now the majority, hate being allied with the Christian Democrats, who they see as being corporatist. Jameswilson 22:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC) No, conservatives were not formed based on the theory of christian democracy. Conservatives tend to be religious than christian democrates. That being said, Conservative party is the basic center right party as is christian democrate party.

Berengar

Is Berengar a Frankish, Gothic or Burgundian name? Is it any one of these three? Lord Loxley 09:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Frankish? Although the use of it by the Counts of Barcelona would make it Catalan. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see it mostly in use for the Northwest Mediterranean during those times. I do in fact believe it to be Frankish, simply because it was common during the Carolingian Renaissance. Lord Loxley 07:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrian attitude to alcohol

Do most modern Zoroastrians imbibe? I was unable to find any mention of this on our Zoroastrianism article. Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 10:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Poor Bhumiya, nobody seems to care to respond to your question! (NOT to be taken sarcastically! I mean it!). Unfortunately I'm extremely unfamiliar with Zoroastrianism, so I too can't offer much of an answer. I'm only writing because I'm wondering if the way you phrased your question actually reflects your actual inquiry. I'm assuming that you're question is regarding the Zoroastrian religious position regarding the consumption of alcohol, and/or whether modern Zoroastrians in fact follow any possible prohibition. Yet, read literally, your question seems to be a simple inquiry as to whether Zoroastrians, in practice, tend to drink. There are many people who don't drink for purely non-religious reasons. For example, alcohol is permitted in Christianity, yet many temperance movements began in predominantly Christian societies. Similarly, the consumption of alcohol is perfectly acceptable in Judaism, yet Jews are not known for being heavy drinkers. By contrast, alcohol is forbidden in Islam, but many non-religious Muslims drink all the same (not to say that non-religious Muslims are known to be heavy drinkers, simply that they don't strictly adhere to all of the rules of Islam, just as many Jews simply can't resist the allure of bacon!)

So is your question about the Zoroastrian religious position on the consumption of alcohol? Is it about the attitudes of modern Zoroastrians concerning alcohol (regardless of the position of their faith)? Or should it be taken literally, namely: Regardless of their religious precepts, do modern Zoroastrians tend to be drinkers? Hope this sparks some interesting debate! Loomis 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was only wondering if they tend to drink, not whether they're supposed to drink. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Theories on Aryan race?

Could it be that the Roma people and Aryans are supposed to derive from the same source and that this is the issue with those Indo-Aryanists? Who would have thought that scientific racism would promote the scoundrels of their society as eugenically sound, after all the Gypsies had been through. Who would have thought that Gypsies were a general European people, when always on the outskirts of European acceptance? Maybe the racists couldn't account for hidden Romas in their own blood; couldn't take a chance. All I know is that this is theoretical and nothing solid; wishful thinking. In all the history of the world, when has India been natively associated with Europe? Indo-Europeanism is a racist concoction to support the imperialism for tea and textiles, with no basis before the idea was published--only Alexander the Great and Greco-Buddhism (blown out of proportion, both of them) seem to have had truthful associations with India. When has Hinduism been European?--since the British Empire. In the words of J.R.R. Tolkien:

• I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by 'arisch'. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. ... But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.... I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.
  • One of two draft letters (25 July 1938) written for Stanley Unwin to select as a response to his German publishers inquiry about his ancestry.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien

I have to agree with consensus about Basques being the focal point of European genetic relations. I do not like the Aryanist idea that the source of Europeans is India; that seems like exaggerating the separate roles of Alexandrian and European colonial conquests. It also forgets that Gypsies aren't Europe's favourite ethnic group in the slightest. Tolkien, like myself, find Mediterranean peoples to have most association with Europe--the Indian Ocean is like light-years away (except Tigris-Euphrates and Persian Gulf) in things to do with Europe. Who here would dispute ancient ancestors in the Mediterranean, but support the Indus and Ganges Rivers instead? As Tolkien put it, he regrets to not know of any Jewish blood in him. European culture has always been Mediterranean by choice, although that hasn't stopped Asiatic hordes from destroying Europe (the East of it, especially). Whatever the grounds of "Indo-European" there are, the Indian subcontinent is not European--unlike the Basques, whom we all can trace significant genetic relations with. Europeans are Atlantic...

BTW...I see no specific dispute with Persian connections to Europe, however exotic they have been. Europe like the Middle East and Africa (Japheth, Shem and Ham like Christ, Moses and Muhammad), have a monotheistic root in Abrahamic religion. Those neo-Nazis who claim that Hinduism and Germanic paganism have more in common than Germanic paganism and Roman paganism (how does a European find Romans to be inferior Europeans [reverse prejudice about barbarians?], but then go bananas about India?), must be off their rockers. What's wrong with Jews, but everything right about Roma? Get real, people!

Lord Loxley 12:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear user Lord Loxley; after reading your furious ravings in a most careful fashion I have to ask you if there is any real question you want to make here. You also seem to have mixed up several issues which are not really connected with each other. In a most honest fashion I have to tell you that I don't know much about the issue: "Indo-Aryan culture/race". However here and there (no, I don't have any hard facts), I read that during classical antiquity many writers remarked that several words were quite similar between various languages. Like Pater (latin) and Vater (German). According to linguistists this has been studied and largely confirmed. I also know of a theory that Europe was basicly isolated from Africa and Asia because of the Urals and the mountains in Turkey during an Ice Age . It has been argued that this isolation has lead to the development of the Neanderthals, which seem to have only appeared in Europe, and were particularly adapted to a colder climate. After the Ice Age had passed (more or less 30'000 years ago), the modern Cro Magnon supposedly slowly migrated into Europe and the Neanderthal vanished under misterious circunstances. The Cro-Magnon would according to this theory come from a yet unindetified homeland and basicly share the ancestors of the modern Hindu culture/race.

• First, the Roma people (aka Gypsies) came much more recently from India and entered into Europe during the early Middle Ages (or late antiquity I am not sure). During the WWII they were classified as Untermenschen by the Nazi regime and put along the Jews and Homosexuals (something which only appears sparingly in modern Hollywood movies) into concentration camps. The Nazi racial theories were not logical and in fact didn't agree with themselves. To make them really simple: tall, blond, blue eyes = superior race. But if you belonged for example to a enemy country/ppl then you were considered racially inferior regardless of that. Like the Poles and the Russians, but unlike the Norwegians. The Nazis somehow could mix race with country/ppl in a fashion which defies any sense of logic.
• To quote Tolkien, which was a linguistic, in a racial question, is...quite unwise of you. With all due respect to him, he didn't have the resources and knowledge available to modern geneticists.

And by the way, at the beginning of WWII black Americans and Japanese were widely disregarded as fighter pilots because the first was supposed to be "unable to see in the dark" and the second was supposed to have "a bad range perception because his eyes". All these views were regarded as scienctificly proven by several western medical universities. "We" were living amidsts racial segregation and these views were regarded quite natural and as "proven by science". But Pearl Harbor and the black american fighter squadron (whose name eludes me) has proven that these views were simply wrong (so much for the worth of western academia).

• The Basques are genetically and linguistically one of the strangest ppl in Europe. Their language is unrelated to all others and they seem to be geneticaly distinct. Now the real question is: are they descended from a earlier migration (race)? Or might they be a bit inbreed?
• The worth of genetic markers seems to be answer to everything these days, something which I take with a bit of salt. I do not dispute that vast majority of tests are useful and I accept their validity. But it seems to me that certain scientist are exagerating everything and grasping at straws. For example a statement like: the majority of Europeans descend of 9 female ancestors seems (to me at last) a bit dubious.
• Your point about religion is completly wrong. The original religions in Europe were not Abrahamic, they seem to have been of polytheist tradition. The Jewish and the Christian religions were slowly adopted by Europe dusing the Roman Empire and certainly not before. Central, Eastern, and Northern Europe were even converted during the Middle Ages. Flamarande 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But how would social scientists still promote this error that the Indus and Ganges are more relevant to Europe than the Tigris and Euphrates? In fact, this is the mainstay of anti-Semitic secularists. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure of the Meditteranean mixture which defines much of the Caucasian peoples. The same cannot be verifiably said for relations with Asia, since we only know from antiquity that the Arabians and North Africans have been prehistorically related to Europeans. What aspects of the Dharmic religions are part of the West and what real links would they have had with European paganism, as opposed to European paganism dealing with Babylonian gods? Just think of the agricultural connections between Europe and the Arabian Peninsula; nothing of this scale is comparable when discussing Europe-Subcontinent issues. In fact, it is only recent intellectualism that would have us associate and classify the way the Nazis did. This socialogical perception was all formed in the 19th century and expressed most perceptively at the peak of Imperialism in Asia and rise of Darwinism. Woe betide the elder status of Europeans and our traditional ties with Jewish economists and Moslem theocracies; we must also cast aside Christianity in favour of making false links with the Hindus and Buddhists. What are we coming to? Your presentation appears to march right in step with the secularists, who support some sort of nativist approach towards religion and the conversion of ancient pagans to the precepts of Jesus Christ. I'm sorry, but I am Christian and praise the Carolingians for what they did. I have no special interest in returning to pre-Christian barbarisms. Whatever the sentiments may have been when Nero was in power have shifted to Constantine...so let it be. When did ancient pagans in Europe (like the Hellenic Greeks) relate with the Indian subcontinent, as opposed to the Levant? The Romans didn't call it Mare Nostrum for nothing! Lord Loxley 14:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh brother. I know that Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates is far more relevant for the history of Europe (western civilization), than the Indus and the Ganges and I believe that the vast majority of modern scienctists defend that view. But there seem to have been also some relations with the Far East, read for for example the Swastika. As for your religious questions I must point out that the ancient druids (of which we know far too little) appear to have believed in reincarnation.

The Swastika is like grasping at straws; a subtle, yet new interest in academia since the aforementioned imperialist excursions in India, whether by Alexander or the Colonists. Lord Loxley 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Arabian peninsula has no great tradition of agriculture; is way too hot. They had/have rather a nomadic culture based upon the herds of sheep, etc. I think you meant the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. I quite agree with you there, however the Celts and the Germanic tribes are clearly a distinct culture which appears to have had only sporadic contact with Ancient Egypt.

• • Yes, but relations between Europeans and Levantine or African nations is too great to be supplanted by Asiatic lobbies, which have only influenced Europe so long as they have conquered the lands between the Black and Baltic seas. Lord Loxley 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nobody is diputing that Christianity is THE most important cultural basis of Western civilization. I (and I think most of the Westerners) rather like Christianity. But "like" does not mean "blindly believe", and denying the fact that it was originaly "adopted" (Europe was converted) is not the right way to go. And hardline preachers of every religion scare me.

• • I'm just offended by those among us who hate the three religions of Abraham, but would rather concoct some elaborate and inventive association with the Orient--especially "Northeast Asians" and supplant our native institutions with pseudoscience. Lord Loxley 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to believe that Christianity is under heavy attack from all sides. I rather think that many self-rightous Christians are doing a splendid job in antagonizing rational ppl everywhere with all their whyinning and their radical preaching. Flamarande 18:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• • It's not just Christianity (also Judaism and Islam), but we Christians have endured persecution before and will have to adjust to it again. Lord Loxley 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lord Loxley, your question seems to be requesting evidence of correlations between the roman religions and indian religions such as hinduism. In that case, I'd suggest looking at the article on Proto-Indo-European religion. It describes the aspects of a theorized ancient religion put together by archeologists, linguists, and cultural anthropologists. This religion is where all indo-european religions came from, including the celtic, roman, and greek pagan religions as well as hinduism, jainism, and zoroastrianism. If that isn't your question, please clarify what it is....I may be able to answer it.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is, I believe that those "facts" are actually theories written and motivated by globalists and secularists whom originally stood for scientific racism, colonial Darwinism and the negation of Christian relations with the Islamic and Jewish (Hamito-Semitic, "Afro-Asiatic") worlds except in matters of superiority. Those who believe they are Arya, find the "Semiticization" of Europe to have been done by the "Jew known as Jesus Christ" (who was Adonis?). I am not apprehencive of Middle Eastern genetic or otherwise influence in my blood or whatnot; I do not have wishful thinking about the (foreign) caste system as it applies to me in relations to others. I do not embrace the heartland of those who violated the heart and soul, the women and children of Europe throughout the ages. I do not salute their memory, but look with admiration to those brave heroes who had the "stiff upper lip" and defended the West from destruction. Let the civilised and not the barbaric prevail. Who could prove that Mediterranean culture is not the core of Europe, as it is for the Middle East and some parts of Africa? Should I throw away my respect for Hannibal of Carthage and Saladin, in exchange for obscure Indians? Should I negate the History of the alphabet in the Hamito-Semitic world, in exchange for the Vedas? I don't think so. What Wikipedia says about the origins of European culture are wrong or at least, in conflictive statements. Lord Loxley 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pilgrimage

DOes Sikhs have their own pilgrimage?

Yes, in the article on Sikhism several sacred places and shrines are mentioned. David Sneek 19:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Macbeth

What is the origin of the 3 weird sisters in Macbeth?

The Weird Sisters? David Sneek 19:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

(Their three weird mamas and weirder daddies?) Geogre 03:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Their orgigin is never made claim. Even regarding the nature,or even existance of their powers can be questions. Off hand I would say they are probally pagans of saxon origin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.12 (talk • contribs)

Dude - if they're really sisters, then they probably just had one wierd mama and one wierd daddy. Unless they're half sisters or something.

Doesn't "weird" mean "doom" in Scots? --Kjoonlee 06:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Gross Income Tax

What year was the New Jersey Gross Income Tax first collected?------

I don't know -- what year was the New Jersey Gross Income Tax first collected? 82.131.187.36 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

False Claims Act

If a former US government employee lies about a subject in which he or she has a personal interest, meaning that he or she may be liable if the negation of their lie becomes known to people who may have been injured by his or her neglegence, and a third party witnesses the lie, then what is the form of the Federal False Claims Act pleading which must be filed to initiate the lawsuit? 71.135.240.182 22:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I have already looked at Pleading, Complaint, Cause of action, Remedy, Injunction, Petition, and Service of process. What I would like to see is an example of a pleading where someone else did this in the past, and succeeded.

I would also like to see the example of a Remedy request from somone who has very little interest in a matter, other than as a witness. For example, how is the right way to claim, "If I report and stop this crime, then my life will be better because crime is deterred, and therefore I have standing to file this claim." How does that get put in legal pleadings? 71.135.240.182 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By the loss? "If I do not report this crime, then my life would get worse; therefore I have standing?" -- probably important to show "would get worse" as strictly opposed to "might get worse". AnAccount2 23:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the neglegence a lasting harm? If so, explain how; if not, you may not have standing since you said "former" employer. See if your public library as an "Annotated US Code" and look up the false claims act in there. You can find supreme court and appeals court decisions, which usually include the attorney names. Then you can ask an attorney whether you have standing; if you can convince the attorney that you have enough standing to make the case worth the attorney's time, then you only need to swear to an affadavit, and assist the attorney in the preparation of a case. AnAccount2 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Flutes

How long is a flute exactly?

There are many different kinds of Flute. Is it a particular type you have in mind? Road Wizard 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A normal concert flute.

Perhaps they vary. AnAccount2 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The length determines the pitch it sounds when all the holes are closed. The lowest note of the Western concert flute is middle C, so it's about 67 cm long. —Keenan Pepper 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You can calculate that by dividing the speed of sound in air (about 340 m/s, depending on temperature) by the pitch of middle C (262 Hz), and dividing by two because the flute is closed at one end (so the wave goes to the end and back again, roughly speaking). Haha, you thought this was a humanities question. =P —Keenan Pepper 01:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Sorry to nitpick, but the reason you divide by two is not because a flute is a closed pipe, but actually because it's an open one. It's open at both ends because the mouth hole is large enough and not completely covered when blown across. The reason you divide by two is that the period of 262Hz includes both the crest and trough of the standing wave. This means there's three nodes and two anti-nodes for the wave of this pitch. The flute, at full length will vibrate half of this wave (two nodes and an anti-node) while making the pitch for the entire wave. Thus you divide by two. This is significant because if it were a clarinet you would need to divide by four. The property you mentioned is why a claranet is about as long as a flute but makes a much lower lowest note. In the case of the oboe in the next question you roughly divide by two because and oboe has a conical shape which allows the sound to spread out and become influenced to a greater degree by the atmospheric pressure. So for the flute and other cylindrical instruments you can imagine a sinusoidal waves, but for conical instruments the wave basically peters out at the end of it. So an oboe or saxophone that is roughly as long as a flute will have the same lowest pitch (but for different reasons), but a claranet of the same lenght will have a lowest pitch an octave lower than the lowest pitch of the other instruments. -LambaJan 04:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

July 4

Oboe

What is the length of an oboe? Also, what fingering system does it use? --203.20.208.10 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

about 62 cm. There are several fingering systems for the oboe, the most common are the English and the conservatoire. Much of this is covered in the oboe article. - Nunh-huh 07:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Prices in Mexico

I just heard on National Public Radio that Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador tried to appeal to the 50% of Mexicans making less than $5/day.

This makes it seem that everybody is pass out left and right on the streets due to lack of food and housing. But my gumption tells me to take other facts into account since the cost of living is much lower in Mexico, too. Perhaps, one can buy a 1-lb cake for 20¢ or roasted chicken for 30¢. Moreover, Carlos Slim is Mexican so not everyone is dying.

Can someone who has lived in Mexico City or another major city there tell me in U.S. dollars the monthly rent for a small one bedroom apartment with one shower for a Mexican in 2006 – I say this because someone who doesn't speak Spanish is likely to get swindled?--Patchouli 01:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In Mexico city, the rents are not that much lower than a U.S. city, but we have to remember that a large portion of Mexico is rural. My inlaws have a small house in the rural area they grew up in and I imagine it did not cost more than $20,000. Maybe this [13] or this [14] will help. Nowimnthing 03:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--Patchouli 05:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mexico has a relatively high gdp with 7,298 USD per person per year. Just not in comparison with rich western countries. Myanmar has only 97 USD/person*year. For a complerte list see List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. For some explanations for these low values see Gdp#Criticisms. DirkvdM 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook list the GDP per capita for Mexico as $10,000 and Myanmar as $1700, using the Purchasing Power Parity system (PPP), which attempts to compensate for differences in prices. StuRat 02:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked with my inlaws and they paid about $4000 in 1984 for a two bedroom house in rural Zacatecas (about 3 hours outside of Guadalajara). Nowimnthing 16:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle

Why are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle the most famous philosophers from their time period? Learning about them in Humanities makes it seem as if no others existed. -Reynolds

Well, mostly because they are the best known, and most regularly still followed. This doesn't neccisarily mean they are better than any other philosophers, but there's always going to be someone who is the most famous in any field. Another thing to consider is that when it comes to writings of ancient times, we really don't have a lot remaining. On the other hand, we have books upon books of writing by Plato (and about Socrates, don't have anything directly by him). There are many other ancient philosophers who were also quite influential, but we just don't have much by them, such as Xenophanes, some of the atomists, etc. It's kind of the same reason that nearly all our ancient philosophy comes from Greece and the surrounding areas - not that there weren't any philosophers in, say, Africa, but we have none of their writing, so have no idea what they did. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And the ideas those specific philosophers came up with have been enormously influential since. For instance, Aristotle's ideas on logic are still used today, pretty much as they were written. And Plato's allegory of the cave (to take only one part of his contribution to philosophy) has been a topic of endless fascination since it was written - heck, The Matrix was essentially about that very topic. --Robert Merkel 06:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the case of Plato some of his works have significant artistic value independent of their philosophical ideas. This is not true of Aristotle; it seems most of what we have of his was not meant to be formally published and so is a bit uncouth. --George 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Accidental Death

What is the punishment for accidentally murdering someone? Such as at a work place where heavy equipment is involved. There would be no ill-will towards the victim and it would be all accidental. Could you put someone in jail for that? --4.154.57.24 04:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that person would go to jail for manslaughter. Mo-Al 04:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the nature, was the person causing the accident considered criminally negligent or reckless.

Crime depends not only on actually doing it, but also the will to do it or knowing that there is the chance it could happen, which is negligent manslaughter I guess. If there was no way at all to know, he would not be guilty of a crime and should not be under any "free" system. --mboverload@ 07:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys missed the obvious question: In which country? DirkvdM 10:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

and you also missed the obvious flaw - there is no such thing as "accidental murder'. Accidental killing, yes, but that's not murder. Many (most? all?) countries have varieties of charges such as "manslaughter" and "reckless conduct resulting in death" which cover such circumstances. Grutness...wha? 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be made clear at this point that in modern secular legal systems, there is no punishment for any act unless there is a mens rea. Some traditional views of sin, however, include unintentional acts.--Pharos 10:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Murder, Degree 1 - Predmeditated, you actually planned on killing someone

Murder, Degree 2 - Unplanned, but in the act of a crime, example being killing someobody in an armed robbery

Murder, Degree 3 - Entirely unintentional, such as your incident

Political Mind 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Homicide in an act of robbery is a first degree murder, because bringing lethal weapon to commit crime already demonstrates deadly intention. In some countries, carrying firearms during robbery is punishable by death, even if the weapon is not used. --Vsion 08:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially in a workplace or when operating equipment, the workers and the company are required to take reasonable safety measure to avoid harm to others. See Criminal negligence and negligent homicide. --Vsion 08:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunni versus Shitte

What are the fundamental differences between the Sunni and Shitte branches of Islam that serve as the basis of conflict that justifies (or is used to justify) the killing members of the opposite branch? ...IMHO (Talk) 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• The top one is with respect to Imam Ali. This guy is the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad. Shia Muslims say that he was the true caliph (ruler) that succeeded Muhammad while Sunnis claim Muhammad's successor was Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was a father-in-law of Muhammad. See Shia view of Abu Bakr

As a small note, it's Shi'ite, not Shitte. --ColourBurst 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Sufi dervishes virtually deify Ali. The first name of the Iranian Supreme Leader is Ali, too. However, dervishes don't get along with mullahs and there are no dervishes in politics in the Islamic Republic of Iran.--Patchouli 05:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a chart, tree or table that shows the historical relationships of all these various groups from their points of beginning or their origins or points of diversion or separation? ...IMHO (Talk) 06:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Shia and Sunni split was after Muhammad's death. I don't know about Sufis and Wahabbis. There could other sects as well. I don't know about them or the existence of a flowchart in Wikipedia or elsewhere.Patchouli 06:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_sects.--Patchouli 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--Patchouli 06:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Knock yourself out with Islam <grin>.Patchouli 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do you see the Maliki and Jafari sects? These are the last names of the current and preceding Iraqi prime ministers, but I doubt that their last names has any direct relationship to these sub-sects.Patchouli 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of monarchies. Monarchies based on religious heritage rather than secular heritage. Middle age stuff. Modern education sounds like the solution. ...IMHO (Talk) 18:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Afterlife in Islam

Do Muslims believe that everybody who dies goes to either Heaven or Hell?60.241.147.187 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I can't remember what their ideas on afterlife are, but I do remember that Hell in particular and Heaven to some extend are mainly Christian beliefs that do not apply to Muslims. Also, Islam has multiple denominations as the previous question shows. So it's quite possible not all Muslims think the same about the matter. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Also try Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Afterlife_in_Islam where a similar question was asked earlier. Aparently Muslims belief in Paradise instead of Heaven. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

homosexual and Confucianism

I had searched for my report here in Wikipedia since I always searched here for information that is accurate for me, but when I came up with homosexual with the religion i was confuse why does my classmate, a Taiwanese, said that Confucianism is not favorable in homosexual but Wikipedia stated that it is allowed homosexual sex with the precondition of procreation? I'm so disapointed when my classmate said that i have wrong source which is the Wikipedia. And now, may you please inform me if this information about the homosexual regrading with Confucianism is rigth? I'm not a Confucianist that's why i dont know what to answer in my classmate's act.

Thank you for giving time to discuss about this issue...

• I don't know whether the Analects of Confucius say anything regarding homosexuality. But the Christian Bible says the following on male homosexuality.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus, Chapter 20, Verse 13) [15]

However, the Bible is totally silent on female homosexuality, that is, lesbianism. Does this means the Biblical patriarchs condoned it? They condemn every unthinkable sexual quirkiness yet not this.--08:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, okay. Why even bring the Bible into this? The questioner didn't even hint at Christianity. Do you have an agenda that you're trying to push? Dismas|^(talk) 10:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I suppose the relevant articles are Homosexuality in China and homosexuality and Confucianism. However, not everything on the Wikipedia is correct. You might try some of the resources linked from those articles to see if they help to clarify things. If that fails, consult some of the books mentioned, for instance on the Confucianism article.

Unfortunately (for your purposes in trying to get an answer to your question), Confucianism is not a centralised religious organization like the Catholic church, so you can't just go and get a definitive answer from a priest. --Robert Merkel 08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Dismas here. Why is the Bible being brought up? To my knowledge, the Bible is completely alien to Confucianism and is of no help in answering the question. I suppose I should check out the Wiki article, as the concept that Confucianism allows homosexual sex, so long as there's the precondition of procreation doesn't seem to make any sense at all. I think I'll go over to the article and see what it's in fact saying (hopefully, it makes more sense than that!) Loomis 01:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's a lot clearer now. It would seem (according to the article) that homosexuality, (among males at least...the article says nothing of lesbianism,) for the most part, is acceptable according to Confucianism, so long as one fulfills his duty to "be fruitful and multiply" (to borrow a biblical phrase). In other words, so long as a Confucianist involves himself in a heterosexual, procreative relationship, homosexual realtions are "ok". (Unfortunately, though, the article is filled with caveats and ambiguities, meaning that the "ultimate" position is far from clear). Hope that helps! Loomis 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Polygamy

Why is polygamy illegal in so many places? Besides the religious angle, where's the harm? Dismas|^(talk) 07:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• The harm is that in the real life — not motion pictures — every man is not an aristocrat who can really provide subsistence for several women and their respective children. This means that many children end up with irresponsible fathers who want to kick their children out as soon as possible. In addition, if anything happens to the run-of-the-mill father, then the mothers and dozen kids will have to show up at the local welfare office or quarrel with their respective relatives that can result from a prolonged stay at the relatives' homes.

It also creates a Cinderella dream in the minds of young children that is a recipe for destitution and a contorted lifestyle in the vast majority of cases. You got my take.--Patchouli 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're making a lot of assumptions.

1. It will be one man, several women, and dozens of kids.
2. Many men who would enter into this are inherently no good dead beats.
3. The family would rely solely on the man's income for their entire family.

If the families acknowledge that one or more of the money makers can loose their jobs etc. then there wouldn't be this rush on the welfare system as you've described. If the family takes the same or more care as a "normal" couple in trying to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads while keeping the family together, then where is the harm? This Cinderella dream? Could you explain that further since I don't understand why a child would have some Cinderella image by growing up in a polygamous household?

And as far as movies go, I can't recall any movie that I've seen, ever, that mentioned polygamy. The only thing I can think of is an episode of Three's Company where some woman was trying to take Mr. Furley's money. Dismas|^(talk) 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• My meager understanding of the Mormon lifestyle in Utah is that men were providers. The same applies to the Muslim polygamy. Muhammad was a wealthy merchant who provided subsistence for 12 wives and built alliances — I acknowledge that he had no other spouse while he was with Khadija and I don't know the greatest number of spouses he had at one moment. It isn't that I endorse it. That type of polygamy is not conducive to the modern social fabric and productivity of a society.

Perhaps you are proposing a reform to polygamy.--Patchouli 09:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't eluding to any sort of "reform". I wasn't even talking about Muhammad or the old ways of the Later Day Saint church. I'm merely asking about the concept itself. So far it seems that your answers have been based on the old LDS church and the few holdouts who still practice some form of a splinter religion that came from the LDS church. I'm not at all familiar with the Muslim practice. Dismas|^(talk) 10:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• You asked why polygamy is illegal in so many places. I first gave my own analysis followed by historical examples and you know that legislators rely a good deal on history to write the laws; likewise, lawyers use past cases (history again) and statutes enacted.--Patchouli 10:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

One problem, is that genders are divided about 50;50, with the same amount of males and females, if more than one female marries per male, the a lot of males will have to go with decreased chances of finding a partner, and some will never. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. Polygamy has two forms - polygyny and polyandry. Grutness...wha? 12:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, statistically speaking I imagine men would want to take more wives rather than the other way around, based in part on the way that the sexual division of labor works and relative incomes. And the way men are. ;-) --Fastfission 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Grutness is more of a mathematician than an anthropologist unless he can name a single human society in which both polyandry and polygyny were practiced simultaneously. Such practices in the real world have incompatible social and theoretical underpinnings that are likely to be mutually exclusive. As much as it might appeal to the mathematicians and those who would like to abolish or disregard social gender roles, you can't have both. alteripse 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually my major was in psychology, with anthropology as a minor as part of it. I never claimed that both had historically existed in the same culture at the same time - those cases where polygyny is common tend to be ones with high male death rates, and polygyny compensates for that. Similarly, polyandry is found where there is an excess of males over females. But that wasn't what was implied in earlier comments, which dealwith the present day and - for the most part - with westernised societies. In these, it would be perfectly possible for the two to coexist and not to produce a surplus of one over the other. It would lead to massive social changes in other ways, however. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think they could co-exist, because in all the societies I've heard of them in, it's a way for one gender to exert its social supremacy over the other, which can only work onw way. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If polygamy were required to be consensual then I can't see any real strong ethical reason to oppose it. Whether it is morally wrong depends on your own desire to make the law resemble one religious text or another. Obviously if you were going to allow a system like this you'd have to re-arrange the social services systems a bit to accomodate for it but that's not the hardest thing in the world. --Fastfission 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Next question: why is prostitution illegal in most places, but pornography is not (or vice versa)? You can't pay someone to have sex with you, but you can pay someone to have sex with someone else? --Fastfission 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A key reason why the state might not endorse polygamy is the issue of tax due on a person's estate. In the UK, tax is due on everything a person leaves in their will, including money and the house they lived in. The only exception is the person's spouse. If polygamy was legal, you would see people creating large polygamous "marriages" with no other purpose than avoiding death duties. This would be especially valuable to the "super rich". Notinasnaid 14:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Someone up above (anonymous) stated that Muhammad was a "wealthy merchant" who provided for his wives, most famously Khadija. They missed the mark there - Muhammad married into Khadija's wealth - Khadija was a very wealthy merchant, operator of large caravans, who supported Muhammad. In fact, for a while before 'she' initiated a marriage proposal, she employed Muhammad in her merchant business! Check the facts! :) --Bmk 15:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read about the renegade polygamous Mormon sects that exist in the Rockies. In those communities, there is such a premium on women that girls are often married (not always completely willingly) at 14 or 15, and men are expelled from the community for even minor offenses. -- Mwalcoff 22:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hot Digital Songs

Anybody know if sales of digital music videos (on iTunes, for example) also count towards Billboard's Hot Digital Songs chart? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk)

Off the top of my head, I think they do. --Proficient 14:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles Stuart Parnell & Katherine O'Shea

I would like to find some information about the children of Parnell and O'Shea.

Corinne Wheelahan

Parnell had been the long term partner, and father of three of the children, of Katherine O'Shea

• Charles Stuart Parnell
• Katherine Parnell

Check out the sources in the appropriate sections for more information. --Killfest2 11:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mozambique

I notice that Mozambique was colonized by Portuguese, but it is a member of the Commomnwealth Games and I know that Commonwealth Games involve with countries that were colonized by British. I don't remember that Mozambique was conquered by British. How come it is a member of former British-colonized countries?

You probably don't remember becuase it happened before you were born. :) From the Mozambique article I gather that the british never politically colonised the island, but did have a strong presence because Portugal left the island to industrials, who were largely British. The article states "in early 1996 Mozambique joined its Anglophone neighbors in the Commonwealth. It is the only nation to join the Commonwealth that was never part of the British Empire." DirkvdM 15:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Portuguese analog to the British Commonwealth or French Community? Do the Francophone nations have a sports equivalent to the Commonwealth Games? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lusophones have the CPLP (Comunidade dos Paises de Lingua Portuguesa). La Francophonie organises the Jeux de la Francophonie. EdC 20:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting links. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay - first things first. The Commonwealth is not a group of "former British-colonized countries", though it did start off that way. It is promarily a trade and cultural exchange organisation, and is open to countries which have significant cultural or commercial ties with Britain or other Commonwealth nations. Given that in 1996 every one of Mozambique's neighbours was a Commonwealth country, and that it did 90% of its commerce with these countries, a special case was made for its inclusion in the Commonwealth, which was accepted. A similar case was made for Cameroun, of which only a small part was ever British territory. BTW Dirk, you want to check your geography - unless there has been a fairly major earthquake in the Great Rift valley, Mozambique isn't an island. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Big oops! I have this nasty tendency to mix up Mozambique and Madagascar. I could have used the excuse that I'm really from the future where the Great Rift had already rifted (so to say), but then Mozambique wouldn't have been an island all by itself, so that wouldn't have worked. DirkvdM 04:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Study on overzealous anti-drug education

I remember reading a couple years ago about a study showing that marijuana prevention programs that tell ridiculous falsehoods like "one joint will addict you" are less effective than those that are honest. Is anybody aware of whether or not this is accurate, and where I could find the study? ~~ N (t/c) 16:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously accurate. Kids aren't stupid. If you tell them all sorts of lies they will assume that everything else you tell them will also not be true and kids being kids they will probably start smoking marijuana just to show they're not so stupid as to believe you.

About the study, there's bound to be more than one. But I haven't found any alas. Googling ' marijuana education "telling the truth" ' [16] gave some related stuff, though. One interresting observation: "one cannot tell the truth about cannabis and maintain its prohibition." A veritable dilemma for right-wing policy makers. DirkvdM 05:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the way in which marijuana is discouraged to youth is rather condescending and couter-productive.

In any case, say what you will about the "harmlessness" of marijuana, but if you care to hear my experience, (perhaps you don't give a damn, which is your choice,) but I have two marijuana dependant brothers. One is on welfare and has suffered multiple hash psychoses, and the other is dead, having crashed his car while stoned. Oh well. Marijuana is harmless and its prohibition just another right-wing conspiracy, right? Loomis 23:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is harmless. Even water can kill you. I've heard that some kids smoke something like a few grams per day. I smoke as much in about a month. This is what should be taught kids. That too much of anything is unhealthy. The point here is that if you start telling lies, kids won't believe anything else you say even if it's true. Also, cars kill about half a million people per year. By far the most are sober. It's the cars that kill. Drugs just give a helping hand. That should also be taught at schools. The highest proportion of deaths is among kids, so they're especially at risk. "Don't smoke and drive" should be second to that. Then again, I've heard that a study showed that under the influence of marijuana, people drive more carefully. That doesn't mecessarily mean 'safer', though.

What right-wing conspiracy? What's all this conspiracy nonsense I keep hearing about? That's a US thing, isn't it? DirkvdM 07:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalaztion

Would I capatalize the word king, according to the Chicago Style?

Asa is the King of Jordan.

What does the classical Greek word Baris mean?

In regards to capitilaztion, yes. You do capitilize the term "king," when it is refering to a person or of a place (i.e. King of Great Britian). Yanksox 16:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct capitalization for your sentence per the Chicago Manual of Style is "Asa is the king of Jordan." Titles are capitalized (per CMS) only when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name, and are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name. (There are, of course, exceptions, but they don't apply to this sentence.) So it's the empress Elisabeth of Austria, or (an actual CMS example) "King Abdullah; the king of Jordan", or "Wilhelm II, emperor of Germany; Kaiser Wilhelm II; the kaiser". - Nunh-huh 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

According to LSJ - available online at www.perseus.tufts.edu - a baris was a flat-bottomed boat. The word later came to mean a large house or tower. --George 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Songs Associated with Catholic Worker

I'm looking for songs or hymns associated with the Catholic Worker Movement. Google searches (that I could think of) don't seem to turn up any solid leads so I'm looking for alternative sources. Any suggestions or ideas? mennonot 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I expect but do not know that they would have had their own hymnal. However, that would be top-down. Bottom-up is always a bit more interesting, but I have nothing. (If you were asking about the IWW, I'd know, as I actually have a copy of The Little Red Songbook.) Geogre 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• By searching "Catholic Worker" + "songbook," I got to this site[17] that might have what you need. Among all the contemporary lefty poetry collections, something historical might be mixed.

Johann Sebastian Bach

What was done to try to improve Bach's eyesight? When did Bach die? What did Bach die of? What happened to hes second wife?

• Did you try our article on Johann Sebastian Bach? I'm sure it answers at least two of your questions. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems you didn't even try to find out for yourself. --Proficient 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

United States in World War I

Two questions here:

1. Was the Germans sinking of America's neutral ships genuinely the only reason the US entered the war? Were there no other factors involved? No, Their was the zimmer note, this was a secret message from the German foriegn ministry to mexico. 2. If Germany knew that their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare would result in the US entering the war, why did they persist with it? Did they think the benefits of sinking merchant vessels bound for Britain outweighed the negative of an extra country waging war against them? Any suggesestions much appreciated. Hammer Raccoon 17:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving (1) to someone better informed, the short answer to (2) is yes, the German High Command, which didn't yet mean Hindenburg and Ludendorff, believed that a second unrestricted campaign would defeat Britain (and France, which was dependant on British coal imports) before the US could take any part in the war. There's not much on the web, but Herwig's paper Total Rhetoric: Limited War (JMSS) is a good summary. For more information, Erin Weir's(pdf) paper (JMSS again) on the impact in the Second World War might be helpful. In print, Herwig's The First World War and Halpern's The Great War at Sea are probably the most useful surveys. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, woohoo) I may be wrong, but I was told that the British Navy had a policy of hiding guns and weaponary on merchant ships, to exploit the intial U-boat policy of surfacing, informing civilian ships that their vessel would be sunk, in order to allow the passengers/crew to abandon ship. Special merchant vessels were built so that as soon as the U-boat surfaced to give the menrchant vessel there warning the "merchant" ship would torpedoe/shoot them. So they began sinking merchant ships. The Lusitania was sunk on the grounds that the germans believed there were hidden gun stations amongst equipment on the deck, and weaponary below deck. This has not been disproved. Travellers were repeatedly warned by the German Embassy in new york of the risk that anf ship carrying the british flag(s) may be sunk by U-boats, before tcket purchase and before embarking. So really the question is why did the US continue to run routes, for its people, that went through a known war zone, despite repeated warnings. One theory, is the british ran them to get the US to join the war. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

re:(1), it has sometimes been suggested that the United States entered WWI because if France and England had lost they would never have been able to pay off the huge debts to the US they had built up during the war. David Sneek 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, to answer 1, see Zimmermann telegram. To give a short summary, British cryptographers Grey, Hall and Montgomery from Room 40 intercepted a German telegram to urge Mexico to ally against the U.S. in WW1, decoded it, and gave it to the U.S. (who did not believe on spying on others' communications back then) This is probably what spurred them into joining World War I, so no, 1 is not strictly correct, though UBoat harassment would probably have eventually led them into WW1 anyway. Curiously enough, the decoded telegram suggested Japan as a backup in case negotiations with Mexico failed. --ColourBurst 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The armed but disguised merchant ships were Q-ships. For the US reasons for declaring war, see Wilson's speech, April 2, 1917, urging Congress to declare war. Unrestricted submarine warfare was the casus belli, with German spying and agitation in the US and the Zimmermann telegram mentioned as aggravating factors. Gdr 12:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all your help, it has cleared up the matter for me. Hammer Raccoon 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Were any of the original Nazis skinheads?

Did any prominent members of the original Nazi party have shaved heads? If not, where do the modern Nazis get the famous 'skinhead' look from? As far as I know, all the main members of the Nazi leadership had short (but not shaved) hair - I certainly can't think of any that were razored down to the scalp, like the typical neo-Nazi bootboy you'd see today. --84.67.251.126 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See our article Skinhead for a short overview. Shaved hair became associated with far-right politics in the late 60s/early 70s, there is no direct connection of the skinhead look with anything that was popular in the 1940s. I've always found it ironic that much of modern skinhead culture has its roots in ska and rocksteady culture which was initially decidedly black - which is not exactly something most current skinheads are especially proud of -- Ferkelparade π 23:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - though I do remember seeing reproductions of WWII era political cartoons in the history books at school in which Nazi/German soldiers were depicted as (usually knuckle-dragging, ugly) skinheads. I wonder what those were based on then? Heh, I wonder what old Adolf would think if he were to come back today and see the scruffy, grimy, tattoo-covered state of his motley band of followers? --84.67.251.126 00:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume they'd have had their heads shaved when they joined the army. And if they were American/British cartoons then they obviously would have wanted to show the Germans as ugly.

I reckon Adolf wouldn't think much of his followers fighting in the streets and beating up weak people. - ulayiti (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the SA Sturmabteilung pretty much did just that. -- Mwalcoff 00:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fascists are aggressive, and skinheads are so in a street-wise sense. So if you fight a lot you don't want your opponent to get hold of your hair. So you shave it off or make it real short. That's one explanation I once heard. DirkvdM 05:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Head shaving also removes part of your identity. You are no longer the guy with brown/black/blond/red curly/straight/wavy long/short hair. You just a bald guy like all the other bald guys. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Woodwinds

How heavy/long is a bassoon? And how long is a clarinet? --Atlas Master 23:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A bassoon is around 134cm. They are reasonably heavy, about 15 lb I think. I used to have a trailer on my bike to transport mine to school, and you can't hold it up to play using just your hands - I had a strap that attached to the bottom (butt) of the instrument, on which I sat. A regular Bb clarinet is around 64cm. Natgoo 08:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--Atlas Master 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

July 5

War of 1812

Why did the War of 1812 occur, didn't the fighting end after the peace treay of Paris? If Americans celebrate the fourth of July, why do they sing the national anthem. The national anthem was written for the war of 1812, not for the War of Independence.

We have articles on the Origins of the War of 1812 and the War of 1812, which give you the basic causes of the war, although not entirely accurately. Perhaps the Star-Spangled Banner was picked as the national anthem because Yankee Doodle (the tune most associated with the American Revolution) is a bit too frivolous. The War of 1812 was sometimes known as the "Second War of Independence", and so the Star-Spangled Banner, written after a failed British attack, may have some vague emotional connection to the Revolutionary era. Of course, a number of Americans have wished that a different song had been picked as the national anthem. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 06:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The SSB is associated with all things American, including but not exclusively the 4th July. It only became the official anthem in the 1930s, and amazingly there was no national anthem prior to that. I can't think of any other country that had existed as a sovereign nation for 150 years before it got around to naming a national anthem. JackofOz 12:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

National anthems (like national flags) are a modern invention. Hardly any country had a national anthem before the nineteenth century (I think the Dutch anthem, from the early 18th century, is one of the oldest). The United Kingdom still doesn't have an official national anthem, and it's been sovereign for centuries. EdC 23:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Because people didn't know about the peace settlement until news made it across the Atlantic in sailing ships. AnonMoos 13:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it ended with the treaty of Ghent, I am quite sure as I live near that city (well that is not a guarantee:))

Wasn't the main reason for fighting with Canada, that USA couldn't target the British navy as they didn't have proper sea forces?Evilbu 13:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

James Madison thought that Canada would be easy to annex while the UK was in difficulties in Europe, and that English-speaking Canadians would rise up in support of his forces. The impressment controversy and the Orders in Council (1807) were useful causes that prejudiced opinion against the British. (Madison was able to start the war only just in time, as the UK repealed the Orders in June 1812.) Note that we also have an article on the Treaty of Ghent, 1814. Gdr 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Gdr's explanation is an old conspiracy theory of questionable veracity. A vocal American opponent of the war, the eccentric John Randolph of Roanoke, claimed that the Madison Administration really declared war because the "War Hawks" wanted to conquer Canada, and that all of the maritime issues were just pretext for conquest. (Probably most major U.S. wars have had critics who claim to know the "real reason" that the U.S. entered the war.) Randolph's claim was taken seriously by a few historians, particularly for a brief while in the 1920s, and I believe it survives in Canadian national mythology, but it may not have much serious modern scholarly support. (Which of course doesn't stop it from showing up in Wikipedia articles.) In reality, invading Canada was not the reason for the war, but the only practical means the Americans had of waging it in 1812. And even that proved a bust, of course, since the amateur American army was in no shape to invade Michigan, much less Canada, although they all thought it would be a cakewalk.

The favored conspiracy theory now is that the Americans really wanted Florida in 1812. Americans in 1812 knew almost nothing about Canada, and weren't interested, but Florida they knew, and wanted. And, in time, would get. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does survive in Canadian mythology, it's really the only thing we get nationalistic about. Not only did America really want to invade Canada, simple Canadian militias defeated them and then burned down the White House! Adam Bishop 15:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And let's not forget my favorite Canadian myth — Tecumseh died to save Canada! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 01:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Web forum warning: The War of 1812 is one of those topics where each nation has an entirely different story to tell. For Canadians, it was the repelling of an American invasion. For England, it was their reconquest that was sidetracked by Napoleon. For Americans, it was a war about impressing citizens. I've seen arguments (particularly among Canadians and Americans) get hot enough that one person actually had a heart attack. Let's just say that America didn't invade Canada, because Canada wasn't a nation but was British, that they did so out of a foolish belief in a missionary ideology that we have not yet shaken and because Canada was this massive staging area for the troops of a hostile power to invade, that Canadians repelled them, in the sense that they were natives, that Napoleon was a big factor in the US surviving, that England was mighty enough to have militarily conquered the US but not to have survived the ensuing guerrila war that would have broken out (and which had been the 1775 war in the first place), and that everybody was a hero, everybody was a villain, and everyone should be terribly proud of themselves. Is that ok? Geogre 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except that you've got the British reasons confused. It wasn't a "reconquest that was sidetracked by Napoleon." but a war with the French, which Britain had been fighting since 1793, which was sidetracked by a U.S.A. declaration of war. Britain wasn't trying to reconquor the U.S.A., for us the 1812 war was an unsought distraction from the more important business of fighting Napoleon. AllanHainey 08:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and I gladly stand corrected. The Napoleonic Wars led to the impressment (and sometimes proper impressment, sometimes not), and that led to the declaration of war, which led to the invasion and the counter-invasion. Geogre 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Eras of History

OK, I would like a simple explantion of the Eras of Human History from the Mesolithic to the Viking periods, with dates of the starts to end of the above periods. The main area I'm looking into is Europe. Thanks to anyone who helps

Is this a homework assignment? Have you read the relevant articles here on these eras? They are a pretty good start. Trollderella 15:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

An explanation or a list of the eras? I assume you mean the latter. There's no definitive answer.

• Try this breakdown, based on Britain, which will undoubtedly cause historians who read it to double up with laughter or swear loudly:

Pre-history (roughly until Caesar's visit)

Ancient (until the Romans left)

Late Antiquity (until Edward the Confessor)

That should cover the period you refer to. But there's no real consensus, and I'm no great historian, in case it wasn't already obvious. --Dweller 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Try List of time periods You are probably looking for something like the human historical periods section about half way down the page. I think the confusion is in mixing palentological time periods (based on human technology, stone, bronze, etc) with historical time periods (romans, vikings, etc.) Two different classification systems. Nowimnthing 16:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What's a Jelly Date?

I've run across the term "jelly date" in 1940s-50s malt shop, or young adult, novels. Can't figure out what it is. Can anyone help?

Thanks!

Julie

Googling just that term results in lots of meaningless links. Can you provide some context of how the term is used? --LarryMac 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find jelly date, but there are various meanings for jelly from the 1930s-1940s in the dictionary of american slang. It can mean: dancing, a girlfriend/boyfriend, lounging about, having sexual intercourse or refering to the vagina. I suppose context would be very important here :^) Nowimnthing 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cassell's Dictionary of Slang says that it is a date where you eat and chat and they also list cake-date/bean-date/coke-date. Letting your imagination run wild on some of the other slang meanings of jelly certainly sounds more interesting. MeltBanana 19:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably a date where you eat some food such as jelly. --Proficient 09:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

how about Beans:Jelly Beans::Dates::Jelly Dates? :P 82.131.188.84 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

Bach

Is Opus 17 by the Four Seasons, circa 1966, music composed by J.S. Bach? If so, what is the title of the original work? 66.213.33.2 18:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Four Seasons verison [18] Bach also has a work called Opus 17, but I can't find anything about a relation. Nowimnthing 18:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be a pathetic composer who has fewer than 17 works to his name. Even I have more. :) DirkvdM 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The quality of music is not judged by the quantity of works someone writes. Henri Duparc left only about 17 works, all songs. His entire oeuvre would only take about 45 minutes to perform, yet each song is a priceless gem. JackofOz 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And how many people have heard of Henri Duparc? Is his article a "featured article"? Shit, the article is literally 7 lines (110 words) long, with no talk page. I rest my case. 82.131.188.84 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

What "case" would that be? You have not participated in this conversation until now. In any event:

• the quality of a piece of music is also not judged by the size of the Wikipedia article on the composer, and
• what is this about anyway? Where did it say that "Opus 17" was the last work written by its composer? If it was by Bach, he wrote thousands of pieces (almost). JackofOz 03:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If the length of an article is representative of the quality of music Britney Spears has more talent than Ludwig van Beethoven :) Ziggurat 21:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

just looking at the guitar chords it doesn't look very Bachian, but i can't say that it isn't for sure. --Alex.dsch 14:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

both world wars started in the balkan?

Someone told me in 1999 when Serbia was bombed that the area is sensitive : all world wars started there.

Now for WWI he probably meant the shooting of Ferdinand. But what about WWII? Evilbu 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

World War II 'officially' started when Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. But you have to keep in mind that there is rarely a single cause for a conflict involving that many different nations. WWII didn't have much to do with the Balkans, and I'd argue that WWI didn't either, even though its start date is usually given as the day Franz Ferdinand was shot. - ulayiti (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

One perspective on the WWII is that it was chiefly a war started by Hitler to secure Germany's hegemony over Europe. Hitler may have believed that the best way to do this was to secure the Balkan oil fields, especially in Romania. In order to secure these oil fields, Hitler wanted to create a huge buffer zone out of western Russia. --198.125.178.207 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

who is the artist

There is currently a Postsecret postcard that looks like a photograph of two naked women in a restroom with scupltures of snakes and rabbits[19]. I was wondering if anyone knew who the artist was. Thanks for voluteering your time to try to help people, even if you pass up this question. -- Reinyday, 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your description sounded like something that Jan Saudek would do, but the photo in question looks to me to be just an old photo designed to be fetish/stag/girlie stuff from the 1920's or thereabouts. There has been an explosion in nostalgia porn books for the middle class, and it really looks like an adaptation from one of those. Maybe not, but I don't really think it's an art photo. Geogre 03:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a photo. It's a collage from various photos. The floor is separate to the walls. The women are stuck on, as well as the bathroom fittings and the animals. As to who did it, probably someone not very well known. Date, check out bathroom fittings! 1970s or after? Tyrenius 18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel, Gaza, and Palestine walk into a bar...

All the news that I hear lately here in the U.S. reminds me of something that I've wondered for some time. Why does the U.S. media, and I guess the U.S. gov't as well, care so much about Israel, Gaza, and Palestine? It seems that whenever anyone so much as throws a book to the floor and it goes "Bang!", it gets reported on over here. Yes, people are shooting each other and such but the same things happen in Africa with various conflicts over there and that hardly gets any press. I don't recall hearing this much about the IRA and Ireland and such. Is it all to do with oil? Israel doesn't export any but then they do have refineries. Also, are these places and the continuing conflict a major news item in other countries around the world? Maybe we should have an article on Why the U.S. cares so bloody much about Israel. (Okay, that last bit was facetious but I really am curious.) Dismas|^(talk) 01:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe (this is speculation) it's because Israel is one of the most important countries in the theology of 3 major world religions. Mo-Al 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly theology makes Israel important to many people for religious reasons, but there are purely practical issues too. Israel has nuclear weapons, of course, and we pay close attention to anyone with nuclear bombs, to say nothing of people with nuclear bombs who are involved in armed conflicts. Further, Israel itself is and has for some time been an immensely controversial topic in the US, what with many people here and elsewhere arguing that it shouldn't even exist and all that. That's not true for, say, Burundi. It's also an ally of the US, one under frequent attack, in an area that has few genuine US allies. And, at the risk of seeming to give voice to stupid anti-semitic arguments, there are many wealthy and powerful Jews in the US who feel personally connected to Israel. --George 03:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is also very important to the U.S. as an ally in a fairly anti-U.S. part of the world. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has broad implications across the entire mideast see the Six-Day War, unlike tribal conflicts in Africa, which while even more brutal don't threaten the stability of an entire resource heavy region. Nowimnthing 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The United States has more Jewish people than any nation aside from Israel, yes, but that hasn't much of an effect on foreign policy, as the populations represent a significant voting block only in a few places, and any presidential candidate would gladly lose New York City and Miami to gain Florida and New York State. However, Israel emerged as a paramount concern for US foreign policy during the Cold War, when it was seen as a check on Soviet interest in the middle east. When Nassar was accepting Soviet support and aid, and when Libya did, and when many states seemed to lean Soviet, the US poured resources into Israel. Additionally, Israel is a significant customer for US defense contractors (even though the money may be coming from the US aid). When the Cold War ended, more politicians began speaking out against Israel, but the political poles switched to some degree. "Liberal" US politicians began to be freer in criticizing Israel, while conservatives began coming back to a pro-Israeli point of view. Tom DeLay, interestingly, announced his belief that the US must sponsor the most expansionist Zionist element in Israel because Israel has to be at its Biblical borders for Armageddon to arrive. (I am not making that up.) The current president of the US has agreed with an eschatological support for Israel. I doubt this is moving the general Republican Party in the US, but it has made Israel an issue for some variety of fundamentalists, and that has made it a voting issue for non-Jews (even anti-semitic voters). However, Israel is now a wedge nation against the "terrarists," so, again, the Cold War polarities are getting restored. Geogre 04:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about Floridian demographics, but I must say that there are many Jews in New York State outside New York City. Long Island is very Jewish. There are several Hasidic communities in Rockland. Also, most Hasidics are anti-Zionist, believing that only the Messiah can restore Israel to the Jews. --Nelson Ricardo 05:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Many people and much evidence disagree with you, Geogre, that the large wealthy Jewish population in the US has not had much influence on US foreign policy. There is an extensive discussion of this in a recent policy journal and in a recent issue of the NY Review of Books. Sorry don't have precise reference at hand. alteripse 05:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's try this another way. The thinking since the Southern Strategy used by Nixon has been that the conservatives would write off heavily Jewish areas because those were the same areas that were heavily "liberal." That is, as everyone is pointing out, very different from saying that the Jewish communities don't have an influence on foreign policy outside of presidential elections. The senators and house members who have a significant Jewish constituency are numerous enough that there will be a big legislative effect, and a governing president will want to avoid giving his opponent a stick to beat him with. Furthermore, there are plenty of Jewish people who have been in foreign service, state, etc. The point I was trying to make is that Israel has been supported for realpolitik reasons, and its current support from the far right is electoral political, and, at the same time, the realpolitik reasons are re-emerging in the "War on Terror." Geogre 12:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Israel has to be at its Biblical borders for Armageddon to arrive" ... isn't that Palestine? Does whatever he refers to specify who have to live there? Semites? Well, that could mean both Jews and Arabs, ie Palestinians (see the last paragraph of the article). Maybe armageddon will arrive when they make peace and join in one land? I don't know the details of this, but I believe it used to be that they all lived together peacefully. A chain of events (notably the diaspora, the religious split and the holocaust leading to worldwide support for zionism) has made neighbours into enemies. But they're really one people, aren't they? A relative who has been to Israel for some years told me she couldn't tell the difference between the 'two peoples' and wondered how they themselves manage to. DirkvdM 08:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't answer for DeLay or those folks. I think they're nuts. I think they're reading a book that was about keeping hope during the persecutions of Nero as a script for the 21st century (The Revelation of St. John). The fringe fundamentalists seem to think that there was an all-Jewish Palestine at the time of Christ, even though they know that it wasn't all Jewish. What they know and what they believe are in sharp enough contrast that their zeal for the position argues, I'd say, for something other than reason being involved. Geogre 12:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

They do report other incidents globally. --Proficient 09:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons that the U.S. cares so much about Israel is because the Arab world cares so much about Palestine. The pan-arabic sentiment that ran strong at the end of the colonial era was nicely co-opted by the Palestinians who found themselves suddenly sold out by their former British overlords; since then, Arab leaders have been caught in between a rock and a hard place because they must support the Palestinian struggle against Israel to be politically viable within their countries, but that forces them into the economically unenviable position of belligerency towards the pro-Israel US. The equation between Islamic jihad, pan-Arabism, and the Palestinian struggle are what cause what is a minor, regional conflict to be blown out of proportion. It seems though, that that equation is eroding as Arabs are becoming jaded with the Palestinian jihad; when Fatah and Hamas duke it out in the streets of Gaza, the Palestinians tend to look much more like common criminals than martyrs. Stay tuned...

In response to Geogre's response to me, it makes sense that, say, 1500 years ago all inhabitants of Palestine were Jews (both genetically and religiously). I don't know what else they could have been. They're one people (Semites) and Islam arrived only later. A bunch of Jews left, those who stayed became Muslims and got to be known as Palestinians. And then some returned and now it is presented as if they're different people. I don't know at all, but this seems logical. DirkvdM 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NO! You're fabricating history! 1500 years ago most Jews had fled Palestine in what was called the Jewish Diaspora. Very, very few Jews remained. Meanwhile, the Arabs of the time were pagans, until Islam was established (or re-established as Muslims believe). Muhammed was NOT a Jew! Ask any Muslim or Jew and they'll agree on at least that one thing! According to Islam, Muslims are descended from ISHMAEL, while Jews are descended from ISAAC. They're related in the sense that they're both semites, but in every other sense they're different peoples. There's absolutely NO historical evidence that the "Palestinians" of today were originally Jewish converts. This assertion would be a pure fabrication according to Jews, according to Muslims, as well as according to any historian with any knowledge of that period. Where do you come up with such ridiculous assumptions? Loomis 23:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

1500 years ago, the great majority of the inhabitants of Palestine/Israel/Canaan were actually Aramaic-speaking Monophysite Christians. As for why Jews "left", see First Jewish Revolt and Second Jewish Revolt. AnonMoos 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying that they're all Semites is like saying that England and Germany and France are all Germanic peoples and so should not have fought in WW2. At the time of Jesus, there were Greeks (lots), Romans (lots), and various non-Hebrew peoples (Samaritans, Hitites, Philistines, etc.) living there. The idea that it was a single people with a single religion is something that even a novice fundamentalist should know to be untrue, and yet in eschatology and visions of apocalypse, they can forget all of that. There was even a Christian fundamentalist group in Texas working with some ultra-Orthodox to breed a red heffer to import to Israel so that the conditions described in the Book of Samuel could be recreated. It's strange. Geogre 23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how it is ethnically, but if you believe in the old testament but not in the new testament nor in the qur'an, you're religiously a jew, right? So they were indeed predominantly jews, I'd say. Not that that says a lot. For one, I didn't mean to suggest that therefore there could not have been any fighting between them - that's about the fact that the returned jews had, well, returned. Or rather their offspring, and that might not seem a solid enough basis for settlement to all, especially the contemporary inhabitants. DirkvdM 07:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NO! Wrong! Once again, Jews and Arabs are separate, yet related peoples. Where do you come up with these ridiculous assertions that there existed any substantial group of non-Jews that believed in the Old Testament but not the New Testament, nor the Qur'an? This is yet another absurd fabrication.

Please, Dirk. Do some reading. Loomis 23:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The American media focuses on Israel a lot because lots of American people are interested in it. Count how many letters your local newspaper gets on the Arab-Israeli dispute and compare it to the number of letters it receives about the civil war in Nepal. -- Mwalcoff 23:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, (and you can call me as naive as you wish), perhaps, just perhaps, the US has an affinity towards Israel because it happens to be the ONLY DEMOCRACY in a region of authoritarian regimes? Perhaps the Americans kinda like that? Oh well, I'm sure you're all right, America is probably just a self-interested pseudo-democratic regime that in reality, doesn't really give a damn about the spread of democracy and freedom. Loomis 23:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Tempo

Have "understood tempo speeds" changed much since the 1900's? My grandfather was a composer in the early 1900's and had a song published in 1910 by F.B. Haviland. I have recently tried to transcribe his song using modern techniques. The tempo on the original sheet music is "moderato" (in modern metronomes this is 120 bpm). After I played the song on Finale (I am not skilled enough to play the song on the piano yet), I noticed that the song was slightly faster than I expected it would be. The song is characteristic of the popular music during that era. Could they have used a different system than we use now? Morganismysheltie 01:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks, I'll try it! Morganismysheltie 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 120 BPM is considered to be Allegro. You ought to try 100-110 BPM. Political Mind 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know the composer intended "moderato" to be a different speed? If the piece was written before metronomes were invented, then it's guess work. Mozart didn't have a metronome. Maybe you could tell us more about the piece exactly, so someone who knows about that kind of music could give an even more accurate guess --89.213.0.43 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Death = Get out of jail free card

Why does the conviction of Ken Lay get voided just because he died? So what if he wasn't sentenced, he was still convicted while he was alive. He was found guilty. That should be that. And yes, I read the abatement article but it has mostly to do with UK law, not U.S. law. Dismas|^(talk) 03:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Why bother wasting the time and effort of lawyers, prosecutors, and judges to sentence him and go through the appeals when he obviously won't care whether he is convicted or not? Crazywolf 03:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they should sentence a dead man. But why void his conviction? Dismas|^(talk) 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It was being appealed and thus not final. Someone thought it was more humane/fairer to default a conviction pending appeal to void rather than to convicted. I have to say voiding the unappealed conviction of a dead man makes sense to me, though the trial evidence certainly suggested he was running the corporation in a way that harmed a lot of people-- recklessly destructive if not actually deliberately thieving. Not a good guy. alteripse 05:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for another Cadaver Synod? David Sneek 07:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to pay the lawyers to find out if a dead man was guilty, thats your money. 172.202.117.45 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Let the guy rest in peace, please. Adolf Hitler who had commissioned numerous murders wasn't tried at Nuremberg. On the other side of the spectrum, Ruhollah Khomeini who ordered thousands of executions of dissidents during the Islamic Cultural Revolution, was responsible for the torture and killing of Ali Dashti, and more is actually currently deified and worshiped at his mausoleum.--Patchouli 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The guy died. Resources need not be wasted for justice if hardly anything will happen, since he's dead. (But surely this is subjective.) --Proficient 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm surprised that no sentence will be passed just because he is dead. Sure, a prison sentence wouldn't mean much, but he could still be fined a huge amount of money. Of course if he's really as poor as he claimed that wouldn't mean much too. DJ Clayworth 16:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why some of you think I'm in favor of getting all the lawyers and judges together to sentence a dead man. I just wanted to know why he was now considered not guilty just because he died before being sentenced. After all, he was found guilty. Thank you alteripse for pointing out that he was appealing the decision and thus it was still not clearly determined that he was guilty. Dismas|^(talk) 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"When a defendant dies, "the general rule is that if the conviction hasn't gotten past the first appeal, it is supposed to be abated, dismissed, conviction erased," says Stanford University law professor Robert Weisberg. ... The principle is called "abatement ab initio," the Latin portion meaning "from the beginning." It is a "well- established and oft-used principle," the Fifth Circuit court said." source. Need any more information?--69.171.123.148 07:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ari Setya Ardhi - category: Indonesian poet

As suggested by Winhunter, I should address my question to this desk. My family is going to write books about my late son, the Indonesian poet, Ari Setya Ardhi who died on February 19, 2006 in Jambi, Sumatra, Indonesia.

A book that we hope not only beautiful but also full of related information on his works such as back ground, analysis, etc.

Since Wikipedia has categorised him as one of Indonesia Poets, I am grateful if you would assist and furnish us with your observation, research, analysis, judgement that eventually reached to the conclusion that his works are appreciated and made Ari Setya Ardhi as one of the Indonesian Poets category.

Only with your permission we will include your comments in the book we are going to publish on his birthday 31 May 2007. Annie Sarino--203.130.234.197 04:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles fall under the GPL. Which means you can copy anything form them, provided you make a reference to Wikipedia (don't know the details of this, though). As to the research that went into the article, go to its history page (click the 'history' tab above it) and go through the changes to figure out who added him and then ask them on their talk page. I can't find the article, though, so I can't do that for you. Could you place a link here? DirkvdM 08:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I'll do my best. Annie Sarino--203.130.234.197 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

DirkvdM: I failed. I went to Bahasa Indonesia version, yes there is history but I don't know what to do. My guest is Ivan Lanin was the one to answer my question but he is absent at the moment. Annie Sarino--203.130.234.197 07:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor of Great Britain

Is the Lord Chancellor the British counterpart of the presiding officer of the United States Senate, that is the American vice president?--Patchouli 06:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• One more thing, what is the most conspicuous political power of Charles Falconer?--Patchouli 06:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, our Lord Chancellor article has nothing about it, but I read only yesterday that the office has been abolished and ceased to exist earlier this week. JackofOz 07:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says, "The Lord Chancellor is the Speaker (presiding officer) of the House of Lords." This is why I think he is like the ex officio president of the U.S. Senate.--Patchouli 08:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As Jack of Oz says this post (which has existed since 605 AD) has now been abolished and replaced by an elected post of Speaker of the House of Lords. Despite our article the Lord Chancellor isn't (hasn't been) the speaker of the HoL in the sense of doing the same job as the Speaker of the HoC. The job of the Commons Speaker has generally been to control the chamber, deciding who is to speak, ruling on points of order, maintaining order during debate, and punishing members who break the rules of the House. The HoL has always been 'self-regulating' and the Lord Chancellor has never had these functions and has carried out a much more ceremonial role that the Commons Speaker. It wouldn't be accurate to compare the function of the Lord Chancellor to that of the Speaker of the Senate (Vice President) in the U.S.A. The main part of the Lord Chancellors job has been acting as the head of the judiciary, keeping the Great Seal and serving as a member of the Cabinet. His 'speaker' duties are (and continue with the title Speaker) to be very limited, consisting mainly of announcing questions to be put to a vote (though usually a deputy would/will do this most of the time).

Charles Falconer's powers as Lord Chancellor are detailed in that article though these are constitutional powers mainly rather than political powers as his position as Lord Chancellor, or Speaker, doesn't grant him any powers of political patronage or influence (beyond what he can make for himself in the position or what is available to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Home Secretary - probably the 2 most similarly prestigious non-PM posts).

AllanHainey 08:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"...head of the judiciary." So his position most closely resembles the Chief Justice of the United States.--Patchouli 08:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, I don't think there is an exact U.S.A. equivalent for the Lord Chancellor as was as as well as being head of the judiciary he was a member of the legislature (House of Lords) and the executive (sits in Cabinet). AllanHainey 13:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As a result of the Constitution Reform Act 2005, the Lord Chancellor is, basically, nothing more than a Cabinet minister who represents the Courts in cabinet - like a minister for justice, without a DEPT of Justice. A Lord Speaker of the House of Lords is becoming elected by that house, and the head of the judiciary is now the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. In its original form, the bill would have abolished the office completely, but the House of Lords wasn't really up to abolishing the oldest goverment minister in the world. He has just got a bit more modern, because it was completely against the separation of powers. So, he was like the Senate speaker, but he was never elected, and that job has been taken away from him anyway. --martianlostinspace 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Basis of the Wikipedia

Is the Wikipedia based upon communism and if so what form? ...IMHO (Talk) 09:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's founder discovered that writing only a small encyclopedia takes an immense amount of time and a lot of expert. He thought that allowing a larger number of people to work on an encyclopedia, it would be more complete and document more views on a subject. Whether that is communism is for you to decide, but the short answer is no. The project has no political background. It simply has the aim to make a good reference work (the best one we possibly can). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• I always thought the "Wikipedia is communism" people were joking or vandalizing. Everyone volunteers. No one gets paid. There are no rules except the ones people make by agreement with each other. It's closest to Anarchism in its idealistic state than anything like communism. It's also close to libertarianism (although I wouldn't push that one). Geogre 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to the question bleow it is quite like communism as there is a continuous revolution going on with many articles. Sorry Pol Sci humour. MeltBanana

Oooh, another occasion to tell my favorite lightbulb joke. How many Marxists does it take? None: the lightbulb has to develop its own revolution from within. Geogre 16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, to be blunt. --Proficient 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is communism only if you believe that the whole idea of people cooperating and working together is communism. Doubtless there are some people who believe that. DJ Clayworth 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you volunteer to do something useful for the fun of it, rather than for money, you're an evil pinko communist bastard who hates America and hates freedom, and you should rot in jail for the rest of the life. Support our troops by demanding money for everything you do! JIP | Talk 08:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole problem here is the definition of communism. Most people think that that is 'what they have in China' or such. But that's state socialism, albeit under a communist party, which probably is the cause of the confusion. Originally, however, communism was defined as 'everyone does what they can and takes no more than what they need'. This means that the Open Source movement (and thus Wikipedia) even betters communism, because there (and here) 'everyone does what they like'. It's ok to be a freeloader. This is possible because we're dealing with information, which can be replicated indefinitely at virtually no cost (the basis of the so-called 'new economy'). So everything needs to be done just once and it's available to everyone until eternity (in principle). And considering there must be at least a billion people online (and rising) everything gets done at some point. And it usually doesn't take too long if there is a need. I bet Marx didn't see that one coming. :) DirkvdM 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" - Karl Marx. Sounds like Wikipedia to me. I think Wikipedia approaches a utopian goal which many political philosophies, including communism, also express, even though the details and methods differ between those philosophies.-gadfium 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Stalinism. The men are on their way to your house now to escort you to your designated Gulag. --Dweller 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia (like much of the Open Source movement) is a gift economy: superficially similar to communism, but very different in the details. --Serie 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as Serie says, it's a gift economy. No one "gets" anything, but all give. There is no actual distribution of goods, merely a donation of services, and therefore there is no socialism or communism. 'All things in common/ all people one' would be a form of primitive communism, but here there is an ownership, there is no distribution, and there are no guarantees of equality of access: no communism, primitive or utopian. Geogre 23:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"What they have in China"? You mean capitalism? -- Миборовский 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not communism as formulated by the Soviet Union and PRC. No one is executed for expressing its thoughts nor are assets seized and distributed to the poor on Wikipedia. It is communism in the sense of collaboration by intellectuals and the common people who have no specialties.--Patchouli 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTE this is a JOKE question. See below --mboverload@ 03:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's an ongoing discussion.

Geogre, I presented the 'do what you can, take what you need' as the original meaning, but by that I didn't mean that it was a 'primitive' definition (what ever that means). It's still the ultimate goal of any communist party. The state socialism is meant just as an intermediate stage. So it is ideological. With Wikipedia there is no ownership (what gave yo that idea?), there is distribution (over the Internet) and the lack of guarantee of acces is a matter of the local situation of people. From the viewpoint of Wikipeidia there are no limits to access, and that's what counts here. DirkvdM 07:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I know, it's a "joke" (user has been here awhile) question with a real discussion behind it. --mboverload@ 09:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely not a joke question. Since the Wikipedia project in particular has at least a 70% chance (90% chance if a keyword is followed by the word "wiki") of sustaining a Google search engine hit a good portion of the public are now aware of the existence of the Wikimedia Foundation and the fact that what it offers is being offered free of charge in a manner that would seem to duplicate doing of an identical online encyclopedia under the former Soviet Union including spying on the comings and goings of other users and the banishment to Siberia by means of the dreaded access block. Many people want to know if the Wikipedia is a vain attempt by some crazed Communist left over from the former Soviet Union to somehow reestablish the practice of Communism by whatever means they can. For this reason the question needs to be discussed by everyone involved in the Wikimedia Foundation projects especially contributors. I make no joke by asking this question and regard each response the result of a serious effort to provide an honest, truthful and meaningful response; including your attempt to discredit and dismiss the question. ...IMHO (Talk) 10:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What kind of person assumes that because something is being provided for free it must be some kind of left-wing plot? DJ Clayworth 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just thought that an established user such as yourself would have settled this debate by now. I offer my apologies. Anyway, I don't find your question very relevant to Wikipedia. Did you mean Is Wikipedia turning into the Soviet Union? Communism doesn't stick people on gulags or torture them, which you seem to have confused. The Soviet Union was a state, not a political ideology. I hope you can see my confusion and suspicion of a sarcastic question. --mboverload@ 10:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• No I graciously accept your withdrawal of your comment that this question might in some way be a spoof. Since I grew up during the cold war it is possible that this question means a great deal more to me than to anyone else. No one ever expected the Soviets, especially after the Kennedy era, to decide that their children had suffered from deprivation enough unlike North Korea today. Since Wikimedia projects are free many people find them suspicious but the real issue of concern is the focal point of the beneficiary. Under a Capitalistic styled system there are opportunities for abuse which must be strictly regulated by the government in order to protect the public but no such situation exists with a totalitarian state. Not only can abuse go unchecked but the focal point of the beneficiary is the state whereas under a Capitalistic styled system the consumer is inherently the beneficiary of the interaction between the protective state and the "out to please the consumer in order to get more of his dollars in competition with other Capitalistic enterprises vying for the same dollar process" In reference to the Wikipedia it appears that a similar situation exists in which certain groups of article editors are not editing for the benefit of all readers but rather only editing for the benefit of themselves, thus leaving everyone else in the dark. I think this question should be raised from time to time and I do not see any reason for this particular discussion to be interrupted by my intervention until such a statement is requested, demanded, or required by a comment such as you had made. With all this said I hope this question and the discussion which has followed has resulted in a better understanding of the purpose and role the Wikipedia serves and will serve the Wikipedia and its contributors when the time comes to defend the Wikipedia against the forces of Capitalism with which it may compete. ...IMHO (Talk) 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to several comments here-above: Like I said, there's a lot of confusion about what 'communism' means. The notion of Wikipedia being communism is totally absurd if you interpret the term in the sense of state socialism (ie what is implemented in so-called communist countries). I don't think anyone would suggest a link there. So all that's left is the more pure meaning of communism (that which such countries would like to achieve one day) and the most common definition is that "everyone does what they can takes no more than what they need". So it would be very productive to limit the discussion to that meaning of the word. Unless anyone would like to suport the claim with a different definition, but I doubt it. It's a bit pointless to fulminate against some claim that no-one wishes to suport, isn't it? DirkvdM 19:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Karl Marx's Position on the Iron Curtain

Why did the Soviet Union restrict travel of its citizens to other nations around the world? Why is North Korea doing the same thing? Was the sealing of borders and hindering global interactions of a country's citizenry an idea Marx espoused or other people? If so, who?--Patchouli 10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideological stance: uh, if people travel outside they may become corrupted by foreign materialistic ideas, or may simply suffer from being in a place which is much less wonderful than the land they left.

Practical reason: they don't tend to come back once you let them leave. Shimgray | talk | 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• But did Marx in his writings specify not letting citizens travel outside the country or was this made up by Lenin, Stalin, or some other politico? (If you know in which piece of writing and where therein Marx made such a declaration, please indicate.) It's one thing for a foreign nation to refuse giving visas, it is another thing for the Soviet Union and North Korea (I think I am right about NK) to not let the citizens travel.
• I think that curiosity creates undue glamour.--Patchouli 10:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this was simply pragmatism by the relevant governments, and given a veneer of plausibility when needed. I doubt anyone ever cited Marx to justify it. Shimgray | talk | 10:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't purely something the Soviet Union adopted with communism, even back in the Russian Empire travel outside Russia was restricted (mainly to the aristocracy/rich and to explorers). Russia was the first country to make use of external passports, and I believe that internal passports were used in some cases too. Its not too surprising as up to the 19th c most of Russias population was serfs who were restricted to their master/owner's estate. As such they didn't travel abroad. I suspect once the serfs were emancipated the Russian officialdoms attitude to foreign travel remained in force and was made more obvious, rigid and formal with the rise of the Soviet state. AllanHainey 13:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This also has a lot to do with Socialism in One Country and probably the Domino theory. Actually Marx wrote of the oposite idea. MeltBanana 15:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"The working men have no country. We cannot take away from them what they have not got."

As other people have mentioned, the Russians have apparently always been paranoid about foriegners since pre-Communist times, and to a large extent they apparently remain so. Today, to visit Russia for a holiday, you need to apply for a visa that contains a highly detailed itinerary of your trip. I'm going to visit Latvia soon; I did consider a trip to St. Petersburg as well, but frankly I couldn't be bothered doing the paperwork. --Robert Merkel 23:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Same reason the US are not letting the Mexicans in (or pretty much anyone else as a niece of mine is experiencing). People from poor countries want to move to rich contries. Communism started in poor countries because it took a revolution and it takes a desperate people to revolt. Russia, for example, rose quickly economically after the revolution. But the starting point was so low (the industrial revolution had passed them by) that Western Europe was too hard to catch up with and remained too attractive. Now it's the same, but they're not let in by the EU (except for tourism or when they're rich). Back then, I suppose they were, for political reasons.

Or take Cubans leaving for the US. At first the Cuban government stopped them, but then when poverty struck after the fall of the USSR, they stopped doing that and made it a free for all. After which the US stepped in and started sending them back. Even a huge country like the US couldn't (or rather didn't want to) take in such an influx of poor people. Imagine Russians migrating to Western Europe en masse. If the iron curtain hadn't been there, I wonder which Western European countries would have been willing to take them all in. None probably. So why the curtain was there, I'm not sure, really.

Abut Marx, he dreamt of a united communist mankind, without any countries, so no, I don't think he saw that coming (funny, I used that exact phrase in the previous thread). DirkvdM 18:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason communist countries are poor is that communism doesn't work (you get factories making all left shoes, for example) and they also tend to be highly militaristic, spending a huge portion of the national treasure on weapons, and they tend to be highly corrupt, taking large portions of the national wealth for communist officials. And answering the question by saying "the Iron Curtain was there because no other country would take them in" is just wrong. They didn't want their best and brightest fleeing the miserable country they had made, so didn't let them leave. StuRat 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I once asked a middle-aged Czech person how the Communists rationalized preventing people from leaving the country. He said my question proved I didn't understand what life was like under Communism. The Communists didn't rationalize the policy, because they didn't have to. What the Party said was law, and no criticism or questioning was allowed. -- Mwalcoff 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird, because I thought most authoritarian regimes still wanted to manipulate people into thinking most of what they are doing is for their own good. Look at all those propaganda postersEvilbu 23:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You get factories making all left shoes? Is that because other types of shoes are a right deviation? Seriously, I'm astonished at how comfortable people feel about simply making things up when it comes to this kind of topic. Perspective is an interesting thing too. The description "tends to be highly corrupt" and "highly militaristic, spending a huge portion of national treasure on weapons" sounds a lot like the United States to me. Mattley ^(Chattley) 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Union consistently spent a much larger percentage of GDP on the military than the US. They had a much smaller GDP, yet managed to keep pace (and even surpassed the US on conventional weapons), this shows that they allocated an enormous portion of their wealth to the military. Democracy has an anti-corruption effect, that the most corrupt officials tend to be voted out of office. Under communism, the only time you get officials removed for corruption is when there is a purge and those in control use charges of corruption to remove their enemies, whether the charges are true or not. StuRat 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the "left shoe factory", read this account: [20]. While there was also a "right show factory", and the goal was to make matched pairs between the two factories, the obvious issues of mismatched production make such a plan seem idiotic to anyone but a communist. StuRat 18:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be a very convincing piece of supporting evidence, were it not for the clear statement in the document itself that it is a joke. Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It said no such thing. It did say people told jokes about the Soviet Union, then related a true story. There is nothing funny about that story, so it's obviously not a joke. Read it again, more closely this time. What could possibly be funny about two factories that formerly each made right and left shoes refitting to each produce complete pairs ? Here is the relevant text:

Armenians never seem to get tired of telling interesting jokes about bad planning during soviet times. It seems that one important factor in soviet planning was that no one place completely manufactures any product completely. It will be partially manufactured in one place, then shipped to another place to be finished. Nobody seems to know why the soviets adopted such inefficient practices. I include one story for your amusement:

1. An Armenian who emigrated to the USA long time ago was visiting his brother in Yeravan just after the breakup of the soviet union. His brother was the manager of a shoe factory in Yeravan. The visitor asked his brother how the production at the factory was holding up in these difficult times. The brother said ``last year our target was to make 40,000 shoes per month. Last month we made 20,000 pairs. ``What is the reason for the 50% drop in production level?"

``No, you misunderstood me. Last year we were the ``Left shoe factory. We made only left shoes, and shipped them to the ``Right shoe factory in Baku to complete the pairs. We stopped that practice after the breakup, now we make shoes in pairs. Last month we made 20,000 pairs of shoes, which is much better than making 40,000 left shoes.

StuRat 22:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is an 'interesting joke' - a 'story' told 'for your amusement'. It didn't cross your mind that it was an exaggeration for comic effect? The fact that it isn't true doesn't have any bearing on the question of the efficiency of centralised planning of course, but it does suggest you're a bit too keen to believe what you want to believe... Mattley ^(Chattley) 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The "It is an" is your addition, the text only says Albanians never get tired of telling jokes...it does say this is "a story ... for your amusement", but nothing about that says it's made up. Also, you originally accused me of making it up, which I clearly did not, the story existed long before I repeated it here. StuRat 00:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, mention just one so-called communist country that started off in a good economic position. Well? Then I'll give you dozens of dirt poor capitalist countries (check the bottom of this list). You were saying?

If you look at poor countries in the world, there is one thing they have in common - they were all poor to start with. The big difference is who caught up with industrialisation. To do that you need money, but if you're not industrialised, you don't have the money. Catch 22. The reason that Russia managed to pull this off was, I suppose, the size of the country (plus worker exploitation, except to a much lesser degree than in Europe in the 19th century). Despite stupidities like the 5 year plan. The big mistake of China was to reject industrialisation and even go the other way. That, however, has nothing to do with the communist ideal. And in case you're going to throw North vs South Korea at me, that's just one example (a very slim statistical basis) and how much money did big USA poor into little South Korea?

Having said all that, I should mention that I don't wish to promote neither communism nor state socialism. I just hate hearing people repeating the same bull over and over again. The ideal 'middle of the road' is socialism. Socialism killed the communist revolution. And rightly so. DirkvdM 08:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

East and West Germany is a good example, where both started out with similar economies, but the East German economy remained stagnant due to communism, while the West German economy skyrocketed. Your example on China is wrong; under Mao, they did try to industrialize, with the Great Leap Forward. However, by rewarding people for making steel, without any training, equipment, or quality testing, they got farmers to abandon farming, create backyard smelting operations, and melt down good steel so they could produce crap, which nobody would buy. This resulted in the starvation deaths of millions. In recent decades, China has largely abandoned communism for capitalism and seen it's economy grow dramatically as a result. Perhaps you were thinking of Cambodia under Pol Pot, who thought farming was the ideal way of life and forced everyone out of cities to become farmers. Something similar happened in Cuba, but on a much smaller scale. Cuba, incidentally, was relatively well off compared to many other former Spanish colonies in the Americas. The wealth was rather unevenly distributed, true, but existed due to the large plantations and tourism industry in place until Fidel Castro took over. Since then, the Cuban economy has gone nowhere. StuRat 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cuba was well off? My parents there in the early 50's and they hated it for the filth and the beggars. Or to prove the nonsense of your reasoning, I've read somewhere that Fidel Castro is one of the richest people in the world, so Cuba must be even richer now than it was under Al Capone. :) DirkvdM 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I said "was relatively well off compared to many other former Spanish colonies in the Americas" and I believe this is true. While most of this wealth was in the hands of a few rich individuals, now, what wealth remains is largely in Castro's hands. Even the poorest countries have enough wealth to enrich the few who control the means of production, under capitalism or "communism". StuRat 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Castro's wealth is reported based on his control of state-owned companies. See Fidel_Castro#Wealth.-gadfium 02:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I already thought as much. The argument still holds, though. The money is there and that was StuRat's argument. DirkvdM 06:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an absurd argument, you say because one person in a country is rich then the entire country is rich, too ? In a country with a population of over 11 million, even if Castro only claims 10% of each persons average income of $3500 as his own, that makes him filthy rich, and doesn't make the country rich at all. StuRat 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's an absurd argument, and that was my point. Once again, reciprocity. I was just re-applying your argument that Cuba was rich and that it didn't matter that that wealth was unevenly distributed. If you'd evenly distribute this wealth there wouldn't be much per capita and the same was true before the revolution (at least, that seems a safe assumption). DirkvdM 07:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One rich man doesn't mean the country is rich, but many rich men do tend to indicate that. Before Castro there were many rich businessmen in Cuba. Ironically, communism has concentrated what wealth remains in fewer hands (those of Castro himself), than under capitalism. StuRat 14:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)c

Ah, so you admit it's a matter of 'how much'. We'd have to establish that first. Can you? Also, do you think they left empty-handed? Sure, they couldn't take their factories with them, but the money was probably in US banks anyway. DirkvdM 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As for socialism being the ideal, I would put the ideal perhaps midway between socialism and capitalism (I believe the average income per person is higher in countries which have a degree of capitalism). StuRat 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Practically all countries in the world are capitalist. Even, say, Sweden. Except that they have a very strong socialist correction. And that's really what I meant. Maybe they took it to far, but most countries (among them the US) have way too little socialist correction. China, by the way, is still a socialist state, contrary to what many people seem to think these days. It's just that they have added a bit of capitalism. It'll be interresting to see if that system will work out well. Cuba has done something similar (funny, people don't suddenly see Cuba as a capitalist country) and it's working reasonably well there too, it seems. Maybe a socialist basis with some capitalism thrown in will become a viable alternative to the European capitalist base with some socialism added. DirkvdM 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say China is mostly capitalistic these days. However, capitalism without democracy seems unworkable in the long run to me. Communism, democracy, and unions are three ways to "look out for the little guy". Without any of those, I predict that the poor rural workers in China will be so abused they will revolt (signs of revolt are showing up already). StuRat 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain again. Communism means everyone is nice to each other (and thus looking out for each other). Government 'looking out for the little guy' is called socialism (be it state socialism or democratic socialism). And I suppose democracy would then be 'giving the little man power to look out for himself'.

However you define the terms, nobody in power (either political or economic) in China cares about the poor anymore, and the poor have no power to defend themselves from the government or the capitalists, short of a revolution. StuRat 14:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So you predict a revolution. Let's see what happens. For once we can settle a dispute through fact. When do you predict this revolution will take place? DirkvdM 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism without democracy is what 19th century Europe had and that led to either a 'communist' revolution (and state socialism) or a socialist evolution (and democracy). However, if you provide a basis for people to live on (which the 19th century industrialist didn't do) people will not be desperate and not revolt. Socialism is really a form of bread and games, which, ironically, stops socialism itself from progressing any further. DirkvdM 07:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we pretty much agree here. Most of early 19th century Europe was controlled by monarchs (excluding England, which was rather democratic by then) and industrialists. This is very similar to what is happening in China now, with the ruling communists deriving their power base more and more from rich industrialists and less from the proletariat. So, just as something had to change in 19th century Europe, something will have to change in China. Hopefully China can reform itself without spawning two world wars, but I'm skeptical that it can be done completely peacefully. I see a second communist revolution coming. StuRat 15:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaarghhh, we agree on something? :) Well, not on the revolution bit, because state socialism will provide the economic basis that will stop people from bewing desperate enogh to revolt. So we still disagree. Phew, you had me worried for a sec. :)

By the way, are you suggesting capitalist exploitation spawned the two world wars? I suppose not, but it sounds like it. DirkvdM 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One easy case study is that of East Berlin, which originally had free flowing access to West Berlin. After thousands of people fled Communist rule, the GDR and the Soviets cut access and put up the Berlin Wall. When there are better places to be than you own country, you will always have brain drain (the U.S. has been draining most of the world for decades now, though in the last few years Europe and Asia have started to become autonomous enough to avoid this)—it is quite a different thing to have even the laborers trying to flee the country as well, taking capital and economic power with them. It is a real irony, I think, that if the Soviets had allowed free immigration, I have little doubt that Western Europe would have begun sending them back, same as with the U.S. and Cuba. However since the Soviets capped immigration, the occasional refugee who escaped was not much of an impact on the economy of the states they entered into. --Fastfission 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer the request for a Communist country that started rich, I've read that Czechoslovakia, or at least the Czech part of it, was one of the world's wealthiest countries before WWII. Under Communism, it fell way behind places like Austria. -- Mwalcoff 23:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking about East/West Germany too. Of course, Europe was in ruins and the Western countries got substantial aid from the US, which must have helped a fair bit. The Marshall plan constituted about 12 billion US$ at 1940's dollars (what's that in present day dollars?), and that wasn't the only aid. From the article: "The years 1948 to 1952 saw the fastest period of growth in European history." I don't suppose Russia gave quite as much aid since they were themselves still building up the country and also themselves recovering from the war, which had been particularly devastating there (about 1/3 of the WWII deaths were Russians).

But another thing is, like I said before, that a lot of stupid things were done under state socialism. In retrospect, that is. The whole concept was one big experiment. And of course, mistakes are made then. This does not prove that the economic concept itself is wrong. Just that it takes more time and perhaps a milder, less massive implementation. And then there's the political problem that it was implemented in the form of an oligarchy and too much power in the hands of too few people is never a healthy situation. But I don't see why state socialism and democracy couldn't go hand in hand.

In stead of putting state socialism down let's learn from the mistakes. China seems to be doing that. With success. DirkvdM 06:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it does prove the whole system was wrong. Let's look at The Great Leap Forward in China and what would have happened had the equivalent been tried in a capitalist country. Under capitalism, the means of production are held by companies and individuals, not the state, so any decision to move rapidly from agriculture to industry would have been made by them. Let's say a large agricultural corporation decided to suddenly abandon agriculture and move to steel production, and didn't feel the need to train anyone or buy any equipment, but just told all their agricultural workers to go build smelting operations in their back yards. First, I would expect the shareholders to fire everyone involved in making such a stupid decision and reverse it before it was even implemented. But, let's say the corporation somehow manages to lie to the shareholders and make them think it's really a good idea. Then, in short order, the company would go bankrupt, and other companies would buy out their agricultural equipment and land and restore agricultural production. Other companies and shareholders would learn from this example, and only a small portion of the country's agriculture would have been disrupted for a short period of times. And if food was insufficient during this period, it could be freely imported from other countries, unlike in China, which was too "embarrassed" to admit failure and import food. Thus, millions would not have starved to death, as they did in China. StuRat 17:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if state socialism was combined with democracy, that would still mean everybody would make decisions about agricultural and steel production, as opposed to just those with expertise in each area making the decisions. I suppose that's better than one idiot making the decision (Mao), but still not the best way to decide things. StuRat 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just like creating the dust bowl was a stupid idea (not to mention war). Countries do stupid things, some for short term gain, others for a long term ideology. In a country with a billion inhabitants that means many deaths. A reason to make smaller regions more autonomous, I'd say, but that's something different. DirkvdM 07:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The dust bowl was created primarily by a drought. While soil erosion from farming was also a factor, this was not known before that time. This differs from the case in China, where it was well known by everyone in the steel industry that backyard smelting operations would never produce any useful steel. StuRat 14:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Communism tends to have an anti-intellectual component which distrusts, or even kills off, those people who are needed to guide the economy. In Cambodia under Pol Pot, for example, everyone with glasses was executed, because they "looked intelligent", a sure sign that those making the decisions were both stupid and genocidal. In China, during the Cultural Revolution. much of the intelligentsia was also executed. StuRat 16:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Soil erosion was more than just a factor. How long had that soil taken to accumulate and how long did it take for it to disappear? Hardly a coincidence (someone on the talk page also comments on that). But you say 'this was not known before that time'. And that is a key thing. When you try something new in a massive way, be it industrial, agricultural or economical, you plunge into the deep and you don't know what consequences it might have. Five year plans (and plan economy in the west) may look stupid in hindsight, but still 'seemed like a good idea at the time'. And if yo udon't try anything you'll never progress.

When you say 'communism' you mean an oligarchy or even a dictatorship. Which is indeed a dangerous thing because it leads to excesses. But that's not what this discussion was about (at least, I didn't intend it to). What is it with people that whenever socialist states are discussed all they think of is gulags, Stalin, Pol Pot and such. Whether that is relevant or not. Sounds like brainwash to me. Even nazi Germany was more than the holocaust and did some good things. Not being alowed to say that is stupid. Next thing I'll be called a nazi. This discussion is just between you and me now (can't imagine anyone else reading this anymore), so its safe to say this because you know I'm not a nazi. Ah well, tired now (bit late). Nite. DirkvdM 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone above said that Soviet Union was preventing people to go into capitalist countries because the would have been exposed to "materialistic ideas", but alone Karl Marx's is highly materialistic. The theory of Karl Marx has never been really implemented anywhere. Especially North Korea. Creating contemporary state borders is mostly due to capitalist policies and Karl Marx was fighting against this. I believe that the Soviet Union and the rest, of the so called Eastern Block, was preventing people to travel of economical and political reasons. The highly protectionist/interventionalist policies were a global trend at the time. Only that in the Soviet Union (and the rest) it was pretty much stronger. Stalin is considered to be creator of the command economy, so you might see him as a reason as well. So don't mistake socialism and command economy. The global trend now is the opposite - the neoliberalism. Still highly neoliberal countries are preventing the free movement of people. The reason is purely economical as well. They want to keep the cheap labour outside and be able to import the production without tariffs. --212.72.201.199 10:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

garnetted stock in relation to textile

can anybody help me what 'garnetted stock' means in the field of textile? - reply to (email address redacted to prevent spam)

Are you sure you don't mean the mineral? The first thing on google was this preview report: http://www.mindbranch.com/listing/product/R307-7672.html --Proficient 16:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In search of a Poet

A long time ago I read a poem that started "If I had known that you could die / I wouldn't have cried for you" and then went on about how he never conceived his lover to be mortal (or so I recall). Those first lines are not literal, I'm afraid, but that was the overall idea. I can't remember the author of that poem - does that ring a bell to anyone? Thanks. :)--RiseRover|^talk 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

sounds like stupid john donne shit if you ask me. probably a sonnet too. vomit. At any rate here are some rhymed couplets to your specifications:

“ I cried that day but did not know

That Death upon you e'er would show.
I now regard your pallid face
As memento of my disgrace.
If I could have it back again,
I'd not have cried, but been a man.
But anyway, what's done is done.
And as for bitches, we're down one.
82.131.188.84 18:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

”

I like it, 82. You got me giggling. Thanks for brightening up my day. --Richardrj 07:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

number of copies sold

How does one find the total number of copies sold of any given book title, i.e. The Devil Wears Prada, The Good Mother, Bridget Jones Diary— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.61.53 (talk • contribs)

With difficulty. Publishers don't normally make this information public unless a book has sold millions of copies, in which case that might be a selling point. You could try asking the publisher. Even then, a title is often produced by different publishers in different editions in different countries, so even they can't be sure how many copies have been sold in total. There are charts for the biggest selling books, based on surveys of a selection of bookshops, much like the music charts, but these figures are estimates only.--Shantavira 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

edit conflictI'm not sure that is publicly available unless the publisher releases their print run numbers, but that isn't actual copies sold anyway. Don't rely on any of the bestseller lists, most are determined by survey rather than sales; see Bestsellers. Your best bet is to check out each book's page here. I notice the The Devil Wears Prada mentions a figure of million of copies in hardback. Nowimnthing 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Slap! Please don't mix those up. It's hardcover an paperback. Not papercover or hardback... - Mgm|^(talk) 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(Aside) I'm not quite sure what the above comment means. The article cited specifies hardback and paperback. That is what they are always termed in the UK. The term hardcover is used in the US to mean hardback. (As a publisher) I haven't come across the term papercover.--Shantavira 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Early paperbacks were generally sold as "in paper wrappers" or "in paper covers", so... Shimgray | talk | 13:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since there are so many publishers, only estimates are possible. But I'm sure if they tried hard enough to network themselves, they could give you an exact count. --Proficient 05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Views on "No Child Left Behind".

Hi, what are the Democratic and Republican views/opinions on the "No Child Left Behind Act"? For example: Are Democrats/Replublicans for it, against it, or is there a mix of opinions? Thanks! --Purple Cat 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Teachers hate it, especially in California where they got screwed on a technicality, and they tend to be Democrats. Unsurprisingly, details are at No Child Left Behind Act. Melchoir 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than the knee-jerk reaction of "everything the other party does is wrong", I haven't seen much from Democratic politicians. What I have seen is a constant fight against the law from teacher's unions. Why would they like a law that tells them they have to prove on paper that they are qualified to teach? Also, there is a little clause that requires schools to give student contact information to military recruiters. But that is a completely different topic. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article covers the objections fairly well, including the "unfunded mandate" aspect, where the Federal Government forces the states to do things, then fails to provide them with the necessary funds to do as they are told. StuRat 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Ted Kennedy who is a quite famous democrat was an advocate of that,so....

Of "that" what? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of dumb.....as a school fails the standards, it's funding is cut, instead of getting assistance. As the standards become harder to attain, the schools lose more funding, so their condition deteriorates. Eventually, the people with money in the neighborhood go to a private school, or move. That's why it's been considered by some people to be an effort to privatize the American educational system.

Plus, part of the bill calls for everyone to be reading on grade level by fourth grade (ten years old). This includes people who have down syndrome, high maintenance autism, severe mental disabilities (including kid with an IQ below 75). I don't see how any school with special needs kids could meet the standards without the teachers, as well as these Learning-disability students, breaking their backs.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ikiroid is entirely correct. The system has two huge flaws, plus several minor ones. Flaw one being funding - Schools that are failing need more money, not less. Flaw two is the standards. Standards are very high, and schools that are getting their funding cut have trouble reaching those standards with limited resources and teachers. Without personalized attention and excellent resources, students that are very concentrated can even fall behind. Also, the standards are a problem with learning disabled, as stated above. Political Mind

Looking for Fictional Vampire Book

Can someone please help me? I have been searching for this book for years & have had no luck.

It is a fictional book about a man who is a nighttime bartender. He later finds out he is a descendant of Dracula. I don't remember much else about it, other than that Dracula is resurrected towards the end. I swear "BLOOD" was in the title, but I could be wrong.

Please email me at <email removed to prevent spam> Thanks!!

Historical GDP statistics

I've been looking for this for a long time... Does anyone know where can I find, for example, a list displaying the 20 biggest economies in 1936, the GDP per capita of the US and USSR in the 1960s along with European powers and Japan and so? Thanks. GTubio 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried [21]? looks like most of what you want is there, if with a bit of digging. Nowimnthing 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

More directly, try this [22], scroll down to historical statistics and open the excel file. Nowimnthing 23:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, big table! I don't know what you specifically want the 1936 and 60's data for, but if you're interrested in the USSR, a comparison between 1913 and 1960 would be more interresting, to see what effect the revolution had. That changed from roughly 1500 to 4000. For the Netherlands (an example of a stable already industrialised rich western european country) those figures are 4000 and 8300. So the USSR lagged behind about half a century, but the relative increase was about equal. For comparison with the tsars there are few data, and none specifically for Russia, only figures for 1820 for the former USSR, when it was 688, while for the Netherlands it was 1838. This surprises me. I thought that Russia had completely stagnated under the Tsars, but both have about a doubling over that period. Then again, these figures include Easterm Europe, which had also industrialised. Also, the Netherlands wasn't quite at the forefront of industrialisation, so let's look at the UK. There, the progression was 1838 > 4900 > 8600. Compared to the former USSR (688 > 1500 > 4000) you get a nice illustration of the pros of industrialisation (much faster rise for the UK in the 19th century) and the cons of being stuck with old machinery - the USSR rose 266%, against the UK just 175%. So the Netherlands took the best option - not too fast (UK) nor too late (Russia). Just nice and gradual. By the way, I'm Dutch. :) DirkvdM 09:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Which bands of rock'n'roll belong these logos?

Thank you with the scholar who will be able to rafraichir me the memory. (I just love the Google translation!!!)

[23] [24]

A track to be followed : the logo with the heart transpierced by a stylized arrow, appears in a scene of the film “Familly Stone” (Spirit of family 2005), on a poster (with the name of the group!!! … haven't time to see… gasp!) in the teenager's room of the applicant of Sarah Jessica Parker… Thank's to the owner of the DVD which will be able to make a saving “pause”.

Sly and the Family Stone ? StuRat 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first one, but I'm pretty sure the second one is Love and Rockets, if my memory from high school is reliable. --Joelmills 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The first one is Ratcat, an Australian band popular in the early 1990s. The second one is definitely Love and Rockets. --Canley 12:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both...you make my day!!! A happy guy from Paris.

Pronounciation of Caedmon

So I was reading the front page today, and came across this featured article: Caedmon. How do you pronounce it? Can someone put a pronounciation, both phonetic and IPA, in the article? Thanks JianLi 04:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Go to http://www.answers.com/topic/c-dmon?method=26&initiator=answertip:more for an audio pronunciation. In Merriam-Webster's phonics, it is \'kad-mən\.--Patchouli 06:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Further: The letter that is giving you trouble is ash. Æ, in Anglo-Saxon, represents the unique English vowel heard in "cat, bat, fat, that, hat." It is not the European alpha nor the Greek æ dipthong. English is the only modern language, I'm told, to have that vowel (even though we no longer have a letter for it). Geogre 12:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not as common as some other vowel sounds, but according to our article on the "æ" sound (Near-open front unrounded vowel), it occurs in Finnish, Norwegian, Persian, German and Vietnamese. Some Slovak dialects also have the sound. -- Mwalcoff 23:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Mwalcoff is surely wrong about the Persian language.

• I speak Persian and can tell you that Æ does not exist in Persian. In English, Æ is a 2-step sound: First you open your mouth wide and then you make it a ə (schwa) before closing it. In Persian, the second step is absent. When I first learned English, the second step eluded me. Next, I thought Æ is like e as in "bet." This was wrong, too. It took me four freaking years to figure this out.

Those who learned English in their pre-teenager years don't notice the 2-step subtlety of Æ. (I learned English in my teenage years.) They just say it right instinctively. --Patchouli 02:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to doubt the article, too. The article covers three different ligature vowels, not just the ash. Ash is a very odd sound, and it is very difficult for non-natives to get right. In fact, it's one of the easiest dialect markers for English speakers themselves, and it, along with the "oh" sound, is one of the sounds that native speakers can generally detect a foreign speaker by. (The British æ is closer to α than the American one, and Australian is closer to ε than the American one. Upper midwesterners use more head voice with it than other regions do, etc.) Maybe I'm wrong and it still exists in northern languages, but I don't think so. Geogre 02:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Patchouli is partly correct. Some dialects of American English do not have a true "Æ" sound. Sometimes, it is pronounced "eə," especially in eastern and southern dialects. I'd be curious to know with english dialect you learned, Patchouli.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in California. When George says, "Ash is a very odd sound, and it is very difficult for non-natives to get right," he is right on the money.--Patchouli 06:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Music Terminology

The musical scale "do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do" is also designated the letters "c, d, e, f, g, a, b, c." Why does the alphabet designation start at "c"=do and not "a"=do? Thank you, Ian.

Because the simplest major scale (if you're playing it on a keyboard instrument) is the scale starting at starting at "do" or C, called the "C Major Scale". None of the articles on music notation seem to provide any indication why letter notation starts has "A" where it is; it's a fairly arbitrary choice; there is at least some logic at starting at "do". --Robert Merkel 08:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing is which came first, and I don't know that. But various instruments have different 'central' notes, the root notes. I suppose the abc notation came from one with the root note 'a'. By the way, the piano doesn't have such a note because it has equal temperament. So the root note that has the easiest progression for a major scale was picked as the central note, I suppose, but then one might as well ask why that layout of keys was picked.

Also, the tuning fork of a guitar is in 440Hz. This has grown into the central reference note. And that's an 'a'. DirkvdM 09:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Any note can serve as "do" in the Tonic Sol-Fa. See Solfege.--Shantavira 09:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. If you are playing a scale of E, or in a key of E, then E is "do". But I may be wrong. DJ Clayworth 15:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

DJ is right. "Do" can stand for any of the notes on the staff. "Re" stands for the next note in "Do"'s scale. "Mi" stands for the next note in "Do"'s scale, and so on... Political Mind 19:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

They're right about solfege having any tonic. As to the reason it all starts with c instead of a... It took a long time to agree on equal temperament, many still disagree. Before that they would play songs mostly in a few common keys and tune a piano to sound good in them with mean tone or a variety of other temperaments. Before that they would just tune an instrument to sound good in one key.

The problem arose with orchestras. You couldn't afford to make several flutes and horns and such for each player so that they'd sound good in every key, or keep retuning or bringing in new harpsichords and pianos for different pieces. So for various matters of convenience here and there the instrumentalists and manufacturers generally fell into making instruments with C or F as the lowest note. This has changed somewhat and now Bb is more common than F.

The point is that this was all being sorted out before the relatively new standard of equal temperament. Back then most songs rarely strayed from the diatonic scale and instruments that bottomed out at C would be keyed to sound really good 'singing' solfege in C. Pianos were keyed to play along with these concert instruments. That's why there's all this inequality with 'semi-tones'. ;-)

When the theories of what to do with these semitones were being hammered out C was most likely (it's logical anyway) already the common concert pitch, the one whose scale has no semitones. Does that make any sense? This is how I understand the whole matter anyway... -LambaJan 05:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Budgetting

My organization has several departments. Each has an annual budget. At the end of every fiscal year, there is a frantic spending spree to spend out the budgets. Then, everyone proposes padded budgets to senior management, who try to cut them to a reasonable level. This process rewards departments who manage to claim they need more than they do, and departments that spend out fully, even if the expenditures are not necessary. Can anyone suggest resources for more sophisticated budget processes to help manage this more rationally so that everyone gets what they need, and not what they bargain for? I know it's not a perfect world, and in our case it is unlikely that a solution that needs senior management to know more about the needs of each department than they do now is likely to work. Thanks!

Ultimately, you're up against tax law, I think, if you're in the US. The end of the fiscal year means spending, because any carry over is shown as surplus and taxable assets for the company. Otherwise, your best bet would be to allow some budget carry over of some percentage, if a justification were appended. Then again, I know bumpkis about business, so take my advice as such. Geogre 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you found the true source of the problem when you stated that senior management, which is responsible for granting budgets, has no idea what is going on, and rely on the managers under them for this info. This is a classic conflict of interest, where they are relying on people whose best interest is served by lying and claiming they need to spend more money than they really do. Particularly if across-the-board cuts have been used in the past, they may now feel the need to inflate all future budgets to prepare for this happening again. If senior management is unable or unwilling to actually learn the business so they can apportion funds in the way they are actually needed, then they need to hire an outside consultant firm who will do their job for them. If this is a corporation, perhaps shareholders will ultimately sack the incompetent senior management and hire people who actually know the business. StuRat 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a further and more insipid problem in that, said senior management have no inspiration or motivation to effectively downsize or even rightsize their perceived theatre of operations by realistically bidding only for what they can accurately forecast as their spending requirements. As a relatively senior budget manager for a large and highly visible civil service department I came across the problem year in and year out. I would use all the business tools of analysis to predict, forecast, quantify, assess and define funding requirements for year 1, 2, and 3 ahead, and in those years, by applying best principles and practice on just-in-time procurement, and life-cycle costing techniques etc., would usually make significant in-year savings that would be progressively reported to the Finance and other Directors. But at the end of the year, we would be directed to forward buy large stocks of stationery, or pre-fund other supplies and bought-in services, knowing full well that by so doing, we would inherit the same problem next year. Achieving an end-year saving was seen almost as a crime, and was also perceived by senior management as extremely embarrassing to them personally, as they would have to offer money back to Government Ministers who had subjected their bidding round in the first place to close scrutiny.

US aid to Great Britain during WWII on condition of becoming 49th state

At a dinner party here in Great Britain I was recently told that it has just come to light via the FOIA that U.S. offered Britain aid at the onset of WWII upon the condition that Britain become our 49th state! Everyone at the table nodded in silent agreement that this was so, even as I, an American, said it was ridiculous. I have googled it every way I can think of using the following terms : U.S./United States/America/American aid/support/arms/alliance/ WWII World War II/World War Two Great Britain/Britain/England 49th state FOIA/Freedom of information Act

and I have come up with absolutely nothing in every case. Can you find a reference to this?

I very much doubt a reference exists, because it's almost certainly nonsense. It may, possibly, be an exceptionally garbled version of Churchill's offer of political union with France in 1940 (which never got anywhere, but was on the table for about a week as everything collapsed)... but something like this sounds like fantasy to me. Shimgray | talk | 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like the old "pull one over on the American" routine. I don't think there has ever been serious discussion of any sort of political "reconciliation" between the USA and UK, although if it is a genuine urban legend and not a joke, I can see why it would have currency in the UK. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It may seem odd now, but at wartime people come up with funny ideas. What about this: If the UK were to be a US state then the US would effectively be at war with Germany and the Monroe doctrine would not have to be violated (or would it? - maybe not such a good example). Just a thought. This reminds me of a Dutch plan to confiscate a large chunk of Germany after the war, which would have something like tripled the size of the Netherlands. This plan wasn't approved by the other allies, but if the Netherlands had played a bigger role in the defeat of the Germans, who knows? DirkvdM 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

False photos

On this site (WARNING: gruesome photographs, not work safe) I viewed photos of executions in the People's Republic of China. his photos are flase for two reasons: in the PRC is and was forbidden executions of juvenile and this method of executions is false. And, in the impossible case of attendibility of this photos, in what year there were executions photographated? What is yoour opinion on my osservation? --Vess 18:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• What makes you think those are juveniles? And fellow readers, if you are at all sensitive to grue, do NOT go follow that link; it's pretty terrible. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Holy... Um, adding emphasis to the above comment: URGH. If you dare that link, brace yourself first, probably with a few stiff drinks. As for the question, I'd say it's hard to say whether this is real or not. If they're faked, they certainly did a lot of work to make it look good. Tony Fox (speak) 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the same remarks regarding the gruesome photos as the above editors. As for the actual question, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to accept these photos as true depictions of executions in the PROC. Sure there may be "laws" on the "books" forbidding these attrocities, but what makes you think that a despotic, brutal regime such as that of the PROC takes any of these laws seriously? Try reading the Constitution of the People's Republic of China or the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. These are beautiful documents, guaranteeing the widest possible of individual liberties imaginable. Yet these documents are a farce. They're not worth the paper their written on. Similarly, should the PROC's politburo decide that certain people should be executed in this manner, any "law" that prohibits the depicted attrocities would be irrelevant. I'm afraid we're all falling victim to the idea of the "Rule of Law" that we all have the pleasure of enjoying in the free world. Unfortunately, the "Rule of Law" is nothing more than a joke in countries like the PROC. Loomis 21:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no particular reason to believe that these photos are fake. Executions have been photographed before and they will be photographed again, for all kinds of purposes, some of which are morally acceptable and even commendable (such as documenting evidence of murder for journalistic purposes) and some of which are not (such as getting a kick out of the whole thing and snapping a memento). -- Captain Disdain 03:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these are genuine. I think the photos date from the late 1980's. When I first saw them, the captions said they were being executed for adultery, but it could just as easily be for drug offenses. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the sign in the picture, she was executed for "Premeditated Murder". --Vsion 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, gruesome, but no more than your average wartime atrocity, so I don't see why you get so upset. I've never seen an electric chair execution, but the movie depictions I've seen look a lot more horrible than this. And then there's the method of injecting some destructive substances that is said to be a really horrible death. But first some other substance is injected that paralyses the victim, so you don't get to see the agony. Now that is gruesome. At least the people in these photographs probably died instantly. DirkvdM 07:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a little gruesome "don't open this in compromising circumstances" tag. (People can still click it if they want, but at least they are warned). --Fastfission 14:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• This seems like the execution of Nick Berg except that those Islamists proclaimed, "Allah is great," in Arabic in the middle of the scene where they cut the poor guy's throat. My opinion is that the probability that they are real is 99%. The resolution of Nick Berg video wasn't perfect but I still believe it.--Patchouli 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Seinfeld

In many episodes of Seinfeld a certain man is in the background. He has pale skin and light red hair. In a couple very brief speaking parts, he speaks with a British accent. Who is he? See him, for example, in The Chinese Restaurant.66.213.33.2 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

His name's Norman Brenner.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How in the world did you know that?

Because I didn't forget it when I heard it. ;0)  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  19:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

EU human rights in the UK

hi, the UK doesnt have a bill of rights as such but we do have (since the 50's) the European convention on human rights. i was wondering to what extent this is analagous to the bill of rights/supreme court in the US. E.g. if our governent is found to be breaching our human rights, does it then HAVE to change that law? also, does that automatically pull other signatory countries who are guilty of the same thing, into line? thanks 201.32.177.211 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See Human Rights Act 1998 and the links therein. --Mathew5000 19:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can give a fully informed answer to the first half of your question, as I'm not entirely sure of the constitutional status of the convention. (Though my best guess is that NO, it doesn't enjoy constitutional status among the member nations at all, making my following remarks moot.)

However, if it does indeed enjoy constitutional status among the member nations, then yes, if the UK is found to be in breach of human rights, it would follow that all other member nations would be forced to conform as well.

You made the analogy to the US Bill of Rights, which is a good one. For example, Roe v. Wade was a case involving American Constitutional law that involved a statute of the state of Texas alone. However, once the (anti-abortion) statute was declared invalid, the effect was that similar statutes were constitutionally invalid in all 49 other states. The same can be said of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Though it was concerned only with segregation in the state of Kansas, its result was that ALL similar stautes imposing segregation in every other state were made invalid. Hope this helps. Loomis 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your initial statement is incorrect. The UK does have a bill of rights, the Bill of Rights 1689 was originally an English bill of Rights and became U.K. legislation with the formation of that kingdom. It is still in force.

If the UK was braching the EU convention through its law it would have to change its law (usually after appealing) but this wouldn't affect any other European countries law, it would require a seperate ruling to require any other country to amend its legislation. AllanHainey 12:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Yes the UK has a "Bill of Rights", but the status of this "Bill of Rights" should in no way be confused with the American "Bill of Rights". The former is a mere statute of Parliament, having equal status with all other acts of Parliament, whereas the latter enjoys "constitutional status" in America.

All that is to say that if an act of the Parliament of Westminster breached the UK "Bill of Rights", the result would be a conflict of two "acts", both with equal status (though it may be argued that the Bill of Rights would win out due to its higher "prestige"). Nonetheless, the UK Bill of Rights is nothing but a statute, and as such does not have the authority to invalidate any other act of Parliament.

On the other hand, the American "Bill of Rights" enjoys constitutional status, meaning, that any act of congress that violates it (according to the Supreme Court) is declared null and void.

Finally, if any UK statute were to breach the EU convention, the question would be be more of a political than a legal one. The EU is not (at least not yet) a sovereign authority. It all depends on how far the UK is willing to delegate its sovereign powers to the EU. The UK already has special status in the EU as the only country to not adopt the Euro.

As I've said, the issue is far more political than legal. In practice though, to be brutally honest, the UK could, and very possibly would, if the issue is important enough, simply ignore any ruling that it's in breach of any EU convention. This would surely cause a certain degree of political hovoc in the EU, but is not at all outside the realm of possibilty. Loomis 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Biography

i have an assignment to write a biography on any famous person. Can you suggest me some of the names of people on whom I could write a biography. and could you please give me some clues to write a biography as an assignment. I would be very thankful to you.

Some prominent figures are people such as Oprah Winfrey, Albert Einstein, one of the various U.S. Presidents, etc. All of these can be found in Wikipedia. Maybe biography can help you. --Proficient 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What astonishes me is that a biography of a famous person was the featured article today: Cædmon -- the first poet we know about in Anglo-Saxon -- and it's a feature quality article, too. Geogre 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• If the assignment is to "write a biography on any famous person", it is probably a primary education assignment, in which the first Anglo-Saxon poet would neither be the most interesting or most accessible subject. --Fastfission 01:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I make a a suggestion - pick a person who is famous but may not be so familiar to your classmates. One that comes to mind is Howard Florey, whose work has saved many millions of lives over the years but is not super-famous. Whomever you choose, remember that you should use more sources than just Wikipedia; go to the library and ask the librarian for help finding other sources of information on the person. --Robert Merkel 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin is always a good biographical subject, because he had a very interesting life which breaks into many simple pieces. Also, a very good biography will allow you to talk not only about the subject of the biography, but also about the times in which they lived, how they changed the world around them, and how they relate to the world today. --Fastfission 01:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)*

• What, no women?? Susan B Anthony,Florence Nightingale,Emily Dickenson,Sylvia Plath ,Angelica Kaufman,Aphra Benn,Flo-Jo,Marie Curie,Elizabeth Fry,Emily Pankhurst(next ten thousand names deleted in mercy to you)hotclaws**==(81.133.206.137 08:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

• Amelia Earhart?--Patchouli 10:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll be nice. Benjamin Franklin just had a 300th birthday, and he has a classically perfect biography. Charles Dickens is another with an exceptionally narrative biography. If American, look to Mark Twain and sort of play down the later years. If British, check out Benjamin Disraeli and Robert Walpole, or Winston Churchill, of course. Robert E. Lee was a favorite when I was in early grades. Geogre 02:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you ask like this you're bound to get rather obvious answers. In stead, you could try clicking 'random article' at the top left until you hit a famous person. The first one I encountered was Martin Luther. Or you could try someone who should have been more famous, like Francis Bacon From the article: "Bacon was ranked #90 on Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential figures in history". Don't we have a list of famous people? Aaargh, we do! I knew it, we've got a list on just about anything! You have to make a choice there, though. What about some explorer? One of those should go down well with your classmates. DirkvdM 07:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• There's really not many clues to give. Simply collect information and tell the story of their life. What famous people do you find interesting? If you pick one of those, it would make the assignment a lot more fun to do. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

US casulties at desert one Iran hostage resuce

I just finished GUEST OF THE AYATOLLA about the Iran hostage crises 1979-1980, I have not heard from any source if the US military men who were killed the debacal at desert one ever where repatriatied for next of kin's disposal. Any idea what happened to them? Thanks 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)(Hobgoblen)

• Here is the fate of the 8 dead men: "...and the dead bodies behind in the flaming wreckage." Go to [The Hostage Rescue Attempt In Iran, April 24-25, 1980] to see if for yourself. Unfortunately, Operation Eagle Claw on Wikipedia doesn't mention this.

I choose to copy and paste a short discussion about Iran Hostage Crisis that can be found on Talk: Ruhollah Khomeini.

hostage crisis

Some Iranians considered this to be a miracle caused by divine intervention this quote from the article should not be in an encyclopedia, at least not in a political one. trueblood 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Some Iranians think everything from breathing to defecating is a miracle.Patchouli 05:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

??? trueblood 12:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As you say SOME. And it's like this everywhere. SOME fools don't represent everyone. Persian Savant 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't laugh, please.--Patchouli 10:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mayor

Was there any female mayor who posed naked for the picture because I heard that some female mayor was posing naked for her picture?

Huh? Where?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be amazed to hear that no female mayor anywhere ever posed naked for a picture. Perhaps you could be a little more specific? What picture would this be? For an art class? For a nude painting? For some kind of an official portrait to be sent out with press releases? What?

No, never mind, I got it. Just typing "nude mayor" into Google reveals, with the very first hit (honestly, not that we mind helping, but you could at least pretend that you're making an effort here...), that Canadian Sharon Smith, mayor of Houston, British Columbia was photographed nude by her husband, and apparently some jerk copied the pictures from her computer and put them on the internet. Big whoop. I suppose this is what passes for an exciting -- not to mention terribly sinful and titillating -- event for some people. A NUDE MAYOR! OH, CANADIANS, WHAT WON'T YOU DO? -- Captain Disdain 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Nicely put Cap'n. (I wonder what pretext he used. My partner would throw a fit if I even hinted at photographing her nude.)--Shantavira 08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I do remember hearing about that. I don't think it was too recent, but I do remember. Unfotuneately, all I can do is confirm that it happened, for I don't remember any details. Political Mind 02:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Post-Industrial revolution religions

Have any [notable] religions been formed after the industrial revolution? It seems like many of the world's religions were founded in agrarian and nomadic societies. The recent ones that I know of, like neopagan religions, essentially keep the same basis of earlier pre-industrial religions. I'm wondering if there is a religion that preaches a lifestyle for people in a industrial or post-industrial society.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was formed in 1830. The Salvation Army was founded in 1865. The Bahá'í Faith was formed in 1866. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientology, Raelianism, Westboro Baptist Church.... - Nunh-huh 02:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of those (not many) are developments of existing churches. There were many, many sects that developed in response to the industrial revolution (or arguably in response), including the various "primitive" stripes of protestantism. The determining factor for many of these is mass communications, as rapid communication and news and such allowed them to react against Higher Criticism and such and to insist on a purely "what's in the Bible is all we'll have" lifestyle. Others, like the Shakers, the Oneida, etc. are probably reacting to production schemes and the dehumanization of factory work. By resorting to closed communities and common ownership, they were very much reacting against capitalist-owned means of production and remote production plants. One of the most jarring things about the IR was that you didn't work at home or live at work anymore, that you would go to a special place to "work" and then go away from that place and "not work." That was somewhat alien to most segments of the economy, and the herding together and leaving behind caused a lot of disquiet. Geogre 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for was a religion whose stories, parables, and lessons centered around an industrialized world. Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad were essentially nomads, and the metaphors they used all had to do with a primitive societies whose problems remained essentially the same for common people for thousands of years, both before and after these prophets. They related to them on a level of what they lived at.....a simple, essentially technology-less lives.

That isn't really the case anymore. Our lives don't depend on self-sufficiency, and the world is extremely connected, and science has expanded rapidly. I thought there might be a religion structured like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—giving adherants an ethical and moral system to use, but for within a post-industrial world. It seems like a lot of the recent religions everyone here as listed encourage people to reject modern, mainstream lifestyles, for someting exceedingly weird, and/or nostalgic....well, I was just curious to know. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I can't think of any such religion off the top of my head. Even Scientology situates its central mythos in the distant past. Falun Gong is a recent creation, but it claims a Buddhist heritage, so it isn't exactly rooted in the post-Industrial period. Actually, I think Communism, in particular the dogmatic Maoist-Leninist varieties, might be examples of true IR religions. Communism came about as a direct result of the IR and the attendant social upheaval. Its ideology (or belief system, if you will) was rooted in contemporary socioeconomic issues, not in a distant past of miracles and revelations. If Communism had continued for a few centuries, the Industrial Revolution would have become its "Bible Days". But that's just speculation. Perhaps the Unification Church is a post-IR-based religion? It is fairly "contemporary", in that its central figures were all born during the 20th Century. Also, Cao Dai may fit the bill. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"If Communism had continued for a few centuries..." If you mean pure communism, where has it started? If you mean state socialism, give it some more time. There seems to be this notion that it has ended, but that was just the USSR and eastern Europe. DirkvdM 08:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant the kind of dogmatic Marxism-Leninism espoused by the USSR, PRC, etc, which (as far as I can tell) has been declining for many years. I certainly didn't mean "pure communism", which could mean just about anything. I don't want to speculate on the future of state socialism, which could always experience a resurgence. To answer the original question, I should say that Marxism-Leninism is the closest thing we have to a religion rooted in the Industrial Revolution, even though it doesn't have all the characteristics we look for in a "religion". Bhumiya (said/done) 09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I never looked at it that way. That's interesting, because a lot of Marx's theory does call for a certain lifesyle.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You could even say that the communist ideal (that which socialist states strive for) is a form of heaven and that the notion that this could ever be achieved is a belief. It's just very Earth-bound, which sets it apart from 'other' religions. But then you could regard just about any ideology as a religion and that would be a bit silly. For a religion you also need some claims about life after death and creation (that these are overseen by some super-being is not necessarily part of a religion I'd say). DirkvdM 07:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your definition of religion is a bit narrow, and seems specially tailored for the Abrahamic religions. Communism does have a deeper philosophical basis, namely dialectical materialism. Furthermore, there are many religions with no specific position on life after death. Many forms of Buddhism reject the idea outright, regarding it as a frivolous distraction from reality. Germanic paganism had no concept of continuity after death, hence the focus on glory in this life and the respect afforded to skalds. No, Marxism-Leninism most definitely can be a religion, depending on the level of commitment of the adherent. I think the truth of the matter is that few Communists were willing to commit to it on that level, but that doesn't mean there weren't people for whom Communism was a complete and life-affirming religion, even if they didn't use that term to describe it. If the Communists had evangelized as aggressively as the early Christians or Muslims, we would certainly have come to regard Communism as a religion. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rejecting something is having a position on it. Just like atheism is really a religion because it makes a claim about the existence of a god. But a claim about life after death is indeed not an essential part of religion. A claim about the origin of life (and the universe and everything if you wish :) ) is however an essential part of religion, I'd say.

Atheism is not a religion. It's simply the absence of belief in a deity. There may be religions that incorporate atheism, but atheism itself is simply the rejection of a concept. An atheist doesn't have to make any positive assertions. Now, to be a strong atheist, one must begin making extra assertions, but weak atheism doesn't require anything at all except a lack of belief. Religious people often make the mistake of thinking that atheism is a big ideology, but really it's just a concept and the (widely divergent) implications that people ascribe to that concept. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the early comunists were indeed quite zealous about spreading the word. Which was part of their succes around 1900 and during and after WWII, most notably the communist resistance, which was a force to be dealt with because, more than anyone else, they were fighting the 'devil' himself (while we're on the subject :) ). DirkvdM 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Kilmainham Jail (Goal)

I am researching Prisoner holding areas prior to being sent to Long Kesh Prison in Ireland. The period of time is 1970 to 1976. I am understanding that although Kilmainham Jail (Goal) in Dublin was no longer in use that prisoners were held at the Kilmainham Court House next to the goal until transfer. My problem is that I have not been able to verify this and everything I have read only states that court is held there, but not that prisoners were detained there. Could you please help me out with this, possibly citing a web site that can give me more information? Thank you

--70.20.65.229 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Are the USA and Canada nation-states?

I was reading our article on nation-states and found no mention of "new" states like the USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, etc. These are countries that have come about fairly recently, often as an offshoot of an older nation-state's colonial empire. Are they considered nation-states in their own right?

A related question is whether citizens of the USA/Canada/Australia can be said to have an ethnicity. I started thinking about this after reading an argument on the Scottish people talk page. Some editors, particularly those living in Scotland, consider it incorrect to treat American/Canadian/Australian citizens of Scottish descent as "Scottish people" like themselves. One editor satirized the idea as "magic Scottish blood". I am somewhat inclined to agree with this position. However, this leads to a situation where some people (i.e. those living in undisputed old-world nation-states) have distinct ethnic identities, whereas other people (i.e. those living in former colonies like the USA, Canada, and Australia) cannot be reliably placed into any ethnic group. Ignoring for a moment the fact that this is a frivolous matter, it seems to me that one should either divide Americans/Canadians/Australians according to familial origin (e.g. Scottish-American, Irish-Canadian, Italian-Australian...), or one should say that "American", "Canadian", and "Australian", among others, are ethnicities in their own right. Likewise, "Mexican people" and "Argentine people" ought to have the same status as "German people" and "Portuguese people". Yet this is never the case. No one ever speaks of "U.S. Americans" as an ethnic group like "Germans". Does anyone know why? Is it merely because the latter group is older? Bhumiya (said/done) 05:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By the definition in the article nation-state, Canada is not a nation-state (for the same reason Switzerland and Belgium aren't). It's arguable whether the USA is or is not a nation-state under that definition. As for ethnicity, you would not say that there is one "Canadian" ethnicity or "American/USA" ethnicity, at least not yet, because those countries have received such a large amount of immigration from different parts of the world over the last two or three centuries. Granted the term ethnic group does not always have a firm precise meaning, and can have different meanings depending on the context, but in a global context you would not refer to "Canadians" as an ethnic group. --Mathew5000 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says American isn't an ethnicity? See here: [25] --Nelson Ricardo 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, but in that case, I don't think "American" is an internationally-accepted ethnic group, but an informal census designation selected by people who aren't otherwise aware of their ancestry. Consider that the great majority of Americans are not "American" according to the census. I believe most respondents who self-identify as "American" are known to be of distant English or Scotch-Irish ancestry. It isn't a widely accepted ethnic category like "Russians" or "Germans". I imagine there are some people in Australia or Canada or New Zealand who similarly describe their ancestry as "Australian", "Canadian", or "New Zealander", but most citizens of these countries feel the need to be more specific, tracing their families back to established old-world countries. Bhumiya (said/done) 11:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To tackle the subject line of this, I'd suggest that the U.S. is a nation-state, while Canada is a state but not a nation. Per the OED definition we cite, are the citizens or subjects...united also by factors which define a nation? In the U.S., yes: the American creed, the flag (literally and figuratively), constitutionalism, Christianity (particularly Protestantism), individualism, capitalism, the English language etc. What's missing is ethnicity, which is obviously a widely cited "factor which define(s) a nation", but the other "glue" is strong and obvious enough. And as is frequently pointed out, the lack of an ethnic base has the positive of allowing non-whites to assimilate to the creed and reinforce the sense of nationhood. Some have argued that present Hispanic immigration may weaken these factors to the point of a bifurcated state that won't be definable as a single nation. Perhaps alarmist, perhaps not.

Canadians, however, are not "united also by factors which define a nation". Most obviously, the state has within it a de facto ethnic nation (Quebec) that defines itself contra the rest of the country. There is no linguistic unity, no religious unity (insofar as Canada is Christian, it's waning), and Canadians do not unite around the jingoism and symbolism (for better, many will tell you) that you see to varying degrees in the rest of the Anglosphere. Finally, there's no unity of self-definition. An urban Canadian may suggest the country is defined by immigration and multiculturalism (search multiculturalism in Google and the first hit is a Can gov website)—but really that's a definition of Toronto. Drive an hour north of the city and multiculturalism is distrusted. Canada is one of the world's best ideas, but in the long view it may in fact be doomed as a state because there is no nation at it's heart.

Now someone can come along and tell me I'm a terrible patriot... Marskell 11:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand Canada, but the country seems fairly "normal" to me. With the obvious exception of Quebec, it seems about as culturally cohesive as the U.S. Admittedly, they interpret immigration and diversity differently, but I don't think there's any practical difference in the way people relate to one another. But I agree that Canada seems less like a nation. Even if you removed Quebec from the equation, it would seem more like a "giant hotel room" (damn it, I wish I could locate that quote). Perhaps it has something to do with its system of government. Incidentally (and this came as a surprise to me), Canada's nonreligion rate is only a percentage point higher than that of the U.S. Both countries are between 14% and 16%. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the term "settler state" used to refer to states in the Americas and Oceania set up and dominated by the descendants of post-1500 settlers, but the term has a strongly leftist tinge to it, and it may be a while (if ever) before it becomes a neutral term for this kind of state.--Cam 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Settler state" is actually exactly how Huntington (linked above) defines the U.S. He makes a pretty decent argument in Who are we? that "immigrant nation" is a misnomer and that instead America must be understood as an Anglo-Protestant settler nation. This is decidely "rightest" in his hands--not "settler state" as a smear to show that the nation has oppressed others, but as an admittance of what actually constitutes the national identity. Marskell 22:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've never heard that term before. Of course, it would be a stretch to call the modern U.S. an "Anglo-Protestant" nation, although some commentators (I'm looking at you, Pat Buchanan) insist upon it. Catholicism is now the largest single religion in the country. The proportion of "Anglos" is continually dropping. Every census, the proportion of non-Christian religions (and non-religion) grows by multiple percentage points. Perhaps it would be accurate to say that the U.S. retains the self-image of an Anglo-Protestant nation, while it is actually rapidly losing this identity. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The counter-argument would be that "Anglo-Protestant" is a settler effect that is not bound to a given demographic group. The initial foundation (which was driven by, literally, English Protestants) created a ripple that has increased in strength and accomodates those who are not necessarily English or Protestant. Thus Irish, Germans, and Italians "became" Anglo-Protestant and so even did (some) Jews and African-Americans. Condi Rice, for instance, is eminently Anglo-Protestant. The question then is to what extent this will be repeated with Hispanics. Marskell 07:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the US refered to as a "state-nation," that is, a country where the nation is based on the state rather than the other way around. While Japan is the state of the Japanese, Americans are people who live in the USA. -- Mwalcoff 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Japan is a particularly strong example of a nation-state. In a way, a country like Scotland falls somewhere in between, in that people regularly immigrate to Scotland and become Scottish, regardless of their place of origin. You can be born in Nigeria and theoretically become as Scottish as Rabbie Burns. It would be controversial to say "black people can't become Scottish". You couldn't make that statement and not sound like a racist. This is even truer for large, immigration-heavy places like Canada, the UK, and the USA. No one (well, almost no one) would say "You must be white to be Canadian". But this level of naturalization rarely happens in Japan, except for rare cases like Arudou Debito and Marutei Tsurunen. These guys must constantly assert their Japaneseness (Japanicity?}, not only to other Japanese, but to non-Japanese and non-Asians as well. Even Koreans and Chinese have a tough time becoming Japanese. It is not particularly controversial for us to say "That white guy can't become Japanese". Indeed, it seems almost like common sense. It's very peculiar. I still think it has something to do with the age of the country. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pantheism

Pantheists believe that everything, especially nature, is god.But I don't understand.What is it about nature that pantheists believe actually makes it god?I've read the article on it, but it doesn't give me a satifying answer.

• That's about as easy to explain as why Christians believe in Holy Trinity. The key word is believe, and I'm not sure anyone could give a explanation you find satisfactory, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• They believe that there is a God, but this God is made up by everything. In other words, they have faith that there is a god, but then they conclude logically that this god is either within all things or made up of all things -- either that this god's spirit is inside all things or that all things together share a single essence of godhead. Geogre 13:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• read the answers to this question and its variants that you have now posted - at an approximate count - between eight and a dozen times on this and the other reference desks. If you still don't understand after all that, I'm afraid that trying to answer again will be of little use. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Panentheism

How is panentheism different from Abrahamic theism?Do panentheists believe that God created the Universe, or that God and the Universe came into existence at the same time?

As far as I can tell, panentheism is simply the belief that the universe is a part of a deity—that there exists a deity containing and transcending the observable universe. Abrahamic theism is panentheistic, in that its conception of God is all-encompassing. However, not all panentheists are Abrahamic theists. Think of Abrahamic theism as one species of panentheism. Anyone care to correct me? Bhumiya (said/done) 09:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A relatively minor religion Ayyavazhi is pantheistic, AFIK. -- Sundar 12:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But take care not to confuse pantheism with panentheism. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand.I thought panentheism was different from theism, excluding deism and pantheism.So are you saying that the three main types of theism in the world are deism,pantheism, and panentheism?

That's what I'd say. I don't see how panentheism could exist outside of theism. It requires theism—a special type of theism. Pantheism is more ambiguous, and some forms of pantheism aren't theism at all. However, most are. Deism is simply a type of theism based on personal reason. There is such a thing as panendeism, which is simply a form of panentheism based on personal reasoning and logic. It goes sort of like this:

Theism

Pantheism

Panentheism

Deism

Pandeism

Panendeism

That's how I see it. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

8 July 2006

Wikipedia

Aloha from the desert of North Sin City, NV <Phenix City was also sin city,too, and a dangerous one. --Patchouli 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)>

As has been the case with far too many of my contemporaries we seemed to adhere to what we thought was a reliable source for information. Namely that which is contained in a reference book(s) called an Encyclopedia. Over the last 6 Decades I have viewed the Britannica as that reference book that was the one to own. It all started with the way their books were both represented and above all their presentation. Top shelf bindings with "gold" trim and of course of excellant workmanship.

Since over these many years on my journey's I have sought the facts on a first hand basis if at all possible, and more often reading what that individual or individuals may have said or done. Since I have been most fortunate over the last 25 years to have had the pleasure of actually hearing that which is attributed to the speaker on a first hand basis. Since I often have taken the dictionary that has sat by my side over the years and occassionally actually looked up words as they were spoken, a word that I was not really familar with since it is not in my personal use. There have been far too many times when what I have heard as they say "from the horses mouth" have been interpreted for the public a few days later. My late mother who ewas born in Eastern Europe and imigrated to the then United States of America after the revolution learned the English language in addition to speaking three other languages. What we call and accept in the now States of America "spin" she would interpret quite simply as "lying" only with a capital "L"

I heard about Wilkipedia from some source which includes both sides of the aisle. I was trying to look up some speach or letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote regarding his viewpoint of a Democracy. The Encyclopedia Britannica that I have loaded on my work station provided a plethora of reference work regarding Jefferson but did not come close to what I was able to obtain from this visit to "Wikipedia" Unfortunately I have not at the moment been able to track down that which Jefferson has left to History. Unfortunately part of the existing difficulties which are created by Man and we now face are already recorded as historical facts, which represent the real story, at times referred to as the "truth". A country divided has historically been more easily controlled and subsequently conquered. Any individual that can commit to any ideology on a daily basis whereby adverse facts are illuminated and constitute no change in their support could indicate a number of things. I consider only three at this point of time, one is that an individual arrives at a conclusion after due dilligence and is open to change. Another is so involved or respectful of some individual that actually makes him believe that the other side of the aisle is from Mars. And that third story exists universally they are simply followers that do not ewant to disturb the water. In other countries its the fact that a small minority are well armed and blood thirsty.

I would greatly appreciate any help anyone in your world that could guide me to where I might find Jeffersons commentory on Democracy. I believe what he expressed might be of a great surprise. This Country has a motto that is on most of our coinage with the exception of the nickle that some enterprising member of Congress had removed in the 80s. E' Pluribus Unum we certainly have maintained the "Pluribus" but sadly we have lost the "Unum" which has joined our United at this time being AWOL. The "truth" however has moved up to be "MIA" "United we stand divided we fall" One can come to any conclusion they want but no one can change the "FACTS" Red, White and Blue is both the United States of America's colors and the colors of those that care more about all American's.

As I have mentioned before new and creative words have been uttered over the public media. Some of these words do not exactly meet with their definiktions. "Rendition" and "Extreme Rendition" the terminology used by our Secretary of State has caused me to seek another definitive work on definitions of English words other than my old trusted Websters. As she uses the terms to explain the treatment of those that be "terrorists" I for dsome reason cannot find any definition of either of these words associated with the word "terror" or any other word that uses it as its root? Since I am a RWB American I only make observations and ask for other opinions based on the facts contained in my observation. I leave you with this last observation as I feel I may have over stayed my visit.

On 7 January 2006 a Friday at approximately 1300 hrs. the Pentagon released a report that was headlined. 80% of all Marines KIA could have been avoided had they had the proper equipment. On 10 Dembember 2003 General Carlos Sanchez made an urgent request for more Armor, Flak Vests, Ceramic Inserts and ammunition. His reward was to be promoted into obscurity!

Semper Fi

F. Ross Spivack--172.190.168.115 11:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC) lost again in a desert but this one has safer fireworks.

"The impossble is most often the untried" FRS

"Some men see things as they are and ask not Why? I dream things as they could be and ask Why NOT?"

• Searching for a question in the verbal haystack, I gather our ever faithful correspondent is looking for "what Jefferson wrote about democracy". Unfortunately Jefferson wrote a lot, including a lot about democracy, some of it hypocritical cant, and some of it highly susceptible to demagogic misuse. Do you have some specific quote or theme in mind? alteripse 11:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's further complicated by the fact that Jefferson the revolutionary and Jefferson the president and Jefferson the embittered former president don't all agree with each other. Therefore, cherry picking quotes from Jefferson has become a political parlor game, as you can find him saying that you're right, no matter what you believe, if you look carefully. Geogre 13:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You should definitely look at the Thomas Jefferson page on Wikiquote, a sister project to Wikipedia. There are tons of quotations by Jefferson. I've linked to it here. --Bmk 16:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

More useful perhaps might be S:Author:Thomas Jefferson, the wikisource page. We've got a wide range of Jefferson's letters there. AllanHainey 12:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

double nuclear blast survivor : an urban legend?

Belgian magazine Humo once published an interview with a Japanese man who was sent off to Hiroshima for business, and suffered minor injuries because of the blast. However, he quickly returned home to go on working...in Nagasaki. The second time he did get seriously wounded and he claimed he doesn't remember much of the next fourteen days.

Does anyone know more? I have been looking quite hard but I can't find a name? Is it a hoax?

I've never heard this before... it sounds a little too clever to be true, IMO, but I don't have any other reason to dismiss it off hand. --Fastfission 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Our article on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings mentioned several such double casualties at one point, but that info appears to have been removed. If you think about it, the Hiroshima victims would have been evacuated to other cities, so it's not all that surprising a few would have been sent to Nagasaki. StuRat 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Humo is generally a reliable magazine. While suspicious sounding, I think this could easily be true. Did you check if Snopes listed any urban legends on this? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I read it too, on a WWII encyclopedia I have no longer.--Panairjdde 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a documentary film called niju-hibaku (二重被爆, lit: doubly explosion-affected), about poeple who ware exposed to both nuclear blasts. Here is a link to the official site[26] (in Japanese) and an article about the film: Film depicts 8 people exposed to both A-bomb blasts. --Kusunose 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

While gross, it could be relevant : he claimed that when he got a bit fixed up again, he was informed that in the days after the second blast, chickens picked the maggots of his flesh, thus explaining his undying gratitude and his refusal to eat anymore chicken. Evilbu 13:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Maggots can be helpful, though, by removing the dead tissue before it breeds infection which spreads to live tissue. StuRat 15:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of this story before, but it was an American POW who survived twice (after being transferred), not a Jap. Battle Ape 05:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Next Video Medium

I've been thinking about transferring my scores of VHS tapes to DVD, but then I thought: How soon will DVD become obsolete? Should I wait for the successor to DVD? And what is that new medium? Will it happen within 5 years? Can you direct me to some articles? 66.213.33.2 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The two major competing replacements for DVD are Blu-ray and HD DVD. They are higher quality than DVD though you are unlikely to see much of a difference unless you have a large screen high def TV. In my opinion, neither format is likely to last very long as the move to broadband internet access will allow more purchase through downloads. It is likely in 15-20 years that most media will be downloaded to a hard drive or streamed rather than exist on a piece of plastic cluttering up your house. Nowimnthing 15:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As to tranfering your VHS I suppose you need to weigh the pros and cons. The jump from VHS to DVD is a quality improvement (a larger one than the jump from DVD to Hi Def DVD.) DVDs are likely to be around for quite a while (they have a large market saturation and all present plans for Hi Def players are to be backwards compatible with DVDs.) DVDs sometimes offer extra content like directors commentary and outtakes. DVDs are more durable over the long run than tape (provided you handle them correctly.) DVDs are digital and as such could possibly be transfered to a hard drive (pending legal copyright issues.) On the other hand the transfer of a large collection can be very expensive. Nowimnthing 15:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"The jump from VHS to DVD is a quality improvement" Not quite. You can't magically improve the quality of VHS by transferring it to a DVD. The information the VHS didn't record would still be missing. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

DVD has been successful enough that backward compatibility will stick around for a long time, especially as it uses, essentially CD drives in computers. I.e. it won't be physically demanding to make a player work with it and another format, so long as motors, speeds, and sizes are about the same. They probably will be. However, one thing to remember is that you won't see any improvement over the original because the data limiter is the most lossy storage format. I.e. the imagery is on VHS, and it won't gain any new pixels in the conversion process than the VHS tape head communicates. The best solution, and the one that I've done in a professional capacity, is simply to convert to a good digital format and store the movies on a server. Then, whatever the physical player specifications, you can re-encode to it later. I.e. store the films on hard disks in an avi or other format. Geogre 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is good advice, so this is just adding to it.

Video takes a HUGE amount of data space. So when it's stored on any digital medium (hard drive, DVD, Blu-ray etc) it is usually compressed. The degree of compression is a balance between how much space you want to reduce it to, and what quality you'll get. So we need to discuss size and compression.

Compression is usually quite good, so much so that you can often find movies compressed to 300-400 MBytes per hour of movie (0.3 - 0.4 GB/hour), and they're still very watchable. A "reasonable" degree of compression would see your average film being compressed to 1 - 1.5 GB, or about 0.5 - 0.7 GB/hr). A typical DVD is 4.3 Gbytes, and a typical hard drive can be 200 - 500 GB these days. Although usually you don't lose much detail with compression, if you try to compress too much, you do start losing some detail, so it's a bit of a trade-off.

To compress a movie you need one of three things: either (1) a video encoder card that has compression built in (either in hardware or as a driver), or (2) some other means to transfer the video onto your hard drive, then you'd use a suitable program to compress it yourself, or (3) A standalone DVD recorder that can record off your VHS. Any of those three will work well.

Digitizing your movies is actually pretty simple, and can be explained easily. The main thing though is, to choose a way of doing it thats best for you. The issues that will help give you good pointers on advice are these:

• The balance between quality and file size that you want. How many hours of movie are we talking about? How fussy/quality conscious are you about the finished digital results?
• The saved quality needed. What will you be watching it on in future? Will you be expecting "the latest and best" or is "good enough to enjoy" fine?
• The frequency of access and usage. Do you expect to be watching them constantly, or will most of them sit in storage and you pick one a day or one now and then to watch?
• The technology level you're using. How high-tech is your home? Up to date gadgetry, networking and stuff, or pretty simple and not all newest and latest? What kind of computer (processor, memory, hard disk space)?
• Current capabilities. Do you have any means to get VHS saved on your computer in any form, or do you need a card to allow you to do that? If so, do you want one that can record off TV too?
• Computer or stand-alone. Do you want to do this on computer, or would you prefer a stand alone player (like a video player) instead?
• Cost. How does cost fit into it? There's 2 possible elements -- a card for your computer (if needed) and hard drive or other media.

Try answering those, which will help to advise you on issues such as "most suitable medium", "best kind of compression", and "cost" etc... and I'll come back to you when you do. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh... I just assumed the question was about a movie collection rather than personal videos. If personal videos, then yes the above advice is great. You need to look into the process and expense of the transfer process see afterdawn. But since the original recording limits the quality, you lose very little and gain quite a bit by converting to DVD or storing on a hard drive. You may be able to fit a somewhat less compressed home video on hi-def DVD but that won't matter nearly as much as the quality of the original VHS. Nowimnthing 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

House Selling under Scottish (Scots) Law

Could someone please advise whether, under Scots Law, a houseowner intent on selling the house, is legally obliged to advise potential buyers of any ongoing or previous neighbour-related tensions, disputes, or other such hostilities, whether or not the potential buyer asks that specific question?

And is the seller's agent/solicitor also legally obliged to answer such a buyer's question if such disputes are known to him/her even if any such problems have not been disclosed by the seller, but have been made known by other means?

What would be the buyer's redress(es) if such problems did exist but were not disclosed to him before the sale was concluded?

Many thanks in anticipation for any useful responses .

This has now also been asked at the Miscellaneous desk. I suggest that any answers are placed there to maintain a single discussion. Road Wizard 23:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Road. Sometimes it is difficult to know which is the best reference site from which to attract the best and quickest answer. But thanks for your intervention anyway.

ronald "winky" wright

Does anyone know if Junior Middleweight Champion and Middleweight contender Winky Wright is Multiracial or Biracial(i.e., mixed race)? This site lists him as American (corect to a degree) but I'd like to know about where his ancestors come from. Thanks in advance!

Luis Peña

Platinum Weird

I heard that the song "Will you be around" made in 1974 is really a fake and some guy admitted that it was not real. What't the real story on this??? Please email me back at (email address redacted to prevent spam) Thanks Ryan

• Fake in what sense? If it was made in 1974, it exists. How can a song not be real? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Most religiously diverse country

What are the most religiously diverse countries in the world today? For example, which has the most religions, the smallest religious plurality, the widest variety, etc? Bhumiya (said/done) 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say the United States. --mboverload@ 00:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say nyc (falls under the sub-category of United States, but really..)--152.163.100.72 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Lebanon has fairly similar numbers of its three main religions - something which I doubt can be claimed by many nations - and certainly not the US. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How about one of those African countries with colonial borders that mix in a hodge-podge of different ethnic groups? Or India? -- Mwalcoff 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Same problem here as with a previous question on which continent has the largest ethnic diversity (the answer to which was Africa) - does one single person of a certain religion count or does it have to be a substantial portion of the population? In that case the US don't count because christianity is predominant. The point for Lebanon sounds like a strong one in this light. But the articles suggest that the main religions are Islam and Christianity (just two). If you look a the major religions, then Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are the big ones and all these are found in India, but Hinduism is very predominant. Of course looking at absolute numbers wouldn't be fair. But looking at China, there is also a large diversity, including secular people if you count them as a religion too (as the list seems to do).

Don't we have a list for this? DirkvdM 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Iran? "90% belong to the Shi'a branch of Islam, the official state religion, and about 9% belong to the Sunni branch (many of them are Kurds). The remainder are non-Muslim religious minorities, mainly Bahá'ís, Mandeans, Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians." currently, according to our article, and when members of the Iranian diaspora talk about it in the papers, they suggest that 90% was quite a bit smaller before the Ayatollahs. Skittle 20:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the answer, but http://www.adherents.com is a fairly good resource for questions of this nature; you may have to trail through it awhile, though. Try looking at countries with large populations, as they will probably have the highest diversity. Australia (although it has a smaller population) is also fairly multicultural. BenC7 01:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-metric systems around the world

If the U.S. managed to retain non-metric systems of measurement, why have no other countries done the same (apart from Myanmar, that is)? Surely the U.S. is not the most isolationist country in history. What circumstances led countries like Japan, China, Russia, and the Arab countries to adopt SI? Did any countries put up a fight? Bhumiya (said/done) 01:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Because many of the "non metric" systems are useless, which is why university science courses all go [SI]--152.163.100.72 01:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Britain still measures distances in miles, and produce in shops is dual labelled in metric and imperial measures. The conversion was meant to be complete some time ago, but conservative political forces managed to hold it back in a very interesting mixed use arrangement. So there has, yes, been some resistance to its use in other places than merely the US. Mnemeson 01:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there are two main reasons. The first is that Continental European countries adopted metric to rectify a hodge-podge of competing measurement systems. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, for example, decided early in the 19th century it needed a consistent system of measurements for all its constituent parts, so it adopted metric. The adoption of metric also allowed for consistency among all the little states of Europe. The USA, as a gigantic country, did not have this issue; the only people using a non-Anglo-Saxon measuring system were long voyages away. Secondly, I think Americans are more resistant to the imposition of changes on society by a bureaucratic elite. The idea of legally compelling people to use metric -- an important part of metrication in other countries -- would never fly in the US. -- Mwalcoff 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, here in America we have large numbers of people with minimal amounts of higher education who equate science in all it's forms with some type of satanism, and so completely miss the point of having a standardized unit of measure.--152.163.100.72 02:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The story of the successes and failures of the metric system is a very interesting and complicated history. Our page on the metric system explains some of it, and also indicates in a nice prominant map which countries currently do not use the metric system (U.S.A., Myanmar, Libya). If you are interested in the history, two books which are excellent which discuss different aspects of it are Ken Alder's The Measure of All Things (about the crazy hijinks involved in trying to measure out what will be the basis of the definition of the meter) and Peter Galison's Einstein's Clocks and Poincaré's Maps (a major theme of the book is the difficulty of getting standard time synchronizations, which initially is part of the same push as the metric system standardizations). --Fastfission 03:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's Liberia, not Libya... AnonMoos 08:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One reason is standardisation. Using different units of measurement once crashed an international Mars lander (two bits of program were talking to each other, except the one meant metres and the other feet or something, resulting in a way too fast descent). So it makes sense to all use the same units. Next question is who should adapt. Two arguments here.

Firstly, the SI system is much simpler

1. There is just one basic unit per quantity.
2. Other units can be formed in a way that is the same for all units (milli, kilo, and such).
3. All these prefixes are base 10, which is also the base for our decimal numbering system (decimal means base 10).

Three very good reasons I'd say. The imperial system is a hotchpotch of units which don't seem to be related at all. Why have inches, thumbs, feet and miles (and different miles too, to complicate matters even further) if you just want to express one quantity, length? ome opponents in the UK use the argument that the imperial units are better for brain development because they are so complicated. :) And the imperial system can't even make up it's mind about which base to use. Sometimes it seems to be 6 or 12 base (1 foot is 12 inch), but not quite always and the ratio between some is just absurd (1 mile is 5280 feet - what kind of number is that?).

The other argument is that almost everyone except the US uses the SI system. Hell, even China has adopted it and the UK is trying, albeit a bit half-heartedly. New Zealand did it much better. They totally switched from one day to the next. A bit of a slap in the face, but because it is such a logical set of rules it made more sense. An SI unit is not just another unit. It's part of a whole. So the US should do the same. If they don't, the next time we send up a Mars lander, we might do it without the US to avoid the risk of another crash. :) DirkvdM 08:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic I know but it was the Mars Climate Orbiter, not a lander and the mix-up was between the English units (pound-seconds) and the metric unit (newton-seconds). Not as simple as feet and meters. Many engineering units in the U.S. are still customary units while almost all scientific work uses metric. Rmhermen 18:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me. I realize it's completely illogical for Americans to resist the metric system. Hopefully it will change soon. I was only wondering why this kind of resistance didn't succeed outside of the U.S. (with the exception of Myanmar, of course). Bhumiya (said/done) 12:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's the Land of the Free (tm), and you can't force them to do anything. Back with you, European metric commies! -- Миборовский 08:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In some matters the USA simply disagree with the entire world, and will not bow to any sense of logic. A president and his party which tries to change things alltoo quickly will lose popular support and vital votes. The easier way is simply be all patriotic about it and defend the All-American way ("like it has been done since the days of our forerathers") ad absurdum. Flamarande 11:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering why the same sort of patriotic stubbornness didn't prevent SI from taking hold in some other country, especially one like China or Japan. Bhumiya (said/done) 12:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Surely the U.S. is not the most isolationist country in history" Well maybe not the most, but its up there. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bhutan is isolationist. The U.S. just has a massive excess of power. They sometimes look the same from the outside. Bhumiya (said/done) 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I know the intention of the question was not to launch a debate on the merits of the metric system, but I do want to point out that it's not as if the lack of the metric system causes many problems in the daily lives of Americans. I know how far a mile is, how much a pound weighs and what a gallon looks like. The fact that there are 16 ounces in a pound rather than 10 does not cause me any difficulties. In some cases, especially with temperature, American measurements are more "user-friendly" than metric ones. The advantage of the metric system is that it is used around the world. If you are selling products internationally, the metric system is very important. But there's no reason to try to force it on a car-wash attendant in Peoria, Ill. -- Mwalcoff 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As for myself, I still can't even get used to the imperial system as it's too "new" to me. I'm told that I'm six-foot tall. But what's that in cubits? Loomis 22:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also bad for the American football players, the offense team has to run an extra yard or so to get first down. --Vsion 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean Vsion. Even in the CFL, yards are used, not metres. The adoption of a country of the metric system doesn't necessarily mean that all other forms of measurement are "forbidden". The opposite is true as well. For example, whenever I travel to the US I often see soda bottled in "2 litre" bottles. Loomis 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I have a published scientific paper on the use of metric and non-metric measures of length (Dignan, J.R.E., and O'Shea, R.P. (1995). Human use of metric measures of length. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 24, 21-25). It appears that metrics and non-metrics both have their uses and are often used concurrently in places where metrics have been introduced, even in those cases where official schooling is entirely in metrics. in the case of distance (and presumably other measures), it is easier to grasp the size of items that are measured in numbers of between about 5 and 15 - we can visualise the difference between eight feet and ten feet far more easily than we can the difference between 240 and 300 centimetres or 2.4 and 3 metres. As such, many people (here in New Zealand, at least) tend to use centimentres for small sizes, feet for medium sizes, and metres and kilometres for large sizes. This also explains why - although the country is officially entirely metricated, brith weights are still most often referred to in pounds, not kilogrammes - the weights will be around the magnitude of 7-11 pounds (3-5 kg), so the difference is easier to comprehend in imperial measures. height is also easier - measuring in feet can be far easier to understand than measuring in centimetres or metres for people. Grutness...wha? 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bhumiya, my argument was that it is so logical to adopt the SI units that one should ask the question the other way around - why would a country not adopt it? And why are some countries half-hearted about it (like the UK)? DirkvdM 08:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I though what I said just explained that. Who completely change over when half of what you've used before fills a gap in the new system? Also resistance to change is a very strong motivation. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, this is discussed in Metrication in the United States and its talk page. Basically, Americans do just fine with non-metric in their daily lives and see no reason to abandon the traditional system for everyday uses. If you've measured yourself in pounds and feet your entire life, you're not likely to switch to kilograms and centimeters just because people on the other side of the ocean do so. -- Mwalcoff 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really related, but while the prefix-stem format of the metric system is logical and straightforward, it also makes for longer names that aren't easily adapted to other forms. "Meterstick" could be used instead of "yardstick", I suppose, but something "centimetering" along or reaching a "kilometerpost" sounds too awkward. Now I agree that the metric system is superior and I fully expect that in time, the whole world will use it. I wonder if these terms will survive, based off units of measurement in an archaic system long forgotten. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but we use anachronistic language like that all the time. When is the last time you watched a film that was actually "film"? You may well still "dial" a phone number, too. And - except in mediaeval recreationist events - no-one has gone "at full tilt" for centuries. So talking about inching and mileage is likely to stay in the language for a long time to come, even when said "mileage" is measured in kilometres. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Cartesian Subject?

I'm reading some philosophical literature right now, and I am not quite sure what is meant by the term "Cartesian Subject." Obviously it has to do with Descartes, but I can't quite put it into context. Can anyone enlighten me? - R_Lee_E (talk, contribs) 01:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

They might mean Cartesian coordinate systems, which are the XY coords in 2D or the XYZ coords in 3D, but somehow I doubt it. StuRat 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if it is philosophical literature. --Fastfission 02:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually when one refers to "the subject" in continental philosophy you are talking about the construction of "the human" as defined by a particular philosophy of man or the mind (at least, that's my general feeling for it, as much as someone can generalize about this). The Cartesian subject in this definition would be "the human subject as defined by Decartes' philosophy of man" or something along those lines, which in this case would likely be the standard figure of Cartesian dualism: the immaterial mind, the material body, and so forth. I have to admit that my own understanding of Descartes is pretty primative, philosophically speaking (I know the big picture view of much of what he has written, but I do not know the details), so I can't say much more than that, but hopefully that will be of some use. --Fastfission 03:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey

Did he really support white racist groups like the KKK, apparently because they advocating segregation and/or deportation of blacks to Africa, both things which the Wikipedia article on him claim he supported?

I don't know anything additional about Garvey not contained in the article, but I do know that in the early 1920's the KKK was at the height of its power and political influence, and in fact almost mainstream. AnonMoos 07:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Some Black Nationalists have gone so far as to work with the KKK. The most famous example in living memory is Imamu Imiri Baraka (formerly known as the poet Leroy Jones...fabulous poet early in his career), who was the contested poet laureate of New Jersey. He was convicted of transporting explosives in a plan with the Klan for causing some carnage. Obviously, these people do not "support" the Klan. Instead, they and the Klan alike believe that Blacks should have a separate nation to live in. It's a very fringe view, and I don't know that Garvey ever went that way, but, nevertheless, some people have done it. Geogre 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Diet of Plains Indians

Did they eat only buffalo? 71.199.245.249 04:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought they also ate maize corn. --Kjoonlee 05:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The nomadic ones I mean, did they eat corn? 71.199.245.249 07:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fish, acorns, birds, deer, etc. People are omnivores, and nomads eat what they can find. They would eat buffalo as their main kill, but they would also get other foods as available. They had to get nutrients from other sources if they didn't want malnutrition. Geogre 12:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if you're willing to eat the whole buffalo, you can come closer to covering your nutritional needs. Remember that the Sami traditionally subsisted almost entirely on reindeer. If you just eat the lean meat, you'll die. But if you eat the internal organs, the bone marrow, the brains, etc, you'll get much more out of it. Bhumiya (said/done) 13:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I should have paused a bit longer, as Innuit cultures generally live on fish and meat but consume the whole animals. I was just thinking of specials I've seen when avoiding commercial television that showed such things as acorn paste (very labor intensive) and other vegetable foods that the nomadic plains Indians ate. Essentially, the plains have plentiful food supplies in all but winter, so those peoples wouldn't have turned away from other foods -- especially foods that can't run away or trample you, like veggies. Geogre 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

domestic corn?

what was the first way to train wild corn to grow in domestic soil? and when was this?--205.188.117.12 07:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't really "wild corn" as such, just teosinte (according to one common view -- see Maize#Origin of maize). AnonMoos 07:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the Bible really just about the origin of the Jews?

I asked this at the Genesis talk page, but got no reply, so I'll ask here.

As a kid I wondered what happened after Cain and Abel. Where did the next generation come from? Incest? Unlikely. Then I read Genesis and found out that Cain left and met another people. Hold on! Where did they come from then? The conclusion I drew from that is that the bible is about the origin of the Jews, not mankind in general. Or rather the Semites, since the story is also in the qur'an. But then what about the creation of heaven and earth and all that? That sounds more like an 'overall' creation story. I can't be the first person to wonder about this, so what explanations have theologists come up with for this? DirkvdM 09:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends upon the invidual theologists. As there are diffrent versions of Christianity, Islam, etc so there are diffrent explenations. Did you believe they gathered and agreed on something? Then we would have only one church wouldn't we?

The Old Testament is not to be taken in a too literal sense, sometimes it has a figurate meaning. Some miracles cannot be disproven or proven by science so they are issue of faith; either you believe in them or not. That's the view defended by moderate theologists (majority - like the catholic church); This view accepts the discoveries of science: evolution theory, carbon dating.

The Old Testament is to be taken in a literal sense always; this is the view of the hardline preachers (minority - and mainly in the US). This view cannot agree with science and they have three answers for this: A)Science has to be wrong. B)God works in a misterious fashion and has placed the wrong data everywhere to confuse us. C)Scienstist are interpreting the available data in a wrong fashion and alternative views are the true science (e.g. Intelligent design).

My own personal view in this subject is that the first groupt are realists who believe but aren't blind. They acknowledge that some things in the bible cannot be taken in a literal sense.

The second group are simply trying to twist science into confirming their religious views. They are trying to disguise their faith as science.

Now what matters is not what your priest preaches; what really maters is what the single (you) believer accepts as the truth. If you are unsure then be simply honest and say: "I am unsure about some things in the bible." Don't let a priest or a scientist decide for you. Read, study, and most important of all: really hear the other side. Then you are able to decide. You may even switch sides after a while. Flamarande 10:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The beginning of Genesis, for whatever reason, and with the exception of Eve, only seems to make reference to the males, and in most cases, the first born males. Note that all the "begats" all make reference to each figure having one son. Obviously they had daughters as well. I believe you'll find your answer in List of names for the Biblical nameless. In short, Cain married an unnamed and unmentioned daughter of Adam and Eve. So yes, it was incest, but no, at least according to the Bible, there were no "other people" around at the time. Loomis 11:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Lomis, but these passages of the Old Testament are quite unclear. Look at [27]. The text doesn't identify that mysterious woman as a daughter of Eve at all, and suppossedly there were "giants on the earth" and the "sons of god (angels?) who came in unto the daughters of men" look at: [28]. Flamarande 16:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Nephilim. There's also some relevant history at Pre-Adamite. Ziggurat 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On the more general question, the origin, flourishing, and establishment of the Jews is the general subject of the Old Testament, but this does not mean that Genesis is about a sole creation rather than a universal one. Generally, theologians do not consider the creation story to be only the creation of Jewish people, but, indeed, the creation of the universe. At the same time, it has been read as 100% true and not at all literal for hundreds of years. Literalism is something quite modern. (How can it be true and figurative? Well, the parable of the prodigal son is 100% true, and yet it is not necessarily a description of a particular man with two sons, etc.) Geogre 12:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me make clear that I'm not talking about a religious explanation but about the question what whoever wrote the bible had in mind when he did so. What story was he trying to tell?

Geogre, I don't know who the prodigal son is, so that example doesn't work for me. But I cannot but take things as they are and common sense cannot be something recent. People must have wondered about this throughout the ages. Maybe this is one of the reasons it took so long for the bible to be translated into something the people could read (not Latin) because the clergy didn't want them to find out the illogicalities. But even they must have come up with something because I can't believe they were all hypocrits. Many who knew the bible must have truly believed. So what did they make of this?

Flamarande, I wasn't talking about science but about common sense. The story of just two ancestors leads to a problem and there may be different ways to get around them (none of which can ever work I suppose), but what I meant is what the origin of the old testament might be and what theologists (not believers) say about this. I don't suppose not many non-religious people will become theologists (which means it's hardly a science by the way), but some critical minds must have come up with something. And what I came up with is that it's really about the origin of the Jews, not mankind as a whole. I can't be the only one.

When Kain left he went East where he got a child (from whom is indeed unclear), who built a city. We now have a new first generation (Adam and Eve are out of the picture here) and a son founds a city. Inhabited by whom? Translations can go awry, but a normal household mistaken for a city is a bit unlikely. There's just one family. Unless you add in some other people. But then the question arises again where they came from. And anyway, the incest version is just too unlikely. Again, that goes against common sense. Brother and sister can't get any decent offspring (well in the Ozarks maybe, but then look at the results :) ). Angels inseminating women is one way out if you're religious, but that still doesn't solve the story of Kain. Unless there are female angels (are there?). DirkvdM 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a man who had two sons. One son was dutiful and staid at home, working on the farm. The other asked for his inheritance early, got it, and went off to the city. There he spent his time with loose women and wine, spending every penny. After two years, he returned to the farm. When he did, his father ordered the best sheep slaughtered and a feast prepared for his lost son. That's the story of the prodigal son. Jesus told the story to illustrate God's attitude toward repentant sinners. Now, no one would, as in The Life of Brian, continually interrupt the story, demanding to know the farmer's name, what city the boy went to, how much the wine cost, etc. I.e. the story is true, but it is not literal. Given the fact that Jesus taught with such stories almost exclusively, some theologians came to the idea that Old Testament stories might likewise be true and not literal. They never rejected the literal truth, that I know of, but they began to understand some of the stories (Noah's Ark being the most famous one, as Augustine wrote about how impossible it was and yet how true it was) as possibly not as much literal as figurative. With Genesis, thinkers through the renaissance and early "Enlightenment" were seeing it as less and less a literal account of exact creation and more and more an account of the order of creation and the origins of the universe. After Wallace and Darwin, though, some churches reacted violently by more or less inventing literalism. The account, however, starts with void and ends with mankind, so I don't think it was meant to be only the origin of a single people. Geogre 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Dirk's question is not about the veracity of the bible, but rather whether, as fiction or non-fiction, the plotline makes any sense at all. Fair enough.

First off then, I don't see why the offspring of an incestuous relationship would not be "viable" in the simplest sense of the term. While such individuals tend to suffer from a great deal of health problems, both mental and physical, nobody ever argued that humanity is not made up of a few billion inbred nut-jobs! If anything, humanity being ultimately the result of incest would seem to answer quite a few more questions than it brings up! lol.

In any case, whatever can be said of the life and times of Adam and Eve, according to Genesis it's made clear that ALL of humanity was wiped out by the flood, with the exception of Noah, his wife, his three sons, and his three sons' wives and children. The names of his three sons were Ham, Shem and Japheth.

Genesis goes on to describe that many generations later, Abraham was born, the descendant of Shem, making him a "Shemite" (hence the etymology of the term "Semite"). Genesis then focuses on the decendants of the Shemite Abraham, while the "Hammites" and the "Japhethites" have apparently gone their separate ways. Therefore, according to Genesis, the story of creation is not simply of the origin of the Jews, or even the "Shemites" but rather, the last common ancestor of ALL of humanity, Noah. This is further reflected by the belief in Judaism that most non-Jews (with the exception of the Arabs, who tend to trace their roots back to Abraham as well, and as such are therefore "Semites") are generally regarded as "Noachites", as Noah is believed to be the last common ancestor of mankind. Well at least that's how the "story" goes. Loomis 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To put it in a more modern, less theological, more wikipedia friendly way: the flood marked a reboot in the continuity of the story and the history of mankind was reimagined from then on. MeltBanana 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

MeltBanana, I don't see how your rephrasing is "less theological or "more wikipedia friendly" than mine. In fact I see quite the opposite.

I presented the "story" or "narrative" of Genesis without taking any position on whether it was true or not. Even if it was fiction, good fiction requires coherence (unless you're a big David Lynch fan, in which case fiction requires no coherence at all!)

How often have you left a movie theatre after seeing a fictional movie and saying to your friend "[this or that particular aspect] made no sense at all! The movie was just too unrealistic or incoherent for me to enjoy it". Same goes for my analysis of the "Genesis narrative".

My analysis was not theological in the slightest sense. It was merely an NPOV analysis of a "story", which some consider to be true, while others don't. Dealing with subjects in an NPOV fashion is, indeed the most "wikipedia friendly" way to analyse them.

On the other hand, your comment on the "reimagination" of the history of mankind couldn't be more POV. While I treated the Genesis narrative in a "take-it-or-leave-it" fashion, you took it upon yourself to gratuitously ridicule it as nothing more than a figment of the imagination.

Just when we thought we had finally developed beyond the primitive, bigoted evil of religious intolerance, it seems that religious intolerance has reinvented itself, only this time, rather than ridicule and harass the adherents of one religion with a chauvinistic preference for another, now ALL adherents of any religion are ridiculed and harrased by the so-called "enlightened modernists". Plus ça change...".

Re the original question: try http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp. It gives a fairly comprehensive answer. BenC7 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question, it seems. It just poses it. several times. Then again, it is so badly written I couldn't be bothered to read it all (I did read the conclusion, though, and that doesn't give a real answer). And Jesus is hardly an answer because he came much later. I'm talking about the old testament. And other than that it says that Cain's wife 'must be one of Adam’s descendants.' So that's the incest-version. DirkvdM 08:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The real truth is right in the bible. Adam lived to be over eight hundred years as did most of his immediate family. Yes it was "incest", because God Himself commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. Hence, God caused them to be "fruitful and multiply". And God blessed them to "fill the earth." When God blesses something it is "good". Therefore, the population explosion that took place in Adam's day was great and good because it was God who commanded it.

As far as scientists and the Bible agreeing or disagreeing, actually, if one really studies the Word, they do not contradict each other as much as most people think. Other than Darwinism, which was really only an observation from one man on a small island that got overblown into a "theory" that even today has no scientific basis and cannot be substantiated, most scientific findings, such as the earth being millions of years old is not really refuted in the Bible. In Gensis, the time period between Chapter 1 verse 1 and chapter 1 verse two could very well have been millions of years. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This clearly means that God created the universe, and then created earth. When God creates something He does not do it half way. He originally created the earth beautiful and perfect, not flooded and without form. But look what has happened to the earth in verse 2. Notice now what condition it is in. "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water." What happened between verses 1 and 2? God originally made the heavens and the earth perfect. Now suddenly in verse 2 the earth has no form and is flooded. There are several verses in the Old and New Testament that reveal that there actually was a "pre-Adamite" race that Lucifer caused to rebel against God, and the result was that God flooded the earth for the first time and destroyed every living creature. And verse two picks up after that first flood where God's Spirit "moved upon the face of the water." Genesis chapter 1 verses 3 thru 31 describes God's recreation of the earth in six days. And that is the beginning of our modern day count of time, roughly six thousand years ago. After God recreated the earth He made Adam and Eve and put them in the garden of Eden which was in the eastern part of Eden. Eden was a lot larger than just a garden, the garden was only part of Eden. So God put Adam and Eve there and one of His commands was to be "fruitful, multiply, and ..." now watch this next command, God told them to "REplenish" the earth. Most people don't stop to realize that if God told them to "REplenish the earth" then it had to have been "plenished" before. Thus, clearly, Adam and Eve were the first modern day people of our time period, but certainly not the first people who ever walked the face of the earth. There very well were people who lived before Adam and Eve, who lived in cities, and who the Bible says in the Psalms, were brought low by Lucifer and rebelled against God, and were destroyed by a flood so great that no creature survived, and even the "cities" were destroyed so that there was nothing left. How many years ago did that happen? Science tells us the earth had people on the earth a lot farther back than six thousand years ago. And this goes hand in hand with Genesis and other Bible verses outside Genesis, that these were the people who lived before modern man(Adamites) and suffered destruction from the first flood. The next great flood was in Noah's day, and after God swore He would never destroy the earth again by flood. Two was enough. So the Bible is mainly a story of modern man and how he was created, fell, and then redeemed back to His creator. It is a love story, the greatest one of all time. "For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him(Jesus), should not perish, but have everlasting life." To have eternal life, the Bible says all one has to do is believe in Jesus, "even to those who believe on His name." Wow! How wonderfully easy and simple it is to receive eternal life. It is not based in any way shape or form on our own performance and religious zeal. It is simply based on whether we believe on Jesus' name. Religion wants to take you thru all kinds of calesthenics and rituals. But that does not please God. The Bible says, "faith pleases God" ...and again, "and Abraham believed and God accounted it to him as righteousness." Abraham was righteous because He believed God. And God will see you righteous if you believe on His sons name. The name above all names. Jesus Christ. And this story, though written over the first 4100 years of modern man's existence, is still being played out today, as we are now living in the "last days" as is written in many books of the Bible, particularly Revelation. You can read the Bible as if you were reading our headlines in today's newspapers. God's Word is true. And HE loves us so much He wants all of us to live with Him for ever and ever. So He provided the "Way" we all can do it. And it does not cost us a thing. How can anyone be angry about that?

That is certainly an admirable effort (perhaps try paragraphs next time?). Although a Christian myself, I cannot agree with the certainty with which you make some of your claims:

1. Evolution is not something that has been blown out of proportion and has no scientific basis. I don't believe in evolution myself, even after a reasonable amount of study into it at uni and privately (trawling through Talk.Origins and other places), but to say that it has no scientific basis is going a little far.

2. The timeline you describe is Gap theory. It is questionable. See [29].

3. The concept that God made the heavens and the earth, then destroyed it, then recreated it, has problems for similar reasons. Try picturing it this way: God made the heavens and the earth, much like a potter grabs (in this case, "creates") a lump of clay. It is formless. The potter then works on the pot to bring it into shape.

4. The statements you make about "REplenishing" the earth are being overly semantic (picky about the meaning of words). Other words for the Hebrew "male' mala'" are equally appropriate, such as fill, furnish, have wholly, etc.

5. The interpretation of some of the Psalms and Isaiah relating to Lucifer are matters of interpretation; it is not clear whether "Lucifer" is actually Satan (read the context in Isaiah 14, where it appears to be talking about Babylon's king), and there is certainly no mention of any people before Adam.

I would recommend that you read a little more widely. The Talk.Origins archive and the Answers in Genesis website are good starting points. BenC7 07:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So the answer to my specific question is the incest-version and maybe it is true that a healthy race can spring from that.

But I didn't mean to ask about whether the story in the bible is true. I should have made my mindset clearer. I'm not religious. So, in my perception, someone (or more likely various people) wrote the bible (more specifically Genesis). My question is 'What did they intend to write?' The creation-text is extremely short, which makes it astonishing that so few people know it, considering there are over a billion christians. But I suppose that's mostly in name, most will not actually read the bible. But that's a different story. DirkvdM 08:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

More or less. The danger of incest today (from a genetic POV, as I understand it) is that it results in the accumulation of genetic faults, which makes genetic disease and defects more likely. Assuming that genetic faults started when Adam sinned, there would not be many genetic mutations, and so little danger of genetic disease or deformity. BenC7 11:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question and I don't get the last bit, but it bring up something new. If Eve was created out of Adam, they'd have the same genetic material (somehow God must have changed the sex, but that's not too weird). So they're like idenitcal twins. even worse than brother and sister. DirkvdM 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Julius Caesar

In Colleen McCullough's book "Caesar", she writes how Caesar ordered both hands of 4,000 prisoners of war chopped off to teach Gaul a lesson. Is that true or fiction?

Thank you. David Diamond <email removed to prevent spamming>

Well, yes and no. At the end of the Gallic Wars the Carnutes were stubornly resisting against the Romans. After the siege the city of Uxellodonum, Caesar choose to make a example out of the Gallic garrison and chopped their hands of. Im am not sure of the number 4000, but advise you to read Julius Caesar's Gallic war if you really want to be sure. Flamarande 15:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Try this: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0001;query=chapter%3D%23392;layout=;loc=8.43

Even then, I wouldn't necessarily trust what Caesar writes about his own efforts. He was a terrific spin-doctor for himself. --Dweller 19:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, so does everybody else during the entire history of mankind. Everybody lies in some personal issues, is only a mater of degree. Defending Caesar, I must point out that he was probably exagerating the numbers of his slain enemies to impress his readers, his fellow Roman citizens. Ave (hail) Caesar :) Flamarande 21:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

longest lasting governments

I was looking for a list of the longest lasting governments. I thought I heard on the radio that the US has the longest current government of 217 years from 1789 (Washington's first election) to today. Is this right?

Also, how does this compare other governments like the Roman Empire, English monarchy, etc.

Thanks for your help.

Bob <email removed to prevent spamming>

If you're willing to treat the US government as constant (one major internal war, innumerable changes of power, but same system of government and no fundamental hiatus), then the UK has (probably) had a constant government since either c.1660, 1689 or 1707. France and Germany are substantially shorter, ditto Spain and Italy... can't offhand think of a longer major European power currently around. Shimgray | talk | 13:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on how you define "government". If you allow it to include "king", then the oldest continuous government might be Denmark or Thailand or Japan. The U.S. certainly has the oldest codified constitution still in use. You might be interested in this discussion thread, which contains many interesting and varied perspectives on the issue. Bhumiya (said/done) 13:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As for comparisons to historical governments, the Roman Empire lasted for over five hundred years, no matter how you slice it -- but considering that the circumstances of the empire and its actual government were pretty much in flux, I dunno how constant you could call it. The British monarchy, on the other hand, had a much longer run. It's not entirely clear where you should start counting, but for the sake of argument, let's start with William, Duke of Normandy who took up the reins of power. Depending on how you're looking at it, you could argue that it's still going strong, but in practice, since the adoption of the Westminster System, the British monarchy has had less and less actual power to govern. Even so, you could say that the monarchy has a good 800 years or so of actual rulership under its belt. (Obviously, it could be argued that what with rulers, politics, legislation, religions and whatnot changing wildly over the years, it can't be said that the British monarchy as a system survived that long, but let's not go there right now...) But of course, this is all Mickey Mouse crap suitable for children and very pregnant women; if you want staying power for grown-ups, go east, young man: China had a whole bunch of emperors over the years, ranging from the beginning of the Qin dynasty in 221 BC to the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1912 -- that's a good couple of thousand years of emperors. Oh, and the Egyptians also had some pretty good runs in there. Not that United States hasn't had been around for a while, but it's gonna take it a while to beat any of the records set by the old timers... -- Captain Disdain 14:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what you mean is probably regime, not government. What in the US is called 'administration' is in English English 'government' (as in 'the Blair government'). But the terminology is a bit vague (I once tried to figure this out, but didn't quite manage).

Anyway, this depends on what you call 'one regime'. When does a regime change? What are the criteria? Does it take a revolution? The French had their last one earlier than the US, so that is longer lasting. And the UK may still be officially a monarchy, but do jokes count too? :) The Roman empire switched back and forth between emperors and senate, so the regime didn't last 500 years (although I don't know the details). Which also brings up the question whether you mean a 'seated government'. I believe the Egyptian pharaos were in power for rather a long time. Maybe things weren't in flux as much in antiquity as they are now. Everything else goes faster now, so why not politics?

But then there's China. Whenever I think about how things are and have been in the world I always come to a grinding halt when it comes to China and then everything else goes out the window. China is an incredibly constant factor in the history of the world. They just don't give a shit about the rest of the world and the beauty is they can afford to because the country is so bloody huge. A favourite story of mine is how they built this fleet of huge ships that dwarf modern day supertankers, long before the Portuguese ventured onto the oceans, sailed around a bit (to Africa, among other places), decided the rest of the world wasn't interresting enough, burned the ships and continued on their own path. And then there was this Chinese emperor who had a whole bunch of rockets attached to his throne, took off and was never seen or heard of again. Who was the first space traveller? Of course, a Chinese emperor. :) DirkvdM 18:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered the Manx Tynwald, often considered to be the world's longest running government structure? We have an appropriate article. --russ 23:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so now the Chinese were the first to explore the globe, and an ancient Chinese emperor was the first man in space. Jeez. Loomis 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said the Chinese were the first to explore the globe. Jeez. -- Миборовский 03:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I did, sort of. DirkvdM 07:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And the emperor was never seen or heard of again, so whether he made it to space .... Twas a joke. Jeez. DirkvdM 07:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Jeez. The popes ruled since Roman times, didn't they? In how far that counts as a government - when did the Vatican come about? DirkvdM 07:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican city state originated in 1929. --Halcatalyst 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Altitude of Franco's head

How tall was Francisco Franco? I seem to recall hearing that he was of below-average height, but I can't find any mention of it in his article. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the references provided by the article. He seems to be quite short compared to Eisenhower in [http://www.fuenterrebollo.com/Gobiernos/general-franco.html]. Flamarande 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but how tall was Eisenhower? Bhumiya (said/done) 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

1.79m. Ha, I answered my own question. Bhumiya (said/done) 15:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, found something at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0290542/bio. Flamarande 15:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought he was about 5'4". Bhumiya (said/done) 15:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How tall a US president was? We've got a List of United States Presidents by height order. Wikipedia has it all, especially when it comes to lists, even totally absurd ones! :) DirkvdM 18:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was created in the run-up to the 2004 election by restless political trivia junkies. Had Kerry won, he would have been the tallest president, and a lot was made of how he towered over Bush at the debates (and he was taller too!). If Dennis Hastert ran for president, I'm sure someone would create a List of United States Presidents by weight order. In the fall of 2008, be on the watch for List of United States Presidents by number of penises. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What's your definition of absurd, Dirk? Isn't it a good thing that such lists exist so that questions such as this one can be quickly answered? JackofOz 02:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a definition of absurd. Indeed it turns out that trivia-lists can serve a purpose, even if it is as indirect as here. We can't predict this sort of thing, so this is a wonderful excuse for trivia-lovers. DirkvdM 07:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

One man's trivia is another man's treasure. All knowledge is precious. JackofOz 23:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a wise man. :) DirkvdM 07:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I read such about Franco as well, I think heard he was about 5'4, or perhaps shorter.

indonesia old laws

what are the indonesian old laws? The laqws that the government uses during the last centuries

Indonesia is really a remnant of colonial days. Whatever the Dutch gathered under their rule in that region is now Indonesia. Over the last centuries there was first the VOC, a trading company that had trading posts in the region that gradually expanded. Then, around 1800, it became an official Dutch colony. And a few years after WWII it became an independent country (effecively a colony of Java, but I won't go into that). You might be referring to the adat, the traditional laws of the various parts of Indonesia. I believe that under the VOC and even when it became a colony that was left pretty much in place, although there will of course have been some Dutch laws superimposed on it. And even now, in 'rural' regions (such as inland Borneo) adat is still largely in place, in lieu of 'official law' because it's not worth it to have a law enforcer in every vilage. But even when there is one, there is often a 'kepala adat', a traditional headman who rules (ie settles disputes) together with the 'official' head placed there by the national government. DirkvdM 19:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Joke

Dromie E: "I buy a thousand pound a year: I buy a rope." Apparently this is really funny if you share a certain background with the teller of the joke. Could somebody explain?--Shantavira 18:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(I am not a scholar of Shakespeare). Since Dromio of Ephesus is a slave who is repeatedly beat in that play (Comedy of Errors), my first instinct was that the "thousand pound" referred to how often he was beaten (especially given that the rope he is being sent to purchase will be used to beat Antipholus of Ephesus's wife), but OED doesn't attest "pound" as in "to beat with fists" until ~1700 (much later than the play was written--although there is one early reference from 1596, which is roughly the right time, but not used in quite the same way), whereas "pound" as a unit of currency is attested much earlier than Shakespeare (and, indeed, pounds stirling were introduced as currency right around the time of Shakespeare's birth), so my guess is that "pound" here refers to money, probably. I suppose it could be a play on words though, since there is one use of "to pound" attested early enough. I guess my answer is: I don't know why it's funny. Maybe it isn't funny. :) 128.197.81.223 21:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very funny to me, either, but the punishment for some debtors was the pound hemp into rope. Thus, you would "buy" a thousand pounds' of debt, would basically suffer enough for an entire rope to have been fashioned. Bit of a guess, but it is possible. (Women would get the punishment of beating hemp, later, in Bridewell Prison, but men were included in their number.) Geogre 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Southampton walls

What year were the walls around southampton built? if anyone could answer that would be great and very useful, thanks :)

According to the article Southampton, the walls were constructed after a French attack in 1338. --Canley 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Francisco Franco

I recall reading somewhere that Spain's leader during WWII was of Jewish origin. Is that true? If so, did his friend Hitler know, and ignore, that fact? 66.213.33.2 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever heard such a story, but then some people really insist on believing that Hitler (or Rommel, or von Ribbentrop, or Churchill, or de Gaulle, or whoever, really) was a Jew. I have no reason to believe that Francisco Franco was Jewish. Calling Hitler and Franco friends is simply wrong, since I believe that the two only met once, and even then Hitler wouldn't give in to Franco's demands of food, equipment, territory and whatnot. Spain was kinda friendly towards the Axis for a couple of years during the war, but they went back to being neutral in 1943. (In fact, Jews used Spain as an effective escape route from the Nazi persecution.) -- Captain Disdain 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This page mentions that Paul Preston's 1993 biography of Franco (Franco: A Biography) refers to this: "There has been much idle speculation that his family was Jewish, on the basis of his appearance and because both Franco and Bahamonde are common Jewish surnames in Spain." Captain Disdain is right, do not mistake military alliances for friendship. In any case, Franco was a Catholic, another religion the Nazis had no great love for. Or for that matter, the Japanese, who were also allied with Germany (see German-Japanese relations. -Canley 01:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Franco was not Jewish. However, the Franco family did descend from Jews who converted in the 1400's conversadores. So while, like many spainards, he may have had Jewish anscestors it was so far removed and intermixed with non jewish anscestors, he could not be called Jewish.

Nature of god

Hello, I have read all the standard articles on monotheism, god, Christianity, &c., but I am still confused. Is the Abrahamic (specifically Christian) view of god monotheistic? Obviously the assertion is that god is one entity but comprised of three distinct parts. Is this strictly monotheism or multitheistic (sorry i do not know the word for 'many gods' and dictionary.com doesn't seem to help), within defined parameters? Should 'god' be capitalised in the general sense (I'm a stickler for grammatical correctness)?--russ 23:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since all three parts of the Trinity are believed to be one god, and not separate, then it is monotheism. More than one god would be polytheism. 71.31.149.140 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is polytheism. Have you read our article on the Trinity? Whether it's monotheistic or pantheistic depends on your point of view, according that article some Muslims and Jews believe the Trinity is essentially pantheistic but you may start a fistfight if you stand up in a Catholic church and loudly state "The Trinity is pantheism" ;) --Robert Merkel 23:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity - Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox - is monotheistic. They all share the doctrine of the Trinity, which is undeniably a difficult idea that has thus inspired a great deal of speculation both theological and mystical. There are a few Christian sects that don't hold that doctrine, though. To choose a couple of well known examples: Unitarianism holds that God is not triune; hence its name. Mormonism has a variety of distinctive beliefs about God/gods which differ in subtle and not so subtle ways from mainline Christianity; you should read that section of the article.

For spelling purposes, a general rule is that "God" is used to refer to Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity while "god" is used to refer to other supreme beings and the concept generally. --George 01:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer the other parts of your question, Judaism and Islam are monotheistic, too. The doctrine of the trinity arose from what Christians see as two clear teachings of the Christian Bible. On the one side, the Bible is crystal clear that there is only one God and the opinion of most Christians, New Testament calls Jesus God and speaks of the Holy Spirit in terms reserved for God. Perhaps the acid test you could do is walk up to a few Christians and ask, "how many gods are there?" I'm betting most will respond immediately with "one." --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Renoir's Gabrielle Jean and Little Girl

I have a 24.5 by 26.5 inch print of this art signed by Renoir in the upper right hand corner Were limited editions of the original made and will you provide information relative to time, number, and current value? I understand the original was at the Norton Simon museum until 1980 and now is in a private collection. I have owned my print for twenty years after purchasing it from a woman who's grandparents had it hanging in their house of the farm for many years. We have enjoyed it so much and would appreciate your help.

---

Can anyone list cross over gospel music between black and white churches in the 40's?

philosophy ? : "regional inquiry - formal logic"

Please help me to understand the usage of the terminology: "regional inquiry" as used in the context of an article written in the UK (Ireland) on the subject of philosophy with children. The publication is: Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 39, No. 4, 2005 Title of the article is: "Thomas Reid and philosopy with children" writer is Fiachra Long of Ireland.

I am required to write a content summary paper for my masters degree in education, only I cannot understand the usage in the following sentence found in the article:

"Philosophy today identifies more with regional inquiries than with the broader reality of human life".

I will appreciate your help to understand what the author means by this.

Thank you,

H.W. Friedman

It means that many philosophers today do not occupy themselves with so-called real-world problems, but limit themselves to smaller areas of specialisation (e.g. formal logic). David Sneek 06:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Where can I demographics for the Schutzstaffel?

I'm looking for the demographics of Schutzstaffel memebership. As in, what was the percentage or religious affiliations, age groups, gender, nationality, etc. Thanks in advance.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When Germany surrendered 1/2 the SS were non-Germans. -- Миборовский 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

South Korea Backing North Korean Tyranny

Ashton Carter, on Meet the Press, said, "We’re capable of military action, and it’s important that that be an ingredient of coercive diplomacy. But the real levers on Kim Jong il are the Chinese and the South Koreans. It is they who essentially support the regime economically and politically. So it makes sense to have them at the table," [underlining is mine].

Why do South Korean support the North Korean regime? I thought South Koreans opposed communism and tyranny. Aren't the two governments enemies?--Patchouli 09:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh brother, this is a issue of international politics and nothing is as clear and easy as it sounds. That statement has to be taken with great caution.

South Korea is probably trying to placate the North Korean regime with donations of food, etc and have absolutely no interest in beginning a war with that regime. The majority of the ppl there want a peaceful reunification, and some of them (small but vocal minority) blame the US for the curent situation being of the opinion that without the US there would allready been a peaceful reunification (which is bit ludicrous, but somewhat supported by the "anti-US imperialism crowd").

The USA don't want to start a war, because they are allready involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. They want to mantain the moral highground and the status-quo. Ashton Carter can talk all he wants (notice that to say something does not automatically mean that you really believe in it), but the US military is spread way too thin. He is trying to make some political points and is simplifying the whole issue for dubious reasons.

China isn't interested in a war in it's own backyard for that conflict would hurt them also, but they don't want that the US spread their influence in Asia even further.

Japan doesn't want to a war because they will be involved in it. They will not gain nothing besides corpses. They support the US aslong as the US policy is to contain NK and not to engage it in a fullscale war.

North Korea doesn't want to start a war that it isn't able to win, but they don't want to appear as weak or piteful. They (mainly the regime) might also be a bit scared that the US is planning to deal with them in near future (the famous "axis of evil speech" certainly hasn't helped maters). Therefore they threaten everybody (mainly the US) with these rockets, and make a great display of strength. North Korea wants to deal directly with the US (it's probably a bit of vanity mixed with politics - if negotiations fail they can easily blame the US "imperialistic ambitions") but the US wisely wants to involve everybody (especially China) so that in case "the *hit really hits the fan" (a fullscale war) all countries in the region fight against North Korea at the side of the US (or at the very least don't oppose it).

Everybody, except the NK regime, is interested in maintaing the stats-quo and the peace and are patiently waiting that either some moderate member of the ruling family rises to power, or that the NK military (or anyone) makes a coup-de-etat (a bit like Cuba - everybody is just waiting that Fidel Castro bites the dust). The current NK regime is interrested that the tensions run a bit high so that no NK general get's any funny ideas, like making a coup. The ppl of NK meanwhile can starve and die (these donations are not really solving the problem you know? Mostly prolonging the agony), for who really cares besides the ppl of SK?

Well, perhaps the ppl of the other countries involved really care, but what what are the politicians supposed to do? Invade NK to feed the ppl? Way too dangerous, and the consequences are unpredictable and quite bloody, and they will lose popular support and votes for any losses (as clearly shown in Somalia and Iraq).

As long as the NK rockets don't hit anyone they are simply a show of force, nothing more and nothing less.

Notice that this is my personal interpretation - it is mainly a educated guess. Fell free to disagree. Flamarande 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• "North Korea wants to deal directly with the US ...if negotiations fail they can easily blame the US," is extremely insightful. I thought Kim Jong il and the elite wanted a guarantee against their overthrow, but Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns said that security was given to them in September of 2005. You must be right about this.

"The current NK regime is interrested that the tensions run a bit high so that no NK general get's any funny ideas," is very plausible.

Pyongyang doesn't look rural and I doubt that people are starving. Doesn't North Korea have a national healthcare and good welfare system to take care of its people? After all, why did their people want communism? But I can't be sure about anything because of lack of transparency.--04:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Musical Difficulty

Of the "common" musical instruments in Western Music (what would normally be found in modern bands or orchestras), which could be considered the most difficult? Thanks in advance. --Burbster 09:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

violinists seem to have the most competition. 82.131.188.248 14:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

Do you mean difficult to master? My first thought was the piano. --Richardrj 14:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll just say the most difficult to learn and/or master. --Burbster 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The violin is pretty tough. It takes a long time to learn to produce a decent sound (unlike on a piano, wher you just need to hit a key). And even when you're good, it is difficult to play a straight note, which is why solo violinists use so much vibrato, to disguise the fact that they didn't hit the right spot (a violin has no frets on the finger board, like a guitar does). Also, the way you hold a violin is rather unnatural, causing a lot of rsi with violinists (you can get this with just about any instrument, but I believe the violin is one of the worst). Having said that, when it comes to top notch play, the piano has many keys and some composers like to use as many of them as possible. Studying such a piece will take long time. And then you have to get feeling into it. Also, unlike the violin, the piano is very often used as a solo instrument, meaning you get more attention from the listener and have to put more effort in not making any mistakes nad putting feeling into your play. If you're a mediocre violin player you can blend into the orchestral crowd so there should be better chances of making a living out of it. I guess. Some factual data on this last bit would be interresting. Not sure if that is what you were askming about, though. DirkvdM 07:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Radio Play

Who owns the copywrite on Orson Wells Radio play War of the worlds— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.5.12 (talk • contribs)

the united states public, which is however, is prevented from exercising its right 1) by corporations buying term extentions. 2) by corporations burning original media so that the public will be unable to exercise its copyright. (The latter happening especially in the case of the Disney corporation). 82.131.188.248 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

This broadcast occurred in 1938 (not before 1923) so it is still eligible for copyright - if the renewals were filled on time. Rmhermen 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we still haven't answered this person's question, which was "who owns the copyright" on the 1938 radio play based on the 1898 H.G. Wells novel. (Obviously the novel itself is public domain.) I believe the adaptation was actually written by Howard Koch, who also wrote the screenplay for Casablanca. (He died in 1995, btw.) The article on The War of the Worlds (radio) will tell you that it was a creation of the Mercury Theatre. Whoever owns it, given the existances of published recordings over the years the copyright probably was renewed. But we still haven't helped this person because we don't know who their successors in interest were. Crypticfirefly 04:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sealab 2021 DVD

Does anyone know if there are region 4 Sealab 2021 DVDS?

Philosophy, Nietzsche's quotation on vanity:

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that "vanity is the fear of appearing original: it is thus a lack of pride, but not necessarily a lack of originality.". May somebody, please, explain the meaning of that statement? I simply cannot understand a word, it's like the definition does not have anything to do with the word to me. Thanks.

• Sometimes lousy translators can distort the essence of words, for instance, by choosing lust where the person actually meant parental or friendly love. However, I doubt that dabblers would touch Nietzsche's works. This is not found in Wikiquote on Nietzsche. Where did you find it?--Patchouli 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

consider vanity as meaning the behavior, rather than the characteristic of being vain: "Looking in the mirror is the fear of appearing original: therefore it is a lack of pride, however it does not mean a lack of originality." Consider this: "Running a spell-checker is the fear of appearing original: therefore it is a lack of pride; however it does not mean a lack of originality" (though I suppose the spell checker, like the mirror, can remove some of this. By looking in the mirror, I guess we could think of dressing with respect to a mirror? Putting what feels right on, then vainly censoring the originality.) I agree it's stretching it. If you'd give us the source, I'm sure it would go a long way. 82.131.188.248 14:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

I think that's on the right track, but consider vanity not as self-love, but as wishing to appear fashionable, wishing always to be beautiful. I.e. it is seeking to conform to a social standard of beauty at all times. The difference between the beautiful and the vain is that the latter is hounded by a fear of not being attractive. Therefore, the person consumed with physical vanity is always afraid of being an individual, always afraid of looking like him or herself. Geogre 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I found it in the article vanity. Hmm... I think it begins to make sense, thanks... I'll keep reading.

The source is Morgenröthe, book IV: 365, by the way. David Sneek 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ("Die Eitelkeit ist die Furcht, original zu erscheinen, also ein Mangel an Stolz, aber nicht nothwendig ein Mangel an Originalität.")

I think Geogre has got it right. Maybe this formulation will be more clear: To be vain means to be uncomfortable with one's self, however strange looking you might be. You lack pride when you can't accept yourself as you actually are, when you are longing to be something else, says Nietzsche. But that doesn't mean you still aren't strange looking. (Obvious one ought not interpret this to be purely about aesthetic appearance.)--Fastfission 04:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Xinhua News Agency

How do you pronounce Xinhua? Does the x sound like \s\, \z\, or \zh\?

If you want to add a voice clip, then please do so.--Patchouli 13:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For an American, it always sounds a bit like "Shin-wah," but, of course, that's relying on newsreaders. Geogre 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would pronounce the x like a z, as I do when I say the word xylophone. —EdGl 00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's written using the Hanyu pinyin system, and our page on that system describes x as "like sh, but take the sound and pass it backwards along the tongue until it is clear of the tongue tip", which sounds about right to me. The closest English sound is definitely "sh", though (at least in standard pronunciation). "Shin-hwa" or "sheen-hwa" would be my best transcription of the whole sound, although naturally, that won't get it exactly. -- Vardion 04:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not right. The IPA for the X in Xinhua would be the Velar fricative (see Pinyin), but it has no equivalent in English (not really). It's sort of like sh, but not really, your tongue goes in a different position. --ColourBurst 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Now I remember that the x in Deng Xiaoping (who put down the revolt at Tiananmen Square) sounds like \sh\.--Patchouli 04:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Eritrean book

I want to know the Author of a book writteen in Tigrigna language(which is widely spoken in Eritrea , East Africa), in the 60'th or 70'th, entitled < WAY ANE DEQEY> (Oh My Children).?

Schengen implementation date applicable for Malta

Dear Sir/Madam

I thought of asking you for some information about a DATE - the implementation date of the Schengen agreement (month and year) by Malta. Kindly send references to documents which state this date.

I have heard conflicting dates so I prefer to refer this question to you in person.

Thanks

Best regards

• Schengen Agreement should help. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

purpose for building Stonehenge

We were wondering if the purpose for building Stonehenge might be to develop navigation (and agricultural) tables while religious reasons might be used only as a ruse to get free labor? ...IMHO (Talk) 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want a simple naked-eye sun-position observatory in order to keep track of the tropical year, then you really don't need huge stone megaliths dragged in from distant quarries at great effort. All you need are some simple reference markings of horizon alignments and/or shadow alignments, and wooden poles would do the job just as well as multi-ton boulders. Furthermore Stonehenege was erected long before the introduction of writing into that area of the world, and the idea of "navigational tables" is rather preposterous. Observing the sun could be correlated with the agricultural calendar, but such correlations would not likely have been expressed as a "table" in the sense in which you have in mind. AnonMoos 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What you may need huge stone megaliths dragged from distant quarries to accomplish is a permanent reference not easily destroyed by opposing tribes. Any culture capable of Stonehenge and its exact alignments would need some form of record keeping whether it is called writing or not. ...IMHO (Talk) 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pretty indisputable that massive stones is not the best way to do simple astronomy if that is all you are trying to do with it. However if you are also making it a religious ceremony (and why not? is not simple astronomy an understanding of the sun, that life-giver in the sky, that which predicts the changes in the seasons and can mean the difference between life and death in an agricultural economy? is prediction not just a hop-and-a-skip from divination?), then it makes a bit more sense. I think it is probably highly likely that the same culture that made stonehenge had other ways of keeping track of what season it was, however probably none so permanent to be found by us today. And I don't know why you would assume writing is necessary to do astronomy; you know where things align because you know the sky, and you know the sky because there is nothing else to look at in the evening. --Fastfission 04:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yest but you might get tired of telling the next generation about the exact same thing over and over again if you did not have a permanent reference or you might want a permanent reference so that distant future generations could tell if there had been any change (which BTW has allowed us to date Stonehenge more accurately). I'm looking for ulterior not superficial motive. After all look at how youngsters worship the features and beauty of vehicles yet their ulterior motive for having one is to get from point A to point B. ...IMHO (Talk) 08:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any insights into gulls' opinions of humans?

I'm asking this here, instead of the science desk in an attempt to avoid "gulls don't have opinions - they're just hard-wired organic automatons"-type answers.

Anyway, I watch the gulls and the gulls watch me. I often wonder what the gulls think of me and the other members of my species as we go about our daily lives. Instinct must the gulls that humans are potential predators and something to be fearful of - yet experience tells the gulls that humans will provide them with free food and free nesting space, seemingly as a selfless act. It must be confusing for them. Unlike other urban birds such as pigeons, urban gulls still retain their fear of man. A gull will never allow a human to directly approach it, yet will happily feed alongside man. My experience of a small group of local gulls has led me to conclude that these particular gulls understand the concept of 'house' (they will come to my back door and tap on my windows to attract my attention) and the 'bipedal creature that dwells within the house' (they will come close to me to feed but are still fearful in the presence of other humans).

So, does anyone have any theories as to the 'mindset' of an urban gull and it's view on people? --Kurt Shaped Box 19:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Gulls, like most other animals have neural network type brain but also have some hardwired behaviors. My experience is that they are opportunists and as for training they are not much different than any othe animal when it comes to free food. Even people can be trained to do certain things for food that is free. A word of advice though... Gulls do not like to wear diapers no matter how much food you give them for free so feeding them in your back yard might be okay but please not at the beach. ...IMHO (Talk) 20:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

They probably understand us as a wonderful source of free food. Battle Ape 05:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So they recognise you personally? That's interresting. Does it matter what clothes you wear? I've wondered how dogs feel about their boss looking different every day. Now dogs use smell more than sight, but for a bird of prey that would be the other way around.

It is not uncommon for animals of different species to cooperate in some way. It is unusual that humans expect nothing in return for the food, but that probably doesn't worry the gulls. DirkvdM 07:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs of Socrates

In many of the accounts of the teachings and words of Socrates, in his speeches regarding religion, the vocabulary seems to vary between speaking of "the gods" (apparently referring to the mythological pagan gods of ancient Greece) as well as a singular "God".

I'm aware that there exists practically no first hand accounts of what Socrates indeed said, but rather his teachings are presented and elaborated upon by many of his students, most importantly Plato.

Of course, having died in 399BC, it would be chronologically impossible for him to have been influenced by Christianity, and, though Judaism existed as a monotheistic religion at the time, it would be EXTREMELY doubtful that he was at all interested in that religion.

Yet the fact remains that Socrates often seems to have spoken of one "God" on more than several occasions. What did he mean by this? Loomis 21:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I do believe when he speaks of the singular God, it meant Zeus. Political Mind 22:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is mostly a result of the translation. To my knowledge, there is no doubt that Socrates was a polytheist. - R_Lee_E (talk, contribs) 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that Socrates ascribed to the pagan Greek "religion" of the times. He was surely an independant thinker, and one of the most intelligent men of his time. In fact his beliefs (in general) were regarded as "corrupt", which led to his final death sentence.

Socrates introduced many philosophies concerning spirituality and religion that are useful to this day. I therefore find myslelf with at least some doubt that his religious beliefs were identical to the relatively backward pagan Greek beliefs of the time.

As well, I've done a good deal of studying of the ancient Greek religion and all the gods it involved. Through it all, I've never heard of the chief Greek god Zeus being referred to in the singular and simply as "God". Rather, whenever Zeus is mentioned, he is mentioned by name. I'm therefore still unsure of what Socrates meant when he refered to the singular "God".

I don't fully discount the concept that Socrates may have been something of a self-styled "monotheist", in at least a partial sense. Perhaps Socrates had entertained thoughts of monotheism independent of any organized monotheistic religion? Is that at least a possibility?

Then again, I could be completely wrong and any reference to a singular "God" was merely the result of an error in translation, and perhaps even an intentional fabrication to persuade early Christian Greeks that one of their greatest philosophers had indeed contemplated monotheism. Loomis 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Socrates was a really smart guy, so he must have known that all the "gods" revered by the Greeks were not the real deal, and that there is a "God" beyond the realm of human-created myth and legends. Akhenaten and others had the same realisation. Whatever names they may have used, they were all talking about the same unique entity. JackofOz 23:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally folks ascribe the "God" to Plato, who did believe in a single creator. See demiurge. Plato, in Timaeus, has Socrates arguing that there simply must be, logically, a perfect point of zero movement and full completion (essence, perfection). This divine -- the God -- would never create anything, however, because creation requires a need, and this perfect point could not need anything and yet be perfect. Therefore, a demi-urge, a thing between the perfect and the uppermost area of the empyrean, did the creating. It is nearly perfect, but it desires. Most people treat this monotheism as Plato's, but, then again, few people really speak of knowing Socrates's thought because Plato is so much of an intrusion. So the short answer is, yes, you're reading properly: Socrates in Plato is a monotheist, and you're also correct that this single deity is totally unlike the Abrahamic God. Geogre 01:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Samus Aran

why is she named "Samus Aran"? I heard the "Aran" part was code for "aryan" with the blonde hair and all but I doubt it....anybody know the real origin?

As Samus was originally a brunette/green haired in the original Metroid (the blonde hair was a retcon), I doubt that would be the case. As to "why", there's no reason, at least none that creator Gunpei Yokoi gave, and unfortunately he's passed on. --ColourBurst 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In the original game she had green hair (check it out), so I doubt that can be it. My bet is that it has some sort of connotation in Japanese that it doesn't when rendered in English, but I have really no idea. --Fastfission 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My admittedly small Japanese dictionary gives "cold weather" for "samusa" and nothing for "aran" or similar. Google combined with my mediocre Japanese doesn't give much help either. It still may be something obscure in Japanese, or it could just be made up. --George 05:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Eugene V. Debs

Was Debs an atheist?

• I am not sure, but every socialist is not atheist. See Hugo Chavez.--Patchouli 05:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What you say means that there are no atheist socialists. You probably mean "not every socialist is an atheist". This is a very common mistake in the use of English. DirkvdM 07:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

christianity exclusive?

I've heard a lot of people tell me the famous Jesus-quote which goes somethign like "no one can get to the Lord except through me". Why do people think this makes christianity intolerant and exclusive? It doesn't seem so to me because it doesn't proclaim Jesus as the only method to get to God, just that he is necessary.

THanks, Kyle.

As with many religious statements, ambiguity leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Without knowing the context of that particular line (I find context very important in interpretting things Jesus says), I would personally say that both interpretations seemed semantically valid (that is, just because on the word combinations), though I am not qualified to say which of them are more theologically valid (based on what Jesus was all about, considering him as a coherent thinker). I'd caution though that I doubt it is this particular line which people think makes Christianity intolerant and exclusive, and one should also probably draw a line between "things Christ said" and "modern Christianity", which in my mind diverge pretty heavily. --Fastfission 04:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote you are looking for is from John 14:6. Crypticfirefly 04:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

July 11

Can a footballer pick up the football with his feet?

Can someone playing Association football pick up the football and carry it around with hie feet as in hopping around with ball? If it's allowed, has anyone done this in play? Laws_of_the_Game only forbids carrying with the hands. --Kaasje 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so, but doing so without losing control of the ball, and maintaining a decent pace, is a lot harder than it sounds. --ColourBurst 04:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure, it's allowed by the rules, but it's also a really pointless move. It's not at all difficult for someone to just boot the ball free, and if you're hopping around like that, you're not exactly in a good position for any defensive maneuvering. I guess you could do that if you really wanted your teammates to hate you or something. Really, coming up with scenarios like this isn't too hard -- hell it's also legal to lie face down on the field, you your feet to somehow maneuver the ball on the top of your butt and try and score a goal simply by flexing your mighty buttocks, but that's not gonna do you any good either... -- Captain Disdain 06:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember a controversial incident in a major match about 20-30 years ago - I think it was a European club game, but I can't recollect any other details (anyone else?). A side had a free kick just outside the penalty area. One player stood slightly in front of the ball and, holding the ball between his feet, flipped it up behind him. His team-mate, standing just behind him, volleyed it into the net. There was a big hoo-ha as to whether this was a valid goal or not, and in the end it was disallowed, because of the rule that states that the taker of a free kick may not touch the ball a second time until it has been touched by another player. The referee came to the conclusion that the player who flipped the ball up must have touched it twice in order to flip it. --Richardrj 07:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Name of poem?

I suppose I should put a spoiler warning here. I thought this was an amusing poem when I first (and last) read it in a schoolbook about 45 years ago. It made fun of the type of woman who would keep trying out different religions, never happy with any. The last line was something like "God knows which God she'll worship next".

I kinda sorta remember it was written in the 1920s or 30s.

Google, Yahoo and, yes, even Wikipedia were no help at all.

Does anyone remember the name and/or author, and, if past copyright, where I could find it on the 'net.

Thanks Bunthorne 04:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It couldn't possibly be The Day after Sunday by Phyllis McGinley? (The last lines are: Benevolent, stormy, patient, or out of sorts. / God knows which God is the God God recognizes.) Crypticfirefly 05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good try, thanks, but that's not it.

It may have had some outragous rhymes a la Ogden Nash. One of the lines named several of the gods ending with "Zeus or Zoroaster". Bunthorne 05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You could try asking the Poetry Library in London. Their website has a service where you can post half-remembered poems like yours. Chances are someone there will know it. --Richardrj 07:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Very longshot that it's a variant of The Vicar of Bray, but you might enjoy it anyway. Tyrenius 07:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Give us some more clues. So 1961. Do you remember anything else about the book or other poets/poems in it, or the subjects thereof? Tyrenius 07:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)