Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< October 29 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 31 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 30[edit]

Old Movie[edit]

Does anyone know the name of the movie that appears to be a man's life story, but at the end is revealed to be the viewpoint of a baby watching his possible future life from heaven, trying to decide whether or not to experience his life? It was released sometime in the last 40 years. Steveo2 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no information on this; sorry. I have to say, though, that it is an interesting concept. Heaven would be overpopulated by babies not willing to make the leap. Clio the Muse 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Most Paid[edit]

Does anyone know which actor holds the record for getting paid the most for the portrayal of a single character? I believe that Jerry Seinfeld does, but I really don't know. Steveo2 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that it will be Chris Tucker: [1]. -THB 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle ONLY village/city/town[edit]

I am curious if there are any cities which either restrict or severely limit the amount of motor traffic with a cleaner alternative like bicycles? I have been hearing of places scattered throughout Europe (Amsterdam, Nueremburg) which are heavily populated with bikers but I am more interested in a 'Bicycle ONLY village' I have heard of somewhere in Switzerland. Any information is appreciated!

I believe that parts of the formerly Disney-owned community of Celebration, Florida are like that. StuRat 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
But that town seems completely artificial, anyway? Any natural town (where the inhabitants are rich enough to own cars)? As a footnote, I heard about some city that was so polluted that every 2nd day only cars with the last number on their registration plate being even/odd (interchanging) were allowed to drive. Rich families often had two cars, one with an odd and one with an even number, so they could drive any day... 惑乱 分からん 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In Athens, Greece they used to do that, I don't know if they still do. And I believe London does something similar, but for general traffic control reasons. Anchoress 13:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Re London: Not quite, they introduced the London congestion charge. Simon A. 14:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe in parts of the United States some years ago they did this, except they alternated days in which you were allowed to go to the gas station. Meh, before my time though. Hyenaste (tell) 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The first thing that comes to mind when I read this question is Iceland. That's all I know, but perhaps someone else knows more about it. Hyenaste (tell) 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are thinking about the German islands of Heligoland and Juist, where only the emergency services are permitted to use motorcars. The latter has a city ordinance proscribing cars, the former has the ban written in the federal traffic code. Dr Zak 03:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland does indeed have several towns/villages in where they either prohibit ordinary car traffic or where there simply is no road access to the town. I know of four in popular tourist areas: Zermatt, Mürren, Gimmelwald, Wengen. I note that each of them is located where it can only be reached from one direction, so there is no pressure for road traffic on a through route to be allowed into the town.

Zermatt is near the Matterhorn and has a population of about 5,000; public access is by rail, with the nearest road open to car traffic ending at a parking lot a few kilometers away. The other three places are all in the Berner Oberland. Mürren and Gimmelwald (about 500 and 150 people respectively) are stops on the cable-car route that connects the summit of the Schilthorn to the road at the bottom of the valley. (Mürren normally has a connection to the rail system as well, but this is currently being rebuilt, according to Bergbahn Lauterbrunnen-Mürren.) Wengen, with 1,400 people, is on the other side of the same valley, and is reached by rail.

--Anonymous, 06:47 UTC, October 30.

Mackinaw Island is an example, in Michigan. StuRat 07:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that some cities are inaccessible by motor vehicle. These places may get their supplies by boat, plane, or train. I believe there are some parts of Alaska and northern Canada like this. StuRat 07:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research here, but I've visited many of the communities like that in Northern Canada. Every one of them had at least a few trucks, usually owned by the local government and used for hauling stuff. They fly them in on Hercs or on barges in the summer. Given the cost of a seat aboard a passenger aircraft to one of those towns (up to $8,000!!!!), I wonder how much it costs to bring a truck in. Nobody in those towns has bicycles, though; most have snowmobiles for the winter and ATVs for the, um, summer. Only the cities in northern Manitoba are accessible by train; in the NWT and Nunavut, it's the summer barge or the Herc. Edited to remove double copy of the paragraph. --Charlene 05:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Serfaus, Austria is yet another example. TZMEverything is notable 08:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fire Island, New York is bicycle and wagon only during the summer. Bogota, Colombia closes many major roads to cars on Sunday so bicyclists may use them freely. -THB 14:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Article 50 of the German Road Code states: On the island of Heligoland, motor traffic and cycling is forbidden. But hardly anybody lives there, of course. Simon A. 14:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is the island of Sark. -Stubblychin

Catalina strongly limits the use of automobiles. Most people get by on bikes or golf carts. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting broader shoulders[edit]

heyz... i really do not know how to go about training up my shoulders to make them broad...i generally am quite please with my biceps and triceps... however, i just feel that my shoulder is not broad enough... Can anyone advice me on how to train up on my shoulders without going to the gym... thanks alot.

Shoulder pads, a la 80s soaps. --Nelson Ricardo 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

from personal experience: Standing on your shoulders (first lying down on your back, then swinging your legs up, leaning on shoulders and neck) works quite well. also using them as impact forces on punching bags for example makes them stronger and broadens them. !VERY IMPORTANT! this may or may not work for you but your shoulder is also partially constructed of bones and therefore you need calcium supplements if you want those to grow stronger. (cohensive with the impact force. same goes for fists if you want those to grow. (idea behind: each time you use them as impact force and hit something the weakest part of the marrow will die and fragment, the body then rebuilds it with stronger marrow and using fragments of the old. repeatedly doing this with enough rest inbetween will allow your fists to grow and become more concetrated in forms of marrow.)) recommended objects for impact force: punching bags at start, after some time trees (don't break them though!) and then stones (you can break this) and then reinforced concrete walls (it is possible to break these but that will rarely occur) and then multiple-inch thick steel plates (these don't break and one will last a long while if you switch sides from time to time) Graendal 05:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The muscles that will make your shoulders broader are your delts. You can work them with standing laterals and raises (the laterals can be done with free weights or a machine), incline raises and reverse curls. Pushups and pullups work the delts a bit. Built up pecs will also make your shoulders a bit bigger. Anchoress 06:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The only long-term solution to improving your physique is to improve your diet first. -- Chris 16:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the differences between Job Evaluation and Work Evaluation?[edit]

What are the differences between Job Evaluation and Work Evaluation?

See semantics. --Kainaw (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Myall Creek Massacre[edit]

What are the primary sources supporting this event?

When did the Myall Creek massacre occur?

Were there any eye-witnesses?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Myall Creek massacre. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. .--Shantavira 08:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)



Please don't SHOUT. In answer to your question: it depends which moral values and what character, but virtue ethics might be a place to start. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What moral values? The western immoral values or the values imbibed in the family upbringing? What are you questioning about? Be clear ! 18:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's likely a homework question. The answer is either in the textbook or was discussed in class. -THB 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I want to see that textbook: thousands of years of philosophical debate, answered! Cheers, Sam Clark 08:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather sounds to me as we've got a visit from Calvin who wanted to vent hist frustration after an argument with his Dad. Simon A. 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the equivalend of a corpus fund for charities in the UK?[edit]

I have come across corpus funds in India but not in the UK and I wonder if anyone could tell me what the equivalent is in England and Wales? Many thanks

From what I can figure out they're the equivalent of trust funds or endowments. Anchoress 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The whipery in the Cuban parliament[edit]

I am currently conducting a research project about the functions of parliamentary Whips in various countries.I was wondering if there is anybody who has any inmformation about the role of parliamentary whips particularly in Cuba,and Jamaica

I would appreciate you help.

Thank you

S.Duma, South Africa

They may not completely answer your question, but a good place to start would be the Cuba and Jamaica articles. Anchoress 14:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a Leader of the Opposition in Jamaica. In Cuba, the members of the legislature are either members of the Communist Party or are members of no party so there is no whip. -THB 14:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The opposition leader is different from the whip; the whip is a member of the same party who is responsible for ensuring members vote along party lines when circumstances require. There is often a whip on the government side and also in the opposition. But it's usually not the leader. Anchoress 14:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Jamaica, but as for Cuba, it's a DICTATORSHIP, meaning that any semblance of parliamentary democracy is nothing but farcical window dressing, meant for those few who actually believe that the mere existence of a "parliament", on its own, has any meaning whatsoever. It never ceases to amaze me how so many actually lend credence to these mere trappings of democracy. I suppose Cuba has a parliamentary "whip" of sorts, only it isn't quite the metaphorical "whip" as exists in actual democracies, but rather a quite real, non-metaphorical "gun". Cuba's parliamentary "guns" are held quite snugly in the holsters beside Fidel Castro's hip, along with the hips of his most loyal supporters. Loomis 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The Jamaican model is largely based on the British practice; so parliamentary whips are a well-established part of the whole political process. The term itself comes from fox hunting, where the 'whipper-in' made sure that the dogs were all working to the same ends. It only has value where there is an active party-political system, both government and opposition. Clearly this is not the case in Cuba, where the result of any given vote is known in advance. Also Cuba was only for the briefest of periods (1762-3) under British control, and therefore absorbed none of of its political or cultural traditions. Have a look at Parliamentary Whip for some general information on the subject. Clio the Muse 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If the outcome of a vote is known in advance (assuming that is the case - I don't know), then what brings that about? There's only one party, but there are votes. So if they all vote the same then there must be a whip. Isn't that pretty much the definition of the term? Oh, and Loomis, a parliament is where politicians talk (parler). That doesn't necessarily have to be in a democracy. DirkvdM 07:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There were also 'votes' in the Nazi Reichstag. For any Cuban MP to vote against the party line would be bold in the extreme. On an empirical point, and this is an empirical, not an ideological matter, there is no party whip in Cuba. There is no need for one, for the reasons I have already given. Clio the Muse 08:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you getting all semantic on me Dirk? In that case, an "Assembly" would merely be a place where people "Assemble" and a "Congress" would be merely a place where people "Congregate". Is that satisfactory to you? Is Parliament to you a place where people merely "talk"? Loomis 08:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Loomis, you seemed to suggest that since Cuba is in a practical sense not a democracy, it can't have a parliament. That's all I reacted to. Clio, I meant to enquire into the meaning of a 'whip'. The article says that that is someone who makes sure that everyone in a party votes the same way, and that seems to be the case in Cuba. Or do you mean to say that because it is (inherently?) the system in stead of a person that one can not call it a whip? DirkvdM 12:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you bothered Dirk, at least in the slightest, that the Dutch "legislature" and the Cuban "legislature", are both equally termed "Parliaments", despite the fact that in the former, the "Parliament" spoken of is actually elected by the people, whereas in the latter, the "Parliament" is nothing but an assembly of Fidel's sycophants, having absolutely no democratic mandate to serve the people they purport to represent? Isn't that to you, at least in the slightest, a slap in the face to the Dutch people, who fought so hard to build a proper democracy? I get the same feeling of insult when I hear in the news a story such as "The President of France" or "The Prime Minister of Canada" met today with "President" Asad of Syria, or "President" Kim Jong-il of "The Democratic Republic of North Korea". Didn't it make you want to burst out into uncontrollable laughter when "President" Saddam, in a pathetic attempt to lend himself some form of democratic legitimacy held that "election", where he won about 99% of the vote? (Funny though, with only one person on the ballot, who'd the other 1% vote for?) It's truly sad that these trappings of democracy are actually given even token currency by some people. Loomis 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you bothered Loomis, at least in the slightest, that both Canada and Cuba are countries? DirkvdM 09:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. People who take the line that "every form of government is just as valid as any other form" are supporting genocidal dictators. On the humorous side, I heard Kim Jong Il got 11 holes-in-one on the golf course he opened today. I'm wondering how he managed to miss the other 7 ? It must have been on purpose so as not to humiliate the others. (So did he have people skulking around in the bushes to make sure he got all those holes-in-one ?). StuRat 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Dirk, the office of 'party whip' does not exist in the Cuban legislature for all of the reasons I have given; I cannot be any clearer than that. This is an empirical statement. If you disagree the onus is on you to prove me wrong. However, let me try to make the position a little clearer with reference to the British Parliament, where both the term and the political practice originate. The origins of the English Parliament go back to the thirteenth century, but political parties as such did not emerge until the late seventeenth century, and were initially no more than associations of like-minded individuals, lacking in both organization and ideology. As the office of Prime Minister took shape in the eighteenth century it became increasingly important to unite his supporters in both the Lords and Commons behind official policy. This is when the idea of the 'whipper in' was borrowed from fox hunting. Today, when everybody knows, or should know, in which direction to vote, the office of the whip (and all British parties have one) exists to muster his colleagues behind a particular vote in the House. Where the issue is of miminal importance a note, or one line whip, is issued (essentially the measure in question is underlined once); where it is more important there is a two line whip; and where it is most important of all-where a major policy or the survival of a government is at stake-a three line whip is issued. Those failing to observe this face disciplinary action. Whippery exists, in essence, in those parts of the world once under British control, which absorbed aspects of British political culture. It does not exist in dictatorships, either of the right or the left. No whip was ever issued to members of the Supreme Soviet in the days of Stalin, who in theory were free to vote any way they wished. Of course if they voted against the Vozhd they faced a visit not from the office of the whip but the NKVD. Sorry to go on at such length; but I hope this makes the position clear. If you have any further questions I will do my best to answer. Clio the Muse 23:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so even though the effect is the same, the method is different. DirkvdM 09:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I understand your point. But if you are saying that there is a difference between democracy and dictatorship, then yes, that's true. Clio the Muse 23:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Clio, though your knowledge of the history and the finest details of "whippery" are incredibly impressive, I truly can't understand its relevance the question at hand. "Whippery" in Parliamentary systems is indeed a fascinating topic, but I believe that you're overintellectualizing the whole thing, and in a rather whinny-type way, letting your focus stray from the "down-and-dirty", glaringly obvious farce that is the "Cuban Parliament". The very idea of a Cuban "whip" is utter nonsense from the get-go, and any conversation as to its possible existence should stop right there. I thought I'd made it clear in my first post that the closest thing the Cubans have to the British metaphorical "whip" is the "gun" in the holster attached to Castro's hip. Don't get me wrong, the history of "whippery" is fascinating, and I mean that. Yet the Cuban "system" doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the Parliament at Westminster. Loomis 01:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Losing indent ) Hi, Loomis. I'm really just responding to a challenge laid down by Dirk. But I have to say that my style is that of the empiricist rather than the polemicist. I've read too many exchanges on this desk (before I took the plunge) where argument proceeds like an old-style naval battle, broadside given for broadside. This always ends in two exhausted navies, and nobody one step wiser. You are absolutely right, of course: the notion of a whip in a dictatorship is clear nonsense; but for me to assert this without argument by example merely invites a 'oh no, it isn't' response, and for someone like the secretary of the Cuban Communist Party to be defined as the 'whip'. Hence, always step by step; general assertions countered by particular cases. Clio the Muse 01:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mulberry Harbours[edit]

≈Why were these floating harbours named Mulberry?

It was a code-name... AnonMoos 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
See our article Mulberry harbour.  --LambiamTalk 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


what type of govermnet do they have in Budapest?

Well, Budapest is the capital of Hungary, did you mean the national government of that country? If so then Politics of Hungary looks pretty good. If you mean government of the city itself, the Budapest article doesn't give a great deal of info but maybe you can find something at [2] ? -- Muntfish 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If you mean the national government of Hungary, as opposed to the municipal government of Budapest, it is a parliamentary democracy, presently headed by Ferenc Gyurcsány of the Hungarian Socialist Party. Nevertheless, Mr. Gyurcsány is a former Communist, and recent events have shown that he still has some of the old instincts. Clio the Muse 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
But at least Mr. Gyurcsány is more honest than most politicians, in that he's admitted that he "lied morning, noon, and night" to the electors before the last election, though of course he didn't admit this until after the election! -- Arwel (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on your definition of honesty: his remarks were clearly not for public consumption. But just imagine if Tony Blair, for example, said that he had lied 'morning, noon and night' about Iraq. Do you think he would stand up in the storm that blew from that? It's almost certain that he would be abandoned by most of the Parliamentary Labour Party. For Gyurcsány to to be able to rely on the continuing support of the Socialists would seem to indicate that Hungary has not completely emerged from its past. Clio the Muse 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Judging from the number of demonstrators calling for Mr. Gyurcsány to resign, I would have to say that the citizens are hungary for a change. StuRat 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


why is it that certian people have been allowed to ask/answer questions in such a way as to be critical of the Bush Administration? Isn't this a direct violation of WP:POV and WP:LIVING? Isn't it also disrespectful and even out right insulting to Americans?--Frowrwr 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Can we delete or strikeout these kinds of questions?--Frowrwr 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Those policies apply to articles. Should the New York Times be censored if it's critical of George Dubya? Unless Bush has decided to trample on some more civil liberties, it's ok here. And no, it's not insulting to all Americans, just one in particular. On the other hand, you can be reasonably "disrespectful" of Nancy Pelosi and Susan Sarandon to your heart's content. Clarityfiend 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you certainly may not. The reason people have been 'allowed' to be critical of the Bush administration is that, whatever one thinks of the Bush administration, people have a right to free speech. Since the reference desk is not an article, neither policy you cite applies. As for your suggestion that criticism is 'disrespectful' and 'insulting to Americans': criticism often annoys the people criticised, but that has no relevance to whether it is correct or allowable. Yours, Sam Clark 18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Get the selfish maniac out of power! The bush administration is and subject of criticism. The american policies of double standards are also subject to criticism. If the Big brother attitude keeps abusing freedom and liberty and doesnt shoulder the responsibility of the worlds impatience then it is open to criticism.18:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Disrespectful or not, as Sam said, it's free speech. Much as I may admire the Bush Administration (K, quit throwing tomatoes at me!), the day it's forbidden to criticize any politician in any country, is the day that freedom dies in that country. Of course I find it mildly insulting when the uninformed criticize GWB for being the executive in charge of enforcing the Acts of the Legislative Branch of the US Government, those Acts held to be Constitutional by the Judicial branch of the US Government such as Congress' decision to give the President power to go to war in Iraq as well as Congress' Patriot Act.
Get the selfish maniac out of power? I'm afraid there's much more to it than that. I suppose you'd could start by throwing out Bush, but then you'd have to throw out his entire Cabinet, then throw out the vast majority of Congress that enacted, say, the resolution to go to war in Iraq, (77 out of 100 Senators (including Hillary!), plus 296 out of 429 Representatives,) then you'd have to throw out at least five of the nine Supreme Court Justices that so far don't seem to agree with Clarity, that Bush, in carrying out various Acts of Congress, is at all "trampling" unreasonably on any civil liberties. Last but definitely not least of all, I suppose, you'd have to throw out that MAJORITY of American voters that re-elected Bush to a second term, even after all of those "wacky" Congressional Acts were enforced by the Executive Branch. What you're caling for isn't simply the removal of some "imbecile who can't tie his own shoes-slash-evil genius who seems to have managed to dupe the entire world into falling for his self-serving shenanegans", but rather, outright revolution! Apparently America's whole "democratic experiment" was indeed a failure. Thanks K, for the inspiration, even though I'm sure you're regretting it now! Oh boy, how I can't wait 'til January 20th 2009 when my work at at least this thankless job will finally be done! Loomis 20:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the process of swapping governments is already underway. In next week's Congressional elections, Republicans are expected to lose control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats, and possibly the Senate (although this is much tougher, since only 1/3 of the Senators run for re-election every two years). Then, in 2008, I would fully expect Democrats to take the Senate (if they don't already have it) and for a Dem to be elected President, unless Bush can somehow do something right, like kill or capture bin Laden. It isn't necessary to replace the majority of Americans, but just to get them to change their opinion of the Republicans. Unfortunately for them, they haven't been able to even deliver things they've promised to their conservative base:
  • Better ethics in government.
  • Capture or kill bin Laden.
  • Eliminate the Taliban permanently from Afghanistan.
  • Replace Saddam's Iraq with a functional democracy.
  • Practice fiscal responsibility.
  • Prevent North Korea from building nuclear weapons.
  • Ban abortion.
And then there is their total incompetence during Hurricane Katrina, not a selling point, either. The trampling on civil rights and ban on funding for stem cell research probably doesn't upset the Republican base, that just upsets everyone else. StuRat 21:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That's the part I don't get. The article on the armed forces of the United States points out that there are upwards of 2.6 million troops in the US military, yet with a force hovering somewhere between 100,000-150,000 in Iraq, I still hear arguments, such as yours, that the Iraq war somehow "overextended" American military capacity. If my math is correct, about 5% of America's available military personel are deployed in Iraq. Overextended? Diverting forces from Afghanistan? What am I missing here? We're talking 5%!
Your first point is a mere matter of opinion. "Slick Willy" or "Dubya". The embarrassingly bigotted, misomophilic Republican Rick Santorum, or the Democratic KKK Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd, who vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." Take your pick.
Talking about ethics, I just can't help but recollect that line by Clinton during his deposition: "Well...that depends on what your definition of the word is is..."
As for your second and third points, I don't see how a different administration would have made any difference. I don't see how a different president or a different Congress could have any effect on these two points. The US military is the US military. Yes, Rumsfeld and, ultimately, Bush have a say on the strategies taken in the broadest of terms, but how, in any way, would a different administration be any better at improving the US military's success in capturing Bin Laden or more effectively whiping out the Taliban? What particular directives to the military did the Bush administration give that can be held accountable for the military's lack of success with regard to these two goals? Diverting 5% of the US military to Iraq?
Point four is admittedly a dissapointment. On that one I admit that I was wong. (With that sad, puppy eyed, lip biting phoney Clintonian contrition...I was wrong, and I'm I truly believed the Iraqis would actually seize upon this opportunity to be free from the slavery of dictatorship. I guess I overestimated them.
Point five is a matter of opinion. The US economy was in recession, now it's not.
As fo keeping North Korea from developing nukes, wouldn't it have been a good idea for the US to confront them earlier, say in the late '90s, before their nuclear capacity was basically a fait accompli?
Finally, neither the Republican Congress, nor Bush, ever had the legal capability to ban abortion. Nor did they ever get the chance to appoint enough anti-abortion Supreme Court Justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. Say what you will, pro-life or pro-choice, (I happen to be pro-choice (albeit somewhat reluctantly)...don't act so surprised!) you can't blame a guy for not doing what he was never legally capable of doing.
Oh well, despite all that, you're probably right. If I were a betting man I'd agree that the Democrats will likely retake the House at least. On the other hand, I don't see a Democrat taking the presidency in '08. Care to place a friendly wager? :) Loomis 02:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does the US governemnt completely sell itself on other countries issues, are people so narrow minded that if they are kept occupied by periodic wars and patriotic speeches that they completely fail to notice how the government actually handles they running of their country. Philc TECI 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
They have to do both. I certainly think that evicting the Taliban and al-Queda from Afghanistan was a good thing, they just needed to send enough troops to catch or kill bin Laden and leave enough troops there to keep the Taliban at bay. However, Iraq pulled too many troops away to do the job properly, hence the resurgence of the Taliban. StuRat 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no comment to make whatsoever on the present US administration; but as far as the above point is concerned a passage from Shakespeare's Henry IV part II leaps to mind, where the old king is giving some death-bed advice to Prince Hal (the future Henry V); Thus, my dear Harry, be it thy task to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels, that action, hence borne out, may waste the memory of former days. Clio the Muse 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
However shakespeare was not most well known for his political prowess. ;) Philc TECI 10:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Prescott Bush had Nazi ties. -THB 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean connections or neckties?--Light current 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) vowed never to fight:

Song with lyrics "come to papa"[edit]

I am looking for title and artist of a song with the lyrics "come to papa". I believe it is blues, and it sounds something like a Stevie Ray Vaughan song, but I'm not sure that he is the artist. All help will be greatly appreciated. This is to silence a know-it-all who seems to think it is Bob Seger. (don't believe it is, but I could be wrong.) Thanks. 18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)L. Kemp, TX

Ira and George Gershwin wrote Embraceable You and hundreds of singers have performed it. -THB 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but Bob Segar performed the Earl Randle/Willie Mitchell tune Come to Poppa on Night Moves. Gershwin could not have written Embraceable You for An American in Paris (film), though, having been dead for 14 years. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian songwriter Chris Clark who lives in Scriba, NY (near Oswego) wrote a great song "Come to Papa"

Clash of civilisations[edit]

The thought of the east meeting the west. How many successful marriages or relationships are there involving two persons of the opposite sex - one from the east and the other from the west. What exactly are the perceptions of the west about the east? What is the opinion of the west about such successful relationships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjvenus (talkcontribs)

First, perhaps you should think what you mean by "east" and "west". I assume you mean a meeting of cultures rather than a clash of civilisations. In the UK it's no big deal for most people. Perhaps the article on interracial marriage would interest you.--Shantavira 19:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I don't think you could characterize the perception or opinion of "the west"! -THB 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It would appear that...wait...I just realized that "KJVenus the Troll" is asking this question. Nevermind. Loomis 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Then what if the opposite sex, opposite culture persons are wearing masks? -THB 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Careful, that sounds like a funny comment!--Light current 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What if the same sex, opposite gender Western person is wearing a different-sex, Eastern, but same gender mask? Is it a crime? Or cannable offense? What if they like chocolate? But the mask is chocolate? -- Chris 23:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Pleas be careful. THis sort of comment is currently under close scrutiny.--Light current 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there seriously a crack-down on non-serious responses at the ref desk? If so, where can I find the relevant discussion? Thanks. -- Chris 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes its on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Please join discussion if you wish.--Light current 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If Eastern is Chinese and Western is Anglo-Saxon then yes there are many successful marriages. You just don't hear about them. They don't make the news because they are quite boring. 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The only two cannable offences I can think of are eating other human beings, and illicit use of marijuana. JackofOz 03:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Willie Lynch entry[edit]

You might find this entry interesting. The Willie Lynch piece posted is a myth

Carmen Harris, Ph.D.

I think the article is fairly clear that it is not a proven fact. I would think it is something completely made up just because the speaker says "our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we cherish". The article also points out several anachronisms and other problems with the letter. (Also, I altered your e-mail address.) -THB 20:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bold and the Beautiful history question[edit]

I watched some old B&B clips on YouTube and got to wondering. The Amber article states she first came on the show to be babysitter to Rick and Bridget. However, I saw a clip in which she was helping Maggie take care of the baby Sheila wanted. I'm pretty sure that is how she was introduced, but I'm not sure enough to make an edit to the article saying such. Can anyone clear it up for me? I'm hoping someone can relay the information to me how they remember it, instead of just referring me to a page. Hopefully someone can give me an explanation, because I'm really just racking my brains about it. Thank you! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, there are probably other internet forums that have a higher-percentage of long-term soap-opera viewers... AnonMoos 13:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking here. Your response helped me in absolutely no way at all. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Mike, AnonMoos response should have been of help to you because he was guiding you somewhere more suitable for you to find your answer.Downunda 22:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed Mike, he was trying to help you. IMDB [3] has a forum where questions like that can be asked. The chance of someone who knows Bold and the Beautiful that well passing by to see your question is just too small. Anyway,good luck!Evilbu 22:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Mike, you're right. This is from

"Amber arrived in Los Angeles in 1997. After having previously worked with Sheila at a café/restaurant in Death Valley, Amber convinced Sheila to help her apply for the position of Mary/Margaret's babysitter. In over her head, Amber agrees to secretly allow Sheila visits with "Mary" at the Warwick house. Amber soon sides with James and Maggie agreeing that Sheila is unstable and obsessed. Sheila leaves Stephanie on the verge of death before leaving LA as a fugitive on the run. Despite gratitude from family members for helping save Stephanie's life, it was not enough to make headway with Eric and Brooke. Another obstacle in Rick and Amber's happiness came in the form of Kimberly Fairchild, Rick's new neighbor.

Her next position was working for Brooke Logan as Rick and Bridget's babysitter." Kogsquinge 01:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanksgiving Women[edit]

How many Pilgrim women are believed to have survived to celebrate the first Thanksgiving in 1621?

The complete list of Mayflower passengers (roughly 103 of them) is at Caleb Johnson's page, where you can also find a list of those who died the first winter, including thirteen adult women and two girls. You'd have to figure out how many women there were in the 103, and how many were Pilgrims, to know the answer to your question, but all the information should be there. The page on women and girls on the Mayflower may be of interest. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (On that page, we find that of 18 women who made the voyage, 5 survived the first winter, and one of these died the following May, leaving only four adult women by the time of the first Thanksgiving.) - Nunh-huh 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
So,was there a football game? Turkey sandwichs? Who washed up?Edison 04:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Very funny (
"Elder William Brewster brought his sons Love and Wrestling, but left behind his daughters Patience and Fear."
Anyways, I guess they were right in thinking that the weak bodies of women would not survive the hardships of building a colony. Only 4 out of the 18 women survived the first year. --Bowlhover 05:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it was any natural weakness. The poor 17th century English diet would have left the women more likely to develop anemia and scurvy than modern women (and with respect to anemia, far more susceptible than 17th century men, because of menstruation). Even in England women died earlier than men on average because childbirth was dangerous back then. (The Bills of Mortality for London that we have show that about 1/4 of women's deaths (outside of plague years) were from something relating to pregnancy and childbirth.) Skeletal remains of women from 17th century gravesites show that osteoporosis was more common among relatively young women - a broken hip was usually fatal back in those days. --Charlene 07:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Or you could just use Wikipedia: List of Mayflower passengers and List of Mayflower passengers who died in the winter of 1620-1621. Rmhermen 02:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the name/author of an artwork?[edit]

What is the name and/or who is the author of this artwork? Thank you. Philip 23:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the name, but I believe it's from Middle Age Europe... 惑乱 分からん 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Though it's often palmed off as medieval, it's actually by Camille Flammarion, and was first published in 1888, in his L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire. The version you've linked to has been colorized and of course the inscription has been added. - Nunh-huh 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC) - I see we actually have an article on it, at Flammarion woodcut - Nunh-huh 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. --Philip 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad to be of help. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


In the United Kingdom, who holds passport number one?

Here's the history of UK passports going back to the 15th century: *. Likely modern passports are not numbered sequentially but as a coded number, similar to a US Social Security Number. -THB 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Fascinatingly, only tangentially related fact: Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell received the first UK number plate "A1" MeltBanana 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I take it "number plate" is BritSpeak for a license plate. And since they contain letters, too, shouldn't they be called "alphanumeric plates" ? StuRat 03:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes and probably yes 03:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If language was always strictly logical, yes, but that isn't the case. For example, in the U.S. people talk about "filing" divorce papers, when what they really do is lodge, supply or provide them. Filing is what some clerk would do after the papers have been handed over. JackofOz 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Giving papers to a court for initiation of a legal matter may be called filing because giving them to the court causes the court to open a specific file for your case. Here, the first thing they do is haul out a file folder and stick their copies of the documents in it. --Charlene 05:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
file:"to initiate (as a legal action) through proper formal procedure". It's just a matter of which meanings are familiar; logic has little to do with it. That a clerk can also do another action also known as filing is as irrelevant as is the fact that one can seek lodging at a hotel. - Nunh-huh 05:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)I
Oh, if we're on that subject, what about 'bathroom'. In the US, if a toilet is called a bathroom, then what is an actual bathroom called? And if you wanted to start an adult bookshop (obviously meant for adults), then what would you call that to stop people thinking it was a sex shop? And if blacks are called 'African Americans', then why aren't whites called 'European Americans'? Or Indians 'American Americans'? I could go on for ages.... DirkvdM 08:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You call a bathroom a toilet there ? I can see calling it a toilet room, but just calling it a toilet seems like it could lead to trouble: "Quick, get a locksmith, I'm stuck in the toilet"..."In that case, shouldn't we get a plumber ?". StuRat 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In a Simpson's episode, Bart snuck into the "adult" section of a video store, hoping to find porn, but was disappointed to find only Shakespeare, etc. :-) StuRat 19:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
What's an actual bathroom called? You mean a room that has a bathtub, but no toilet? I live in America, and I've never seen such a room. I wouldn't know what to call it if I saw one. Philbert2.71828 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
He means a room with a toilet (and sink), but no tub (or shower). In the US, we call that a "half-bath", which is a bit odd, as there is no bath at all. StuRat 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I was in the States for nearly three months before somebody finally let me in on the social faux pas I kept committing by asking 'Excuse me, do you have a toilet here?', or 'Where's the toilet?'. We do also call them 'Water Closets', (the original distinction being those that were flushed by water). I think the question above though did mean what you guys would call a bathroom - a room with a bath, perhaps a sink, but no toilet. For us, whether or not there's a toilet, it's a bathroom, because there's a bath there, but if you're already using that word to refer to other things... then would you do the inverse, and call it a toiletroom? ;-) --Mnemeson 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As StuRat said, it would be called a half-bath, or sometimes (if attached to a bedroom) an ensuite. Here in Canada they sometimes call half-baths lavatories. But anything with a toilet and a bathtub or shower is a bathroom. I have never seen a bathroom without a toilet, ever. I have seen a few ensuites with two toilets (not one toilet and a bidet - that's another rarity here). --Charlene 05:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, two toilets ? I think I saw that on Saturday Night Live once, where two newlyweds were making out while each doing their business on their respective adjacent toilets. :-) StuRat 05:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I know. My favourite overconsumption is the 3,500 square foot house that had two count'em two sinks in the kitchen - and a tiny, tiny pantry that wouldn't even hold a 20 lb. bag of flour. Oh, and the main sink was installed diagonally in a corner, so you couldn't put a drain pad beside it if you were doing hand-washing. --Charlene 07:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I grew up in a house with a bathroom without toilet (and two separate toilets). I believe my father specified he wanted it that way because he hated shaving in the morning whilst a kid was having a shit next to him. :) The problem is that, afaik, in the US a toilet without a bath is usually also called a bathroom. I have never heard 'half bath'. And wouldn't that then have to be 'half bathroom '? But 'toilet' is even more confusing. Originally it's French, toilette, referring to a dressingtable with a towel (toile), from which the word 'toiletry' is a remainder. Confusingly, in the French Wikipedia article on toilette, it says that the word 'cabinet de toilette' means 'bathroom'. So the opposite of American English. Btw, speaking of 'dressing table', there are the differnt confusing meanings of the word 'dressing' that can make a newbie to English wonder what exactly a hairdresser does to people's hair. :) DirkvdM 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
In US English, "half bathroom" is the full name of a room with a toilet and sink only, and "half bath" is the short name. It can also be called just a "bathroom", when the distinction as to whether it contains a bath/shower is unimportant, like when one needs to use the toilet. I believe the original French meaning of "toilette" was a type of sheer fabric used in women's lingerie, the name was then applied to the room in which a woman keeps such clothes and dresses. It was also used for a weak perfume applied along with the lingerie (weak so as to not be overpowering in bed), called "eau de toilette" (or, unfortunately, "toilette water"). Later, when indoor plumbing was installed, this room (the 'cabinet de toilette') was a likely place for the water closet, which then took on the name of the room. As for the many meanings of dressing, I believe they all trace back to the meaning "dress up" or "make fancy". Putting on clothes can make you look fancy, as can doing your hair. Adding mayo to a sandwich can have the same effect on the sandwich, as can adding cucumber ranch to a greens salad. StuRat 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There is this joke that in Cologne, they scrub the streets with perfume. DirkvdM 09:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Does every German city's name have to have a double-meaning? Let's see...a Berliner is a doughnut, a Hamburger is a sandwich of fried or grilled minced meat on a bun, a Frankfurter is a Hot-Dog, and of course, Cologne I missing any? Loomis 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and hasn't anyone ever heard of the term "powder room" for a bathroom with just a toilett and sink but no shower/bath? Loomis 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I just wrote this one to see if I can set the record for indentations. Loomis 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So does anybody know who UK Passport issue number one was registered to?
No, it was in the 1400's. Please sign your posts with four tildes. -THB 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be. There was no UK in the 1400s. I'm wondering if your 'nan' (by the way, what's a nan?) isn't looking for the answer "The Queen", which would be wrong, since the Queen doesn't have a passport. She issues them.
Maybe it's Prince Philip or Prince Charles. Heavens knows who else it would be. --Charlene 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
But its on me nan's quiz, surely someone knows 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
For those wondering, 'nan' means grandmother - (Grandmother --> Granny --> Nan)--Mnemeson 16:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)