Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 June 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< June 18 << May | June | Jul >> June 20 >
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.


June 19[edit]

Electoral fraud in Iran[edit]

Why has the media been so happy to declare the election in Iran rigged? From what I read and saw before the vote it was only in the few preceding weeks that opposition support even became noticeable and before the results were announced Ahmadinejad was still expected to win, even if it was expected to be a much narrower margin. Is there any other reason than the surprisingly large margin of victory for suspecting electoral fraud? Sorry for the obviously controversial question 90.192.223.235 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably because of the large number of people out in the streets who seem to also believe it was rigged. Tempshill (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
And the government is shooting unarmed protesters. F (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
See Iranian presidential election, 2009. What I read before the election was that polls showed Mousavi would win, as described in the first paragraph under Analysis. See that section for more. --Anonymous, 04:42 UTC, June 19, 2009.
Also, the results show Ahmadinejad winning in almost all areas. Pre-election polls showed Mousavi had a powerbase in urban areas. Since there are lots of reasons for polls to underestimate his support due to fear from the regime, the likelihood of the Mousavi vote rapidly dropping at the ballot box is very low. Prokhorovka (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a case of dumb cheating. If the election had been close, then folks would probably have accepted it; but the results were skewed in a manner almost designed to provoke the current situation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
But not too close. United States presidential election, 2000. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Democracy is not about voting, it is about vote counting. I have seen no discussion at all about how the votes in Iran were counted. Did the ballot box go to a room somewhere where Ahmadinejad's people "counted" them without any presence by the press or the opposition party? I have been a poll watcher in a U.S. election. Each voter was checked against the voter rolls, with a signature check (more recently some locations have required a government issued photo ID). The ballot box was checked to be empty initially, each voter voted in secrecy, and at the end of the day all present (including election judges and poll watchers representing the contending parties) agreed on the totals, and each got a copy of the precinct totals, as did press representatives. I cannot see how the results could have been faked. Without vote counting which has such measures to prevent fraud, it is an empty gesture to demand a revote. They would just take the candy from the baby again. Edison (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Universal suffrage is all about access to the ballot box; women and minorities fought long and hard to get the right to vote. Democracy is all about voting; counting the vote is merely the result of a particular ballot.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Japan 2 : 0 Germany - Why?[edit]

Why did the Allies throw 2 atomic bombs on Japan and no one on Germany? Some might say it was racism, but is there any reliable (i.e. official disclosed document) that explains it? (no interest in speculative answers)--Mr.K. (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The atomic bombs were completed months after Germany surrendered. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Also see Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Allied bombs devastated German cities too; see Firebombing of Dresden. To focus on race or atomic bombs risks missing the main issue: aerial bombing of cities. —Kevin Myers 13:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There was also a conviction within the American military that invading Japan would be an absolute bloodbath, backed up by their extremely bitter experience removing them from other Pacific islands. There didn't seem to ever be this fear in Germany, and add to that they were essentially racing the Soviets to control as much of Germany as possible. TastyCakes (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Some scientists in the U.S. who developed the bomb expected it would be used on Germany, and were not so keen on using it against Japan, a country for which they felt less hatred than for the Nazis [1], [2], [3]. Edison (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, the main reason advanced for developing the weapon was the belief that the Germans were capable of developing it and could not be allowed to get it first. The Germans did have excellent technologists and late in the war they had the only jet fighter aircraft, the only rocket fighter aircraft, the only cruise missile, and the only rocket missile with inter-city range. (Fortunately for the Allies, all of these were either insufficiently effective or else produced in too small numbers to affect the course of the war.) But the German nuclear energy project was less successful. Eventually the Americans became aware of this, but chose to proceed with their own project now that it was clear that the bomb could be built.
For discussion of this and also of the specific targets chosen in Japan, and many other things about the project, I recommend Richard Rhodes's book The Making of the Atomic Bomb. --Anonymous, 17:16 UTC, June 19, 2009.

Economics: what happens with an essential good that is almost too expensive for people to afford?[edit]

In the UK for a long time not enough houses are being built to match the increase in new households. Yet people need somewhere to live. Does economic theory have anything to say about this situation? Would it for example mean that boom-and-bust cycles would be inevitable? I'm thinking that as the gap between supply and demand increases over the years, the price will steadily increase. But there comes a point at which people cannot afford the high prices. What does economic theory have to say about this kind of situation? 78.144.198.105 (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ups and downs are inevitable, unless you have a highly regulated economy, where the government sets the prices. As long as you can afford to pay more than a house costs, some company could get interested in building to sell to you. If the demand increases (like in the UK) the supply also increases (like in the UK). This is hardly a sign that people cannot afford to buy a home. Quite in contrary, it is a sign that people can afford more, at least some of them. In the UK there are subsidies for people who cannot afford to pay for a roof upon their heads, anyway. This system guarantees that anyone will have some form of housing.--Mr.K. (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
An example of an essential good that is too expensive to afford would be safe transportation out of a place about to be engulfed in a war, or food in a city that has been under siege for months. What happens is panic and riots and crime are used to get what you need, fiscal systems break down. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In a crisis, the rich and powerful or those with "connections" can get any scarce resource they need or want via the Black market, which redirects to Underground economy. The article does not adequately cover how people get transportation, housing, medicine and medical care, entertainment, gasoline, high quality food, exit permits, or luxuries in wartime, and is more oriented toward illegal narcotics or booze during U.S Prohibition. Some are banquetting while others are starving in any war. Edison (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A black market, by definition, occurs only where some authority actively restricts trade, so the question isn't only about supply. —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There isn't really a gap between supply and demand. In an efficient market the price will be set such that the two are always equal. What changes isn't supply or demand, but the supply curve and the demand curve (supply and demand chance in response to those changes), which are supply and demand as a function of price (see Supply and demand for detailed definitions). The UK housing market isn't perfectly efficient, but over the long term it is close enough. If the shortfall in building continues, prices will continue to rise. As prices get higher than people can afford, the state intervenes through the welfare system. If there wasn't a welfare system, you would simply have an increase in homelessness. With housing, there is an additional complication - it is not essential to own a house, you can get by perfectly well by renting. The market for buying and selling houses is closely related to the market for renting houses, but the interactions can be rather complicated. --Tango (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The most likely immediate outcome is substitution: if I can't buy, I'll rent. If no food gets into Stalingrad, cannibalism ensues. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

theocracies[edit]

Are there any theocratic governments in the world that are not also Islamic? I suppose there is the Vatican City. Any others? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider North Korea to be theocracy?--droptone (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't a theocracy based on a religion? So North Korea is not a theocracy. No current countries other than Islamic ones really spring to mind as theocracies. Perhaps Nepal or Bhutan could be considered to have some theocratic elements? Or Tibet before 1950? TastyCakes (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Some people think Juche is kind of de facto a religion, or has a lot of similarities with a religion (including the supernatural omens that are claimed to have accompanied the births of the objects of the personality cult, adopting a calendar with Kim Jong-Il's date of birth as the starting point, etc.). Of course, these days Songun seems to be edging out Juche... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The Theocracy article gives examples of modern states with Theocratic elements to include Andorra, the Vatican, Tibet's government in exile and Israel. TastyCakes (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see how Israel is a theocracy in any very meaningful sense; it has an official state religion, but so does England. None of the prime ministers or presidents of Israel have been religious leaders... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No time now to read or edit that page, but note that Israel has instituted particular blue laws that come from the Jewish religion, regarding closing commercial enterprises, public transportation, schools, etc. on the Jewish Sabbath. These were legislated by the Israeli parliament, which is democratically elected by the entire population among candidates from religious or secular political parties, and is itself not a religious legal body. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
England has no official state religion, but the United Kingdom effectively does. The monarch has to be in communion with the Church of England, and cannot even be married to a Roman Catholic, let alone be one themself (which would in any case be in conflict with the requirement to be in communion with the Church of England). Even though CofE episcopal appointments are decided by the Prime Minister (who could be an atheist, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Catholic, or a follower of Satan), the monarch is not just head of state but also head of a church. There could be a case for arguing the UK is therefore a theocracy. But that's watered down by the fact that the same person is also head of state of 15 other countries such as Australia, but in Australia's case, our Constitution explicitly prohibits the establishment of any state religion. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I said England because the Anglican churches in Wales and England have been de-officialized or "disestablished", while Presbyterianism in Scotland seems to have more autonomy than the Church of England... AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Er, no. It's in Wales and Northern Ireland that the churches are disestablished. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland both remain established, although the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is less entangled with the state than the (Episcopalian) Church of England. CofE bishops sit in the House of Lords, and crown the monarch when the time comes, and so on. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I meant to type "Northern Ireland", but somehow repeated England again... AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
To an outsider looking in, The United States of America looks very much like a christian theocracy. --88.110.22.71 (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Really? Sounds more like a snidely dismissive insult than a serious observation to me. U.S. politicians do say things like "God bless America", along with other invocations of ceremonial deism that happen to make some Europeans uncomfortable, and religious pressure groups do have some political influence. However, there is no state religion, no religous test on politics, no government religious compulsion, and religious leaders do not hold high offices. It's hard to figure out how John Lennon's song "Imagine" would become a widely-heard popular anthem in a theocracy! AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

India, all though a Democracy has a cast sytem based on religion were certain appendages are looked down apon or deemed subverbiant to other parts ECT...Do they count as a theocracy that was my undersatanding, please correct me if i am wrongChromagnum (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Jatiyo Sangsad (national assembley) Women Reserved Seats election 2009 results[edit]

Did English-language newspaper The Daily Star have the results of who have been elected to the 45 women reserved seats in Bangladesh's Jatiyo Sangsad (national assembley)?

Although I don't know the answer to your question for certain, I can say that I would be astonished if it did. The Daily Star is at the lower-quality end of "tabloid" or "red top" newspapers in Britain. It features bare-breasted young women, and extensive coverage of football and other sports written in simple language. I strongly doubt that it has ever mentioned the election in question, let alone given a detailed list of electees. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Multiple newspapers of the same name - Bangladesh has The Daily Star, an English language newspaper which the original questioner was probably referring to - and off the top of my head, no idea, but I'm sure the online paper has a search function? --Saalstin (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Searching The Daily Star's website yielded this article, with all 45 --Saalstin (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one that Saalstin is talking. Thanks Saalstin.

Apologies for the unwarranted conclusion I leapt to. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Pan-Arab news[edit]

Does anybody know which is the Pan-Arab news website to read about the Arab World and its National news such as what is going on in Algeria, Libya, Lebanon, etc and politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.238 (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually check out Al Jazeera, but it's more of a world news website with an Arabian focus. Not sure about a specifically Pan-Arab news site. Fribbler (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the best pan-Arab news websites are of course in Arabic. I think some of those I list below have English-language content as well. These include Al-Arabiyya, which is Al-Jazeera's main competitor for electronic media. For print media, Al Hayat and Ash-Sharq al-Awsat are highly-respected papers with a pan-Arab focus, while Al-Ahram, Egypt's most prestigious paper, is more Egypt-focussed but has excellent cultural pages. --Xuxl (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Newt in 2012?[edit]

Is Newt Gingrich planning to run for the office of president in 2012? --Pennsylvania Proud (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If you want, you can ask if New Gingrich has announced a plan to run for the office of President in 2012. Unless Newt himself decides to answer your question here, nobody here knows what he is planning to do if he hasn't announced it. -- kainaw 17:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
He hasn't announced a run, but is widely believed to be eyeing up the possibility. He is usually categorised as an outsider due to his fairly low public profile, lack of high political office and poor performance in polls on the issue (though at this early stage much of that is down to name recognition and favours candidates who have declared they will run or are widely expected to). Prokhorovka (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
John Ensign/Sarah Palin in 2012! --Wetman (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ironic that a man who called on Clinton to resign due to the Lewinski Scnadal would start a run for president by revealing an affair. Prokhorovka (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, Newt didn't lie under oath about it like Clinton did (which was the real reason), to my knowledge, though I could be wrong.209.244.30.221 (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Either would be perfect. How about [[Dick Cheney|Ann Coulter? That would also be attractive.--Wetman (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
If you like Adams apples. Edison (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, presenting your wife with divorce papers while she's in her hospital bed is SO much better. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to John Ensign. Damn, don't any high-ranking Republicans have good 'family values'? Prokhorovka (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheney / Satin in '12 ! DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to see Cheney wearing satin anything. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Credit/debit card security code vs signature[edit]

I've just ordered a kebab. While I wait for it to arrive here's a quick question. The last time I ordered from the same place, they asked me for the security code, and then when they arrived they needed a signature. Now, I thought the point of the 3-digit code was for "card not present" transactions, but when this guy comes to my door, he asks to see it while I sign the receipt. Have I got something wrong here, are these guys making sure they get paid, or are they potentially corrupt merchants? --Rixxin (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds questionable to me... phone your bank and ask them, that's the only way to be sure. --Tango (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be suspicious, they shouldn't need your security code, that's for you and online uses. (Damn, beaten by Tango again!). Prokhorovka (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The security code can be used for over-the-phone transactions as well as online ones, I believe. --Tango (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I have the same impression as the original poster - code shouldn't be needed - but I doubt this is a case of fraud, it's more likely the merchants don't have full knowledge of how the system works and are just hedging their bets. Please post again here when you've asked your bank, would be useful. Jørgen (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that the delivery person needs proof that it's you - anyone holding the card would otherwise know what the security code was. It's the same as signing for shopping at a supermarket. Also, he may need proof that the kebab was delivered. The reason they would want to get your security code over the phone when you call your order may be that they want to check that it's a valid card. Also, it may be they want to make sure they can charge you even if you have given a false address as a prank (or you refuse to pay) - these things sometimes happen (not usually just for a single kebab, though). --92.41.251.208 (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
They get the code as evidence that you are holding the card (physically). They enter the numbers as a MOTO (mail order-telephone order) transaction, which already transfers the money from your account to theirs. The code system is not foolproof; anyone who has handled the card in the past, eg staff where it has been handed over for processing other purchases, may have a record of the code, as well as of the main card numbers.The driver checks the signature on the card against the signature you give him. This ensures they have a verified signature in the event the card holder later disputes the purchase. Where this is not done, a large food delivery service may lose as much as $10,000 a year in disputed credit card purchases.- KoolerStill (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually read the terms and conditions on the Dominos (UK) site last week, though I've been using them for years. They include the need to show the card used to pay for the order when it's delivered, though I never have been asked to do this; neither have I ever been asked for a signature. They've already received my cash, of course, through "Verified by Visa". -- Arwel Parry (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Latvian socialists in Geneva, 1905[edit]

Which is actually the Latvian group mentioned in [4]? Would it be the Latvian Social Democratic Workers Party or the Latvian Social Democratic Union? The name given seems as a mix between the two. --Soman (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Russian group mentioned in your link would be the Mensheviks who were meeting in Geneva at the time. Is one of the Latvian parties more likely to have met with Mensheviks? --Cam (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No, the Russian group in the link is the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (SR). So the question ought to be, which Latvian party would be more likely to be tied to the SRs? --Soman (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Has there ever been a serious consideration of the use of LSD as a chemical weapon?[edit]

Just wondering.--Wutwatwot (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there something which makes you think there might have been? I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. It's not exactly a safe substance, but it isn't generally lethal. --Tango (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Project_MKULTRA -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there has as a matter of fact. It was considered by a variety of countries, including the United States as an incapacitating/disruption agent, though not as a lethal one. For a brief treatment of the subject please see [5] (pages 114-116). Cool3 (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
See Project MKULTRA, which is related. Tempshill (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A biochemist may correct me (and very welcome), but I think LSD decomposes rapidly in solution. If that's correct, putting LSD in a city's water supply would be ineffectual. Airborne distribution also looks unlikely to work. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Arabic-English translation book[edit]

Is "Yacoubian Building" the only book written in Arabic and Translated into English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.151 (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. Why would you think such a thing? Algebraist 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If you mean by The Yacoubian Building by Alaa Al Aswany, then still no, according to his article. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the Koran? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The UNESCO Index Translationum lists 1206 works translated since 1979. This is certainly an underestimate; I can think of many that don't appear on the list, including, for instance, the novels of Elias Khoury. RolandR 11:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

South Asian writers[edit]

How many writers are South Asian like Vassanji, Aravind Adiga, Jaspreet Singh and etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.151 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A great many. Everyone at list of Indian writers, List of Pakistani writers, Category:Bangladeshi writers, Category:Sri Lankan writers, Category:Pakistani writers and Category:Indian writers to start with. Algebraist 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest with you, Bangladeshi writers don't write English-language books unless they give the permission to some Bangladeshi translators. The question that I asked was about how many writers of South Asian origin are Canadians or Americans. Sorry for misconceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.151 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you meant, why didn't you say so the first time? Anyway, we have Category:Asian Canadian writers and Category:Asian American writers, but I think you'll have to weed out the south asians by hand. Algebraist 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A Name for Babylon[edit]

Okay, weird question, but here goes. I'm writing a fantasy series based on Christian mythology, and in it The Whore of Babylon is one of the demons (actually, she's the leader of the succubi, but if I get into my world's demonology we'll be here all night) I need a name for her to be called by before the fall when she was still an angel. Preferably something hebrew, and with connections to love, passion, desire etc. I know this is weird, but I really need some help! Library Seraph (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Delilah? Jezebel might be too obvious/cliche.209.244.30.221 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's PERFECT! Thanks! Library Seraph (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Lilith, who n one sci-fi book I read, pronounced her name "Lilat." Edison (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ishtar/Astarte? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's such a great idea to use the name of an exising figure (as in the previous suggestions, with all due respects) from the Judeo-Christian or Fertile Crescent mythic literature for a character of a unique literary production such as yours. If you want Hebrew words that would serve as a name (as a vast percentage of Modern Hebrew names in contemporary Israel do), try contacting Hebrew-speaking editors (through those listed according to their Babel boxes) and/or post on the Language RD. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Although the concept of "The Whore of Babylon" is mostly associated with early Christian (and contemporary Jewish?) apocalyptic literature, you are projecting it back into earlier mythological eras for fictional purposes, which is perfectly fine. The suggestion of Lilith - in legend Adam's first wife - is a good one (you might want to look at how she is dealt with, as subsequent mother of the half-human half-demon tribe of the Lilim, in Mike Carey's Lucifer spinoffs from Neil Gaiman's Sandman series).
Alternatively you might consider going for an actual Babylonian name - elements of the mythical background you're using having come from that context anyway. This would mean finding a suitable name from writings in Akkadian, the more persistent and colloquial language of ancient Babylon, which was a Semitic tongue and therefore related to Hebrew, or Sumerian, the earliest known written language, unrelated to any other, which fell out of everyday use but was retained for a couple of millennia or so mainly for religious purposes.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, originally Sumerian but translated into Akkadian, might be worth your examination: one candidate name might be Shamhat, the temple prostitute employed by King Gilgamesh to sleep with and thus tame the wild man Enkidu who then became his close companion. A caveat - be wary of using any names of actual goddesses: some of the neopagan community (of which I'm a peripheral member) include aspects of these religious mythologies in our modern reconstructions/syntheses and therefore regard such conceptual entities with genuine respect, as aspects of The Goddess: offense could be taken. Good luck with the writing. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I just had a whorable thought . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to 87.81's comments, you may prefer Aramaic to Akkadian or Sumerian. Depends on the circumstances I suppose. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all the suggestions. I think I'll stick with Delilah, since I find Lillith a bit too cliche, and I'd want to avoid offending anyone by using the gods of their religion (as 87.81 mentioned) Library Seraph (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)