Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 26

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 25 Humanities desk archive July 27 >

German movie tax shelters

Rescue Dawn is a movie starring Christian Bale and directed by Werner Herzog that is listed as "Completed" by IMDb. Nevertheless, despite the famous (if eccentric) director and A-list lead actor, the movie's crew hasn't been paid for the scenes filmed and there's no release date in site. A bit of a mystery. This post on IMDb claims that the reason for the financial troubles lies in the fact that the movie is really just a front for a big tax break through a loophole in German tax law, and it will only be released in such a way for it not to turn a profit. The company producing the movie is a mystery company called Top Gun Productions, whose only other production is a 1959-61 TV show.

My question is: could a movie with a big star and a prestigious director really just be a way to get a tax break? Are Uwe Boll's movies supposed to be bad, so they won't turn a profit, enabling investors to take advantage of a tax break? Could there be any truth to all this? zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'd say that post on IMDb is wrong. Many countries have some form of film tax credit, to encourage investment in the country's film industry. In theory this sort of tax credit program should be designed so that the investor does not take much of a net loss (or perhaps not any loss) if the film flops. However, the tax credit program would have to be exceptionally poorly designed if it leaves the investors better off with a film that flops rather than a film that turns a profit. (That would mean there is an implicit marginal tax rate greater than 100%.) I should say that I have no knowledge at all of this film, or of the German film tax credit program. Logically, however, there is a lot of reason to be skeptical of that post on IMDb. --Mathew5000 09:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on my rudimentary understanding of German movie tax shelters, the tax break seems to be that you get an immediate deduction when you make the movie, rather than having to wait to deduct it with the income later. So it seems that you could film a movie and never release it, getting the deduction, but it seems a lot of work for a tax shelter. And you don't need to make a German movie (use German staff) to get this credit, so you wouldn't need to use Herzog or Boll or whomever. I have to assume that Uwe Boll's movies are supposed to be that bad, because it's not like he was a great film maker and then suddenly started turning out junk; if you hire him, you'll get a crappy video-game adaptation. So therefore, whoever's hiring him has to know what they're getting. --ByeByeBaby 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

African Music

I've listened to a bunch of it, and have great stuff from Senegal, Mali, Nigeria, and South Africa mostly. Anybody want to recommend some good artists from other african countries that i might not have heard of? It's all great, at least what i've heard, and I'd like to find more to listen to.

Waaaay too broad an area, both geographically and musically. For one, do you mean traditional music or with 'western' instruments? DirkvdM 08:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

traditional. it's a broad-scoped question bc i have no specific guidelines. for example, i like fela and femi kuti, amadou and mariam, habib koitie, lobi traore, ali farke toure, king suni ade, henri dikongue..., but i think they're limited to a couple countries, and because i like what i've heard of that continent's music (although i know that's similar to grouping all "latino" music together) I was just looking for more. anything traditional, although if you know anything really good with western instruments (like koitie uses a western guitar, right?) im happy with that too. thanks

Central African music is very interesting, I think. Pygmy songs - look for the recordings made by the Israeli musicologist Simha Arom of the Aka pygmies - and music for sanza. Also, Venancio Mbande (from Mozambique) rocks. David Sneek 10:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fela Kuti. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This guy makes beautiful music which i think is from the traditions of Uganda. --198.125.178.207 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks, everybody. Sashafklein 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I like Rachid Taha. Battle Ape 04:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and of course Northern Africa is also part of Africa. You might look into Raï. I wouldn't know who are good performers, though. DirkvdM 07:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For Africa in general, you could check out a number of the artists on the Real World label - Ayub Ogada (from Kenya) is excellent - if you've seen the film The Constant Gardener you've heard his music in it - Geoffrey Oryema (Uganda, IIRC), S.E. Rogie (Sierra Leone)... lots of good possibilities. As far as West African music, you might like some Highlife music - it was the equivalent of "Merseybeat" in West Africa during the 1960s and is still an influence - a mix of traditional and western styles that has a vague familial resemblance to reggae. Grutness...wha? 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading Quickly

Im damn near sure that I used to be able to read faster than I do now when I was a couple years younger (Im 17 now), and it's really getting to me. I think reading quickly (while still retaining info) is one of the more important skills out there. Does anybody know if speedreading courses aren't a bad idea (they seem backwards to me - what I've heard is you learn what to skip, which misses the whole point both of reading for enjoyment and for study.) If speedreading courses are bad, does anybody know any other ways to increase reading speed without hurting comprehension? (Other than just reading more.) Thanks.

• Speed-reading is a scam. Read Spin (physics) and Trust law. Take a dozen speed-reading courses and then see how your understanding and retention improves.

The lesson is that the more prior knowledge you have about a subject the faster you can read.--Patchouli 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• The speed reading courses I know don't aim to improve your understanding, just increase the speed with which you can gain the same understanding you can when reading slowly. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but my dad, for instance, can sit down for two hours and read three full size books and have a conversation about them years later. It's fairly remarkable. I was wondering if there's anything one can do (such as, for a time, forcing oneself to read more quickly - which usually works with me until i start thinking about reading quickly as opposed to what im reading) to simply increase the rate at which one mentally translates the characters into thoughts. I dont mean silly tricks like reading the first and last sentence of paragraphs or ridiculous crap like that. Is there any way to simply build up one's reading chops in a way (very) loosely analgous to lifting weights for muscle strength, or am i just dreaming?

I used to be a very slow reader because I explicitly read every word, something most people don't (which is why most people miss spelling errors more often than I do). It's normal to conclude what a text says without having actually read all the words. It's something you do automatically. But I didn't, so I had to learn that. I now often skim through a text searching for key words, mainly to decide if it is worth a more detailed read. But I also get an idea of what the text says without a more detailed reading. It's just that I might be guessing wrong. You'll have to balance speed and accuracy. I don't see how you can have both. DirkvdM 08:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that as you get older, you will generally start to read things that are more complex in nature, and that use more jargon and uncommon words. This can slow down your reading speed. BenC7 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Simply put, reading speeds are irrelevant past adulthood. In fact, quick reading can often indicate, as DirkvdM says, skipping things, which is a bad idea. However, for elementary and secondary education, reading speed can indicate fluency with written language. At age 17, your reading speed may slow as you are exposed to more complex texts, but it is getting nearer and nearer to an unimportant statistic. Where it will matter is in getting your work done in a timely fashion, and you will develop (by trial and error, if not effort) strategies for reading quickly things you do not wish to committ to long term memory and reading slowly things that require a great deal of thinking. I used to worry about my reading speed of 190 wpm when I was in high school, because my friends were all at 270 and beyond. Of course, I was reading the poetry of TS Eliot and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and they were reading excerpts of world greats in their textbooks. Geogre 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not neccessarily a bad thing if you don't read as fast as you possibly can either. I used to race through Robert Jordan novels, reading 500+ page books in about a couple of hours. I would get the characters and the basic plot that way. Later on, I learned how to savor language for its own sake, and now I read a lot more slowly. --Tachikoma 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned our article Speed reading. JackofOz 20:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Which says "As a habitual reading rate, it is inappropriate for sufficiently comprehending newspaper articles, textbooks, and novels (Allyn & Bacon, 1987)." However, speedreading is probably most practical (and most often done) when reading a newspaper, to get an idea of what sort of thing is going on in the world. First, you skim the headlines, then maybe the intro and then only when you're interrested the article. And even then very fast at first, trying to pick out the essence. At least that's what I do. On the one hand you need to know something about what is going on in the world, on the other hand it's impracitcal to read it all. So you need to compromise. DirkvdM 11:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Music ID

This is a beautiful piece of music, but alas, I know not its composer or its name. If anyone could correctly identify the song's name and its composer, I would be greatly obliged. Thanks--71.117.44.220 06:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Forgot to mention you can find the file here. --71.117.44.220 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I cant believe you did this to me. I was wondering what the song was yesterday and then forgot about it. Now you've brought it back up again and it'll bug me for weeks if i dont find the answer. Dammit Sashafklein 18:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I might have it. Debussy's Claire de Lune? I'll check. That'd make my day if i guessed it. Sashafklein 18:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shoot. I think I'm wrong. Get back to you in a bit. Sashafklein 18:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's Claire de Lune. Nice try though. Again, any help is greatly appreciated. --71.117.44.220 06:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Im feeling Debussy or CHopin. Sashafklein 18:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly. This same damn song was bugging the hell out of me yesterday Sashafklein 18:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I give up for now. I'll hopefully have the answer sometime tomorrow. Sashafklein 18:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried any music information retrieval systems?--Shantavira 07:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

HA! Got it. Debussy's Arabesque. Booyah. Sashafklein 18:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Alright! Thank you very much. I finally have the name. Thanks again. --71.117.36.245 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that Arabesque No 1, or Arabesque No 2? JackofOz 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is Arabesque No 1. Unfortunately, the file is now gone, due to copyright issues. --71.117.36.245 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's 1. Sashafklein 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

relationships

Is it necessary to understand someone's past when entering a new relationship.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.41.39 (talk • contribs)

That would seem to be a very good idea. If they're reluctant to tell you their past, it suggests they're hiding something from you. Also, an exchange of life stories is a very good way to get to know each other.--Shantavira 11:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You have the right to keep some things secret. Noone (not even your wife) can force you to reveal something embarrasing about your past. A bit of privacy doesn't hurt noone. Flamarande 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The line between privacy and secretiveness is a fine one, though. In general it is good form to bring up anything which would potentially affect the other person's health very early on, and anything that they would definitely want to know about as things become more serious. If something important becomes revealed later on one way or another, it would be very natural for the other person in the relationship to think of it as a betrayal of their trust. Relationships are built on trust; if you don't have that, you don't have much of anything.

To rather extreme examples of this in film are The Barefoot Contessa (an awful film, though), and A History of Violence. --Fastfission 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think everyone should have to list references of past boyfriends/girlfriends when entering a new relationship. I've gotten so many "you were a great boyfriend, but I decided I wanted to date someone handsome" comments.... Geogre 11:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rowlatt Bills

Who is the Rowlatt after whom these acts were named. I don't see any reference to someone of that name in the information on the acts.

Justice Rowlatt, who was apparently chairman of the committee appointed for curbing seditious movements in India. [1] - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Acts were drafted by Sir Sidney Rowlatt.--Shantavira 16:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You sure? I've found yet another source which says Justice Rowlatt.[2] - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. Justice is presumably an earlier title. My source is Chambers Dictionary of World History. Unfortunately it doesn't tell us anything more about Sir Sid.--Shantavira 17:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Judges in the UK and the Commonwealth have traditionally been called, eg. "Mr Justice Smith". In the case of Rowlatt, it would have been "Mr Justice Sir Sidney Rowlatt" (as odd as that may sound; and assuming he had his knighthood while he was a judge). These days, titles differ from place to place, but "Justice Rowlatt" would not be an unusual way of referring to him. JackofOz 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe he was a judge first, then was knighted. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 06:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, he would have been "Mr Justice Rowlatt" while a judge, then "Mr Sidney Rowlatt" (or possibly "The Hon Sidney Rowlatt") after he retired and "Sir Sidney Rowlatt" (or "The Hon Sir Sidney Rowlatt") after he was knighted. JackofOz 10:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

contrafactum (musical term)

I learned a new word, contrafactum, which means (per Grove's dictionary of music and musicians), "in vocal music, the substitution of one text for another without substantial change to the music."

Question: the Grove's article is several pages long and is entirely about music pre-18th century. It doesn't come right out and say so, but I get the impression that the term is reserved for early music. Is that correct? Could any self-respecting musicologist say that "The Star Spangled Banner" is a contrafactum setting of "To Anacreon in Heaven"? Would The Saga Begins be a contrafactum setting of American Pie (in addition to being a parody)? There are many examples in filk music of completely rewriting the words to a song, in ways that are not parody, so there's a discussion in a filk newsgroup over whether the term applies. I started writing a stub article contrafactum but then decided that the modern examples I thought of were probably bogus, so they're commented out in the html (use "edit article" to see). Phr (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What about My Sweet Lord by George Harrison Man, or Why Don't You Get a Job by The Offspring (which are similar to He's So Fine by the Chiffons and Ob La Di Ob La Da by the Beatles, but are not parodies and are probably only accidentally similar). Adam Bishop 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My Sweet Lord and the other song had an accidental similarity in one or two bars, as I remember. The court case was ridiculous. Contrafactum as I understand it means two songs use entirely or almost entirely the same tune. Phr (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"God Save the Queen" and "America" would be a good example. - Nunh-huh 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's my question, whether that would be a good example, since those songs are maybe too new. Phr (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oscar winners

There are four Oscar winners who also had number one recordings. Could you tell me who they are please? Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.155.128 (talk • contribs)

Number one recordings in which country? This might help us to tie them down. Or do you mean any country?--Shantavira 16:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bing Crosby won the Oscar for Best Actor in 1944, and had a No. 1 Billboard album in 1957. That's one of four.- THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cher had no.1 hits in the USA, Canada, and UK, and won the Best Actress Oscar in 1987. That's two.--Shantavira 17:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Barbra Streisand, Best Actress 1968, and a no.1 album in the US in 1985. Or does it have to be singles?--Shantavira 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra Best Supporting Actor 1953, and three Billboard no.1s.--Shantavira 18:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lee Marvin for Cat Ballou and Wand'rin' Star. Um... that makes five... Grutness...wha? 08:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard Harris for MacArthur Park had a #1, and I'm pretty sure he won an Oscar. Geogre 11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he was nominated twice but never won. JackofOz 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Lee Marvin never reached number one as far as I can tell, at least not in the United States. See List of number-one hits (United States). --Mathew5000 03:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

stone age

I have visited your subject which is explaining about Stone Age. However i can't understand the exact period which this development taken place. would u help me by informing the exact period or time span of Stone Age(from when to when).

Do you have a particular region in mind? Terms like stone/bronze/iron age refer to different times in different parts of the world, reflecting the level of local technology. Digfarenough 16:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

after edit conflict - :By "visited", you mean "glanced at"? In the article stone age you would have read: "While it is possible to speak of a general 'stone age' period for the whole of humanity, some groups never developed metal-smelting technology, so remained in a 'stone age' until they encountered technologically developed cultures. However, in general, it is believed that this period began somewhere around 3 million years ago, starting with the first hominid tool-making in Africa." and then "The transition out of the Stone Age occurred between 6000 BC and 2500 BC for much of humanity living in North Africa, Asia and Europe." --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

True for later developments, but at least the begining of the stone age is fairly uniform as every human ancestor was in Africa. The page Stone Age gives a date of about 3 million years ago corresponding to the earliest examples of stone tools associated with either Homo habilis or with an earlier Australopithecine. The end of the stone age would vary according to region as to when metals started to be used. Generally the first groups to use metal were doing so around 6,000 years ago according to Copper Age and Bronze Age. Of course you can have isolated groups who did not start to use metals until much much later and could be considered still in the stone age almost up to the present.Nowimnthing 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just look at those time frames. Stone tools came about 3 million years ago and metal tools a few thousand years ago. That's a ratio of about 1000:1. So, in archaeological terms, the stone age ended pretty much just now. In that light the condescending remark about those dumbfucks who hadn't invented metal working yet is a bit short-sighted. I'll add a more extensive remark about that to Talk:Stone_Age. DirkvdM 08:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Late night Guest who does not sleep

Years ago, there was a guest on either Letterman or the Tonight Show (hey it may even have been Conan O’Brien) who claimed to have remained awake for decades. He stated that he hit his head as a young child and remained awake ever since. When asked what was the longest recorded period of sleep deprivation - he replied "WWII. I bet my entire platoon a months pay if they ever caught me sleeping - which they never did" (or words to that effect). Other items of the interview included "that with my ample spare time - I paint landscapes on pinheads" (which they displayed a few). Searching for this mans name is the difficulty. Does anyone know where a definitive list of guest names is available for these shows - or more directly his actual name? (It definitely is not Peter Tripp or Randy Gardner).

Rip van Winkle? --Dweller 16:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rip van Winkle is the opposite of what you want — he's a guy who slept too long, not a person who doesn't sleep. Anyway, it sounds pretty suspicious to me. Most humans start to suffer very serious health problems if they do not sleep for much more than a week, much less years or "decades" (see Sleep deprivation). I would want to see something certified by a scientist, not just some old guy telling me stories about how he didn't sleep for all of World War II. --Fastfission 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I figured that after sleeping for 20 years, old Rip could probably have gone 4 or 5 without kipping. --Dweller 09:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember this exact show. It was Letterman, probably his old NBC show. I'm sorry, I don't remember his name. --Cam 19:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't watch Letterman, on principle, but I have read of such phenomena in places like Ripley's Believe It or Not or The People's Almanac. I don't know whether the stories are authenticated, and I don't remember the details. JackofOz 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget "much more than a week" - just a couple days with zero sleep is enough to turn most people into wrecks. The current verified record for time without sleep is 11 days: see Randy Gardner. (BTW, that 11 days number should come with a disclaimer: Don't trying this at home. It's dangerous.) I too have heard of people claiming of simply being unable to sleep, like the guy on Letterman, but take it with a grain of salt; I'd say it's about as likely to be true as Bigfoot is to exist. In short, there may be some bizarre physiological/psychological condition that enables people to recharge their batteries without the sleep the everyone else needs to do the same, but there's no reputable scientific evidence. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Although the long-term health effects of sleep deprevation are not known, I am sure the guy was just making it up. I probably would have heard or read of him regarding sleep research. — The Mac Davis] ญƛ. 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Randy Gardner talk page links to [3]. William DeMent's very good book The Promise of Sleep discusses Randy Gardner at length and says people who claim to stay up for years actually take very short sleep intervals without realizing it. Phr (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oscars and #1s Quiz Question

There are four Oscar winners who went on to have number one records. Could you tell me who they are and what their awards were for? Thank you! Linda

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Oscar_winners. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How the Hell

On Congresspedia, the site for Barack Obama states that: "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is the junior Senator from Illinois. He is the only African-American currently serving in the U.S. Senate, the fifth in U.S. history and the third since Reconstruction." Wouldnt that mean that there were two black senators before reconstruction? How? Who? What states? Sashafklein 18:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiram Rhodes Revels and Blanche K. Bruce, both from Mississippi, served in the Senate in the 1870s (during Reconstruction). David Sneek 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. That makes sense. I thought there were black senators BEFORE reconstruction, which would have been bizarre. Sashafklein 18:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No. "Since Reconstruction" means "Since the end of Reconstruction". --ColourBurst 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

names of Department for Culture

What´s the name for the Department for Culture in other countries? I mean, that´s the name for the UK, but in Spanic countries? Thanks

Depends on the country, I suppose. In Spain, it's the Ministerio de Cultura. David Sneek 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage. In the USA, there is no cabinet-level department of culture, although the Department of State has a "Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs". --Mathew5000 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mexico has the Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes (CONACULTA). "Consejo" means "council," not "department" or "ministry," but the head of the council is part of the president's cabinet. -- Mwalcoff 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, it's the Ministry for Education, Culture and Sciences (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen [4]). DirkvdM 08:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand has the Ministry of Arts, Culture and Heritage - the current minister is Prime Minister Helen Clark. Not that we're Hispanic, but neither is Canada. The US... it's debatable :). And it's been a loooong time since you could describe the Netherlands that way! Grutness...wha? 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In Norway, it's the the Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs (Kultur og kirkedepartementet). --vibo56 ^talk 13:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Iceland has the "Ministry of Education, Science and Culture", or "Menntamalaraduneytid" - http://www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/ Mnemeson 12:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Black Americans

66.213.33.2 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Why is Senator Barack Obama always described as African-American? He is the child of one black parent and one white parent. Of course he is part black, but he is just as much white. The same is true of the actress Halle Berry. Please understand, I am not being critical, for both of these people are greatly talented and easy to look at. Is this classification a legacy of America's racial past - that is, the "one drop rule" of black ancestry? I just thought of two more examples: Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson and pro football star Franco Harris. Even Tiger Woods is often called African-American, even though he is only 25% black, and predominantly Asian. Think how silly that last sentence sounds! He is not part-this and part-that; he is an American and a human being, deserving of the same respect as every other human being. Why do we still insist on assigning people to a category? What if a politician or movie star had one black grandparent (I can't think of any examples)- would he or she be called by the media an African-American? 66.213.33.2 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you have it right when you cite history. The only counter-example I can think of is Carol Channing, who had a black father but whose race is never referred to in the media. So self-identification also plays some role. - Nunh-huh 20:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. According to the Wikipedia entry on Carol Channing, her father was half white and half black. So she's one example: one-fourth black. That fact doesn't change my opinion of her; I still remember her fondly from 40 years ago.

Much of it is historical, yes, the one drop rule is factored heavily into this. Even so, Hines Ward, for example, considers his Korean heritage to be very important to him. Often self-identification and societal identification differ, and these things affect things like employment (often employers would reject people if names didn't "sound" white) and roles (which are heavily pigeonholed, except for whites who can play anything). Society is still heavily looks-based. --ColourBurst 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My experience is that people identify with minorities. There's no identity in being "white". There's no white pride march, no white social hall, no white history month... which is what you get when you are united in a minority. Of course, there are people like Tiger Woods who the media keep calling African American and he keeps saying he is multi-cultural, not African American. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. While people believe there's no "identity" being "white" (there actually is, according to whiteness studies), that's actually an advantage because there's no stereotyping or attributions associated with the default. Other than white pride marches (which tend to get hijacked by White Nationalists), we already look at white accomplishments and white history a large percentage of the time - hence why we don't need a white history month. In addition, people don't identify with being a minority, hence the reason why a lot of the all-minority cast shows (on TV) tend to do less successful than the all-white shows. In addition, minorities are not united - whether in their own groups or as a whole. Koreans and blacks have had lots of historical tension, especially in New York and LA, and (as an example) Chris Rock thinks differently about blacks than someone like Bill Cosby or Morgan Freeman does. "United" could just come from the fact that people think they're the same colour because they're the same race (how's that for irony?) --ColourBurst 16:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Being African-American or black doesn't mean that you're not something else, too. I don't know if Tiger Woods would say, "I'm not African-American." Rather, he might say, "I am African-American, and Asian, and American Indian, and European-American." -- Mwalcoff 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe just, "I'm Cablinasian." zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are some black guys white, and some black? Its the culture you follow. Black Americans that follow a hip-hop lifestyle are black, black Americans that have a certain combination of darkness, wealth, occupation, attire, friends, etc.. are often described as "whiter." For instance Tiger Woods, and Colin Powel. It is terrible that I've seen some gifted or just smart black kids be accused of "being white" by being high achievers. — The Mac Davis] ญƛ. 21:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pol Pot Finds a Power Vacuum

“ In 1970, Norodom Sihanouk abdicates kingship and leaves Cambodia. Military general Lon Nol become an impotent head of state for 5 years. Next, Pol Pot seizes power amidst a decentralized government and babel. ”

Patchouli

Did I get this right?--Patchouli 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the article Cambodian coup of 1970. Sihanouk did not exactly voluntarily relinquish power; there was a military coup while he was abroad for medical treatment of his cancer. Phnom Penh surrendered after a civil war (a communist insurgency led by Pol Pot and Ieng Sary) that lasted for years, culminating in a months long heavy offensive; see History of Cambodia. It's not like Pol Pot "found" an existing power vacuum. To be sure, about two weeks before Phnom Penh fell Lon Nol escaped the country, but if he had staid it wouldn't have made much of a difference. I wouldn't know why you'd call the government "decentralized" and what you mean here by "babel". --Lambiam^Talk 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, without the North Vietnamese Army's direct help, Ieng Sary and Pol Pot would probably not have been able to force Lon Nol's government to surrender.--Patchouli 01:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are looking for a critique of history or English. If it is the latter, "impotent" is probably not what you wanted, and "become" should be "becomes" if you are writing in the present tense. "kingship" may be a tautology. Notinasnaid 07:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, Pol Pot moved to Amsterdam and started a shop named Pol's Pots. DirkvdM 08:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

World at peace

Has there ever been a time in recent history when the world has effectively been at peace? By which I mean a period in time whereby no single country is at war with another.

I have read through some of the articles on war, specifically the list of wars, and it suggests that 1906-1910 may have been a rare moment of global peace, ironically leading to the first of the world wars. Can someone confirm this to be the case?

Regards,

Gallaghp 22:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been days when nobody was injured as a result of war, but there has not been a time in recorded history where nobody anywhere in the world did not have an ongoing declaration of war. Keep in mind that some are non-combat wars, such as the war between North and South Korea that is still declared even though there is no combat. The best way I've heard it explained is that war is the natural state of governments. Peace is the uneasy period between wars. Now that terrorism can be included in war, you don't even need the idiocy of governments to get involved. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the Philippine-American War spanned the 1906-1910 years that you mentioned. Sorry. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the long period of peace was actually the cause of WWI being so severe. Sort of like when a geological fault line doesn't release tension through an earthquake for some time, the next earthequake that does happen will be more severe. If that is true, then the next European war should be truly devastating. We've got the EU, but a similar attempt was made during the interbellum, an even longer period of peace, and what happened after that? This is one of those times I desperately hope I'm wrong. DirkvdM 08:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For reassurance, I think the machine gun plus the slow development of countering tactics meets Occam's Razor pretty well on this one. — Lomn | Talk 12:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any sources to back it up, but I remember about a decade ago when studying WW1 at school, my teacher of the time noted that "since 'the war to end all wars', there have been a total of six minutes when no countries were fighting any others". You might also want to bear in mind Hobbes' definition that war is not merely the time when nations are fighting, but that a state of war exists when there exists the willingless to fight, as the risk of fighting creates the same conditions (e.g.fearing to build lest your infrastructure be destroyed, making the building work pointless) as if the fighting were actually ongoing at the time. Mnemeson 12:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"War is the health of the state." pckeffer

Leonardo da Vinci

Leonardo da Vinci painted several women portraits.

Mona Lisa (Musee du Louvre, Paris) La Belle Ferronniere (Musee du Louvre, Paris) Lady with an Ermine (Czartoryski Museum, Cracow) Portrait of Ginevra Benci (National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC) Lady Beatrice d'Este (Pinacoteca Ambrosiana, Milan, Italy)

Does someone know, if all, or some (which one), are actually signed by Leonardo da Vinci.

Thank you.

I don't remember seeing any that were signed. Click on the links and check. — The Mac Davis] ญƛ. 21:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the Mona Lisa is a woman. The sex of the famous portrait's subject is often disputed. I learned something from the Da Vinci Code! Viva La Vie Boheme 22:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You learned the wrong thing from the Da Vinci Code (which isn't surprising; Dan Brown isn't that good at researching things. I still can't get over the gaffes he pulled in Digital Fortress. Not to mention the racism.) According to the Mona Lisa article above, the possibility was only very slim that it might have been Francesco del Giocondo. --ColourBurst 05:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)