Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 September 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
< September 17 << Aug | Sep | Oct >> September 19 >
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.

History of bathing[edit]

hi - can anyone tell me how a French nobleman would have seen to his toilet in the 17th century? Were there bathtubs? The bath article isn't specific Adambrowne666 01:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In that time frame, bathing, even among nobility, was rare. The tub would likely be portable and used in the kitchen, as that was the only place with the ability for servants to heat large quantities of water (in pots on the stove or fire). You also mentioned toilets, do you want to know how/where they urinated and defecated ? StuRat 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Remember, though, that we're talking about a time before water treatment plants. People didn't drink plain water, especially in Paris (it was known to be dangerous - Pepys mentioned in his diary that people had died of cholera after bathing in Paris water), and therefore they didn't wallow around in great tubs of it where they could swallow a mouthful. (Of course, they didn't understand that boiling it would make it safe.) They wiped themselves off with a damp cloth every morning - much safer than bathing.
However, they didn't have very good fabric dyes; wool and silk dyes were especially unstable. Wool, linen and silk were just about the only materials they had, and linen was only acceptable for underwear. They therefore didn't - couldn't - wash their outer clothing. (Most people wore linen underneath their wool or silk suits.) This is why people were plagued with fleas and lice and why they smelled; they couldn't wash their clothes well enough to remove the vermin and smell. Of course, poor people sometimes didn't have access to water in any quantity, and they often only had one set of clothing; how do you wash in those circumstances?
Getting back to Adambrowne666's question, though: you should specify exactly which nobles you're talking about, or if you're really talking about royals, a completely different matter. Louis XIV's toilette could take up to an hour, and nobles were expected to attend him. In his book The Decline and Fall of Nearly Everybody, Will Cuppy mentions that people who are tired of their current hectic social schedules should be glad they don't have to get up at seven in the morning to see Louis XIV put on his pants.
Nobles themselves - it would differ depending on whether they were at court or not. Louis XIV made it an almost necessity for nobles to attend him at Versailles; he did this to control them (a nobleman dancing attendance on the King in his palace isn't able to raise an army in Provence). Winston Churchill mentions this in Part 1 of his enormous biography of the 1st Duke of Marlborough. Lesser nobles would have servants to help them. --Charlene.fic 18:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Actually, I meant toilet in its original sense, to preen and bathe and prepare yourself for the day or whatever - but yeah, hit me with the urination and defecation. I have heard that in Versailles there were servants assigned the job of wiping their betters' bottoms, is that so? Adambrowne666 05:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you want me to hit you with urine and feces ? I believe at least one king employed a Groom of the Stool, but this was not a very widespread position. :-) StuRat 06:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been normal for people to cleanse their hands and faces in the morning from a basin in the bedroom. A nobleman would have had plenty of servants to carry water. For bodily waste he would have used a chamberpot or a commode. The latter was a piece of furniture designed to conceal a chamberpot from view. During the late Middle Ages there was an erotic fad for men and women to eat a meal while naked in the same warm bath. This particular practice had probably faded by the seventeenth century, but illustrations do depict a bed near the tub. Durova 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent answers! Thanks, all. I wonder if the groom of the stool would take it the wrong way if I declined to shake hands with him. Adambrowne666 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they can be rather anal about those things. :-) StuRat 13:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Water Fountain Deaths[edit]

Greetings...Sorry to disturb you...

I was just wondering...

How many people have died under collapsed water fountains?

Thank you for your time. :)

--~~Curious

That's OK, we were already disturbed before you arrived. I don't know of anyone having ever died under a collapsing water fountain, however. Has there been an epidemic of this I've somehow missed ? StuRat 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you're referring to the incident on Aug 27 in Bharatpur district, Rajasthan? A water tank collapsed under the weight of a large group of spectators sitting on it. According to most references, 47 people were killed and around 30 were injured. Read the article at Expressindia, for instance. I don't know the total death toll of all people ever killed in accidents involving collapsing water tanks. ---Sluzzelin 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I see, a water tower, not a water fountain. That makes more sense. StuRat 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cousins[edit]

Suppose a man has two sons by two different women, who are sisters. The sons are thus half-brothers and also cousins - but genetically more closely related than usual half-brothers or cousins. This is similar to double cousins, too, but different because the cousins have the same father. Is there a specific term for this kind of relationship? Thanks! --Grace 06:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a term, but this situation must surely have arisen. (particularly in the case where the first mother dies). Here's an example -> John Collier's two children, Joyce and Laurance. Maybe try finding texts talking about them and see what they say? Morwen - Talk 07:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
How about couthers or brothins? : (  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  07:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
In many English-speaking countries (most notably the UK), marrying a deceased wife's sister was illegal up to the early 20th century. This may be why there's no name for it. --Charlene.fic 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we are inventeing terms, how about "three-quarters brother/sister"? Morwen - Talk 08:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


"An' this here's my brother-cousin, BillyBob."Edison 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

US Flag[edit]

Are the things listed about handling the flag of the United States "respectful tradition" or are they a US (federal or state) "legal requirement"? -- SGBailey 06:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article's section on flag etiquette, these guidelines are defined as part of the United States Code, specifically the US Flag Code. Although they are federal law, they remain guidelines, and ignoring or breaking these rules has no legal consequences. I didn't compare all the items listed in the article with the actual code, but it seems that they aren't merely 'respectful tradition', but codified, albeit not legally enforcable, guidelines.---Sluzzelin 07:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

However, from time to time, when a particular US politician has something to hide, they will bring up an absurd "flag burning Amendment", to assign punishments to desecrating this symbol. Such "wrapping oneself in the American flag" happens on a regular basis. StuRat 07:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And of course they tend to ignore that part of the Flag Code which says that the flag must be burned as the only appropriate method of descturction. They also ignore those parts about using it on paper plates, napkins, advertising and clothing. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
And in fairness, the actual text of the proposed "flag-burning" amendments actually allows congress to create laws prohibiting desecration of the US flag, not burning of the US flag. Not that I am in favor of such an amendment, mind you, but the authors have at least considered that burning a flag as a respectful method of disposal should continue to be allowed. Chuck 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslims who engaged in Jihad do not kill[edit]

What is all this talk about muslims kill people when they engage in Jihad? Muslims performing Jihad do not kill. Here is proof straight from the mouth of Allah. Allah does not lie.

Quran 008.017

YUSUFALI: It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).

PICKTHAL: Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower.

SHAKIR: So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

210.49.155.134 10:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We should then shoot whoever believes this, and it won't be us who kills them, but Allah, for surely nobody dies except by the will of Allah. I've had a similar thought on parents who deny their children life saving medical treatments on religious grounds ("only God can decide who lives or dies"). They should be shot in the head. If they die, it was God's will, and their designated replacement can then decide if the kids get treatment. If the replacement also says no, then shoot them in the head, too, etc. Eventually, the kids will be treated and we will have purged the planet of a few idiots, to boot. StuRat 10:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that makes the victims' relatives feel a whole lot better. I'd like to see that argued in a Western courtroom. For that matter, doesn't that open up a nice line for all kinds of murderers in Sharia courts too? --Dweller 10:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"I didn't do it! It was the one-armed man!" Éponyme 10:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire says it best.

Formerly there were those who said: You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is unjust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly, whoever is able to make you believe the absurd is able to make you do the unjust. If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world. - Voltaire ( Questions sur les miracles 1765 ) Ohanian 10:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So every act of violence ever performed in the name of Islam is justified? When the Pope says something thoughtless in the middle of a long speech, it's all right to attack churches including Orthodox and Anglican churches that don't even recognize papal authority? I consider it my duty to condemn attacks against mosques, and I write this as someone whose nearest relative was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center alive. Yet when people post the above and take it seriously, it's only a matter of time until some Christian returns a similar outrage against Islam and justifies it with "Wherever hurt is done, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound." Exodus 21:23-26 It's much harder to live by, "You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." Matthew 5:38-43 Or as Gandhi put it, "An eye for an eye and the world goes blind." 72.199.30.31 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I will blow myself up when somebody hurts my feelings, making sure I take the jerk with me to Hell? Éponyme 03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

female pilots[edit]

my 11 year old son needs to find out about lady pilots Nancy Bird, Peggy Mckillop and Jane Barling. He needs to find out about joy rides that they gave eg where to and how far. ive searchd all the sites i could think of thanks for your help sue

Hi. The best way to find this stuff out is to go to a site http://www.google.com. Type in the name you are looking for, putting it in double quotes, and adding maybe another word like 'pilot'. This link will show you how to do it and the results. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Nancy+Bird%22+pilot&btnG=Google+Search&meta= DJ Clayworth 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Amelia Earhart and Betty Skelton http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/skelton.html Edison 14:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an article about the first-named at Nancy Bird-Walton. I've added a redirect. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

holiday destinations[edit]

Between the dates of 1964-74, what were the most popular holiday destinations in England? I need to know this for my english A-level homework, and have not had any success in looking on the internet or in books.

I don't know, but I guess Brighton and Blackpool would be up near the top. --Richardrj talk email 09:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
it will generally depend where people were travelling from. some random seaside resort towns of the time would be Bournemouth, Brighton, Weston super Mare, Skegness, Scarborough, Blackpool, Bognor Regis. There are also the national parks, such as the Peak District National Park (Buxton and Matlock), etc etc Morwen - Talk 13:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It always used to be said that the "big three" seaside resorts were (in no particular order) Blackpool, Bournemouth and Brighton. I have no statistics to back that up - just that they were referred to in that way. And there was a strong element of tradition - people in a particular industrial town often used to go en masse to the same resort - eg during Wakes Week people from Halifax went overwhelmingly to Morecambe. Jameswilson 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about holiday destinations popular with the English or with holiday destinations popular with those visiting England from other parts of the UK and internationally? I think you'd find a huge difference. People from abroad don't flock to English seaside resorts much, but are fascinated by London (above all), Stratford, and Stonehenge. --Charlene.fic 20:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

American vs English or British ethnicity[edit]

Since when do ethnicities stop forming? When a country such as Belgium or Switzerland, Spain or Russia and Germany is formed of composite former nation-states, do the newfound citizens not produce children that identify ethnically with their new nation? For instance, I am British, French and Irish ancestrally in the USA. I know that paternally, my ancestors came during the reign of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's one king. Then again, there were relatives of the same surname who were there in the old Virginia colony, who fought against their master George III of Hanover's yoke and declared themselves American. These remnants of 1776 still identify ethnically/ancestrally as American, rather than any UK-related fief under the Crown. British, French and Irish Protestants who were there in 1776 identify as American--but the Orange-Nassau/Pennsylvania Dutch and Netherlands/New York Dutch people still proudly claim their Continental roots. I would say that is proof that old roots don't always hold water. I have recently begun to shear off my British cultural allegiance, with an understanding of my own American heritage and am just fine adopting the mantle which better describes me. Although 3rd generation American, I have differences with the modern (Germanophile) UK and disagree with a lot of how it is going. In short, I would NOT want to live there now, in this day and age. If you do not believe me, at least believe the United States Census Bureau. People of the three major racial backgrounds apart from non-French Continental colonials present in 1776, are represented as: "American", "African American", "American Indian" in this map page...Maps of American ancestries I would consider American nation-state status to be more legitimate in the way of providing an ethnicity. Canada and other Commonwealth nations are still tied to the UK and it would be silly to pretend that the English in Canada have no identity, especially when contrasted to the French--even the Scots and Irishmen maintain individualist presences. Éponyme 09:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not the same as culture, or race. --Dweller 10:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So it makes sense that I could be American ethnically, British culturally and White racially? Éponyme 10:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose people started seeing themselves as English rather than Anglo, Saxon, Norman, etc., after they became a complicated mixture of the various tribes. Later, they started thinking of themselves as British rather than English, Welsh, Scottish, etc. Similarly, people will start to identify themselves strictly as Americans when they are each a complex mixture of ethnicities. For example, I'm English, Scottish, and French. If you add another dozen ethnicities I'd just have to consider myself "American" and forget about breaking down my origins further. StuRat 10:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
All of those categories are arbitrary social identification labels. You can also be a Red Sox fan, catholic, and an easterner with about the same degree of biologic determination. alteripse 10:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess my point is that relatively speaking, there is legitimacy in this and I'm not crazy when it comes to my preference. It sure beats trying to keep ties with Britons who don't want to be bothered with Britons who've "gone colonial" and assimilated with rebels. Éponyme 10:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to have, as an individual, different values for the three. I'm no expert on the subject, but I'm not sure about your choices for ethnicity and culture. Is there American ethnicity? Native american, I'd guess. And I know there's a constant debate about whether there is a "British culture". I know a few Scots who argue strongly against. --Dweller 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at. I strongly object to any aborignalization of the Indians, whom have their own diverse tribes of Asiatic origin and are categorized by their ethnic names beneath the collective "American Indian" name. That reminds me of when some ignorant people think we got Democracy from the Iroquois Indians. Those folks don't follow Washington, DC and I'll be damned (by Britons, especially) before I consider myself Native British either. I'm not going to be the lapdog for Political Correctness. I was born in America, to American parents and some of my ancestors were of UK and French Canadian origins. I see it that way and there is no way that the ethnic protestors in the Ward Churchill crowd would want to be called "American" as that is a latinized/feminized Italian name, just like the District of Columbia. BTW the state of Indiana is the best we Americans get to identifying these Indians on any honest level. These people had names before Columbus or whoever came and the anachronistic appelation "American race" for their roots is fallacious. I was merely interested to see what y'all think about people identifying with their national roots on a historical and genetic level. It is different from Europe in some ways. On another level, our identification is like France. I am as much a Virginian as my forefathers were Northumbrians and before that, from the Frankish east of Brittany. I believe that regional identities work and are "real", just as much as I believe "race" has social and genetic value. Of course, many European ethnic names came from pagan deities and one would give special meaning compared to "American"--named after a mere mortal. Éponyme 10:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I got my stupid head on, but I'm not really following you. I think you're arguing that you have American ethnicity. I'd suggest you're more likely to have a strongly American culture. A Sikh person whose family has lived in (say) Sweden for (say) 5 generations can still be ethnically and racially Sikh, not Swedish, even if totally integrated culturally. --Dweller 11:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, did you have a question? This isn't really the right place for a debate... Morwen - Talk 11:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
<edit conflict> In fairness, this topic was opened with two sentences that both constitute respectable questions. And this page often develops into debate when answering complex questions... as this is. Especially when ignoramuses like me try to answer on subjects they really don't have sufficient knowledge about :-) --Dweller 11:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The American Census Bureau has accepted "American" as ancestry and therefore, a legitimate ethnicity--based in those rebel colonists who cast off their British rule and established a new identity, or else Romans were just Trojans and blah blah blah. Maybe Thracians still exist? BTW, Morwen this is a legit topic (humanities) and you can shut your mouth and go away. The Indians are not ethnically or racially American, but I am ethnically American. Indians have sovereign tribes still in existance. They never embraced American to mean them ethnically, only geopolitically in respect to Old and New World differentiations. Éponyme 11:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. The reference desk is for questions. If you have a question, please ask it. My answer would be that the entire concept of ethnicity as applied to people of general mixed european descent is bogus and evil. Morwen - Talk 11:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
But that's not a very interesting answer! I think a siesmic (sp?) shift occurs when people go from tribal to city living. I had a friend with a tribal background who couldn't understand that I didn't know what tribe I was from (the loudmouths?). Another interesting point was that we had an almost identical repertoire of jokes that started 'There was this man who...' and he couldn't understand that I didn't know the man in the joke, whereas it took me a while to realise that when he started a joke with 'There was this man in our village who...' he actually knew the subject of the joke. Rentwa 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the question is that I am supposed to be answering. But I will say that "ethnicity" is best understood in terms of a group identity based on cultural difference from other neighboring groups. A British identity would not emerge among subjects of the United Kingdom until Scots and Englishmen identified with each other as opposed to some other group. So, British identity was probably strongest under the Empire, when Scots and Englishmen shared in the imperial project and shared an identity in opposition to the natives of India, or during the world wars, when both groups shared a common interest in fighting off the threat German invasion or aerial bombardment. In more recent times, Englishmen and Scotsmen are more likely to find their ethnic identities in opposition to each other. As for ethnicity in the United States, it is very complicated but again boils down to group self-identification in opposition to other groups on cultural grounds. Sometimes it is done on little more than ancestral grounds. Typically, though, when ethnicity no longer has much cultural content but is merely a matter of ancestry, many people who have that ancestry will not identify strongly with it. For example, some of my ancestors brought my family name from Ireland to the United States around 1850. However, my last name does not suffice to make me identify as ethnically Irish. I was not raised Catholic, and I have been to Ireland and consider it a delightful, but foreign country. If I have an ethnicity, I guess it is "American." But I don't think that the U.S. Census Bureau can be cited as a guide to whether a particular ethnicity is "legitimate." Their decisions on which labels to use are ultimately political, with only a contingent link to anthropological or sociological reality. Marco polo 17:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually the Census designations are based on self-identification. There is an American category because that is what a large number of people filled in the form. Rmhermen 20:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in the midst of fighting off the wolves: American people. Somebody has to take a stand for Americans. Éponyme 03:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Damascus[edit]

Is it a safe place to travel? Is it worthwhile? Musli Miester 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so - it's in Syria, isn't it? Should be relatively safe. -- the GREAT Gavini 14:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Apart from a deadly attack on a US embassy recently.Evilbu 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
And the fact that if Syria and Israel got into another war, then you might be in trouble. But at the moment, the area is peaceful, and I haven't heard of Islamists targeting tourists in Syria. Southern Turkey, nearby and similar in cultural attractions, might be safer, (granted you stay out of this area.) Damascus is one of the oldest continuously inhabited settlements in the world, last I checked, and I bet it's museums are in better shape than Iraq's are! Picaroon9288 21:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he or she meant one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_%28disambiguation%29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proficient (talkcontribs) 06:55, 21 September 2006
It seems unlikely; why would there be any doubt over whether a place in the United States is safe? Also, Proficient, you can create a link to a page by doing this: [[Name of target page]], as opposed to using a weblink. Picaroon9288 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim Bucktow[edit]

Who is Tim Bucktow?

See Timbuktu. --Dweller 12:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

economics of education[edit]

Dear sir/Madam, I hereby come to find out from you a brief explanation about the work in economics of education done by Mr GIANNI DE FRAJA as I am much intersted in this field.

Kind regards.

Clement mulamba

We don't have much information about him here, but you could try the links from his personal homepage here.--Shantavira 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

stars and dwarf/minor planets named after scientists[edit]

Hi there

I was recently reading that Esperanto inventor L.L. Zamenhof has a minor planet named after him. I wonder what other semi-obscure scientists/politicians/literary personalities have minor or even dwarf planets named after them? Or even stars, comets etc would be interesting to find out.

Thanks in advance for any help with this project anyone can offer.

Sandy Smith

P.S. I hope nobody takes offence that I have referred to Zamenhoff as semi-obscure. You know what I mean.

Hi, Sandy! There are literally thousands of asteroids that have been named after notable, semi-obscure, and completely obscure individuals and characters. There are asteroids named after dogs, cats, and even fictional characters. Here is a list of asteroid names; if you click on a random page (such as this one), you'll see an entire list of people, most of whom are completely obscure.
Moons and "dwarf planets" are named after mythological beings. You can find out more at Astronomical naming conventions. Good luck! --Charlene.fic 18:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Asteroids are the same as "minor planets", by the way, even though we currently have separate articles on each.--Shantavira 18:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Asteroids are not the same as minor planets but are only one type of minor planet. Rmhermen 20:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Officially, no stars are named for people. However, there are several widely-used and quasi-official names (the most famous being Barnard's Star), and there's five which we now know to have been "secretly" named for individuals and been taken as traditional names. See Stars named after people. Shimgray | talk | 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

rock[edit]

why this word ROCK used from music to whisky?

  • Whisky on the rocks : ice cubes (noun : origin = French roche).
  • Rock'n roll music : a music on which you move (Verb: origin = Old English roccian). -- DLL .. T 18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


I've heard three explanations for the term "rock and roll":
  • A euphemism for sexual activity (although I can't find an online reference for it, I've heard this mentioned - it's not that unlikely because both the terms "jazz" and "ragtime" have that origin);
  • A description of the movement one makes when one has a strong religious feeling (from US gospel music); and
  • An old English description of the movement of a sailing ship (this is the oldest in print, dating back to the 1600s)[1]
As for alcohol served on the rocks, it's simple: ice cubes look like rocks. "On the rocks" can also mean "in trouble", as a ship washed up on a rocky shore would be. --Charlene.fic 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This question really belongs on the Language ref desk. JackofOz 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The whisky drink, "rock and rye", involves rye whisky and a piece of rock candy. Rmhermen 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


80's song name[edit]

Hi!, there's this 80's song which I find really cool,and I don't know the name or the band... the lyrics go 'hello, hello..' many times, and the rythm is kind of new waveish and electronic.does ne1 know what it is?.--Cosmic girl 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out Hello (disambiguation) for songs called hello. I think you may be thinking of the Lionel Richie one. Skittle 21:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
New waveish? Try "Hello Again" by The Cars[2]. Durova 21:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


cool, thank u =), It's not the one by LR, I've already checked it out, it sounds more like the cars, but I can't find it anywhere yet. thanks again!.--Cosmic girl 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

yup,I've read the lyrics and I'm quite sure it's that one, do you like that kind of music Durova? =). --Cosmic girl 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just something I remember from a lot of airplay, waaay back. :) Durova 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pope; His Sermon; His Regret; and the Response from Muslims.[edit]

So, the Pope has now intimated his regret that some members of the Islamic Faith appeared to misunderstand that his intentions were not to attack their faith or beliefs - merely to initiate a discussion surrounding the unacceptability of violence and murder in the name of (any) religion. That may or may not be a reasonable stance for him to take. And one that may or may not be accepted by those offended. But if the offended Muslims claim they were offended by his remarks (taken from the 14th century text he was quoting from) because they were "false", is their reaction not a good sign that indicates their rejection of the "allegation" that Muhammed (pbuh) had brought nothing but violence into the world? In other words, the offended Muslims must therefore believe that Muhammed (pbuh)had in fact brought only GOOD things into the world? That being the case, would someone more enlightened than myself point me to the universally accepted list of what all those good things were (and supposedly remain)? Might they include for example that conversion to Islam (or any religion)involving aggression or duress is unacceptable (and would Muhammed (pbuh) actually want such conversions)? Would the list include tolerance, peace, harmony, and a rejection of murder and terrorism in His (Allah's) or any other Deity's name? And would the list include patience and understanding when someone's faith (Islamic or Christian, Jewish, Shinto, Buddhist, Atheist or Agnostic) was uncertain and they merely wanted to ask a few intelligent questions to satisfy their God-given logic, curiousity and intelligence that they weren't merely and slavishly being led up some 7th Century visionary's garden path? And how do the offended Muslims suggest that the Pope's intimated suggestion that rational and peaceable discussions between all those secular and religious groups affected by and involved in this seemingly never-ending problem proceed? Is there another Solomon (pbuh) out there? If not I hope that God reads this plea for enlightenment and understanding and sends one who is acceptable to all the parties involved.

Could you summarize that in 25 words or less? Durova 21:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The Pope related that some guy once said Islam was not a peaceful religion. Muslims responded by blowing up some churches. Nietzsche was right.
  • Islam is supposed to be peaceful. People who blow up churches aren't real muslims. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "...aren't real muslims."': non-sense answer. JohJak2 10:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • People who blow up churches are real Muslims insofar as David Koresh was also a true Christian. There are better examples of violent Chrsitians if you don't agree with that particular one. Flamarande 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very tempting to make grand generalisations about all Muslims based on the actions of an extremely tiny, but very visible, minority. People who blow up churches (or fly planes into the World Trade Centre, for that matter) in the name of Islam have no brief to formally represent the religion of Islam. They are just individuals misguidedly expressing their personal stuff. Those who paint all Muslims as violent church-exploders are indulging in just as extreme an over-reaction as the church-exploders themselves. JackofOz 10:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Similar to me saying, for instance, that all Christians are abortionist-shooting maniacs, and/or choirboy-fondling pedophiles. The actions of a deviant minority cannot be read as reflecting on the significant majority. --MattShepherd 13:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Compare and contrast the following positions toward inhabitants of invaded and conquered countries

1)Spanish conquistadores to natives of America, 16th and 17th century: "CONVERT TO CATHOLICISM OR DIE!!!!!!" 2)Muslim conquerors to natives of Middle Eastern countries 7th through 15th centuries:"CONVERT TO ISLAM OR DIE!!!!!!" Edison 14:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that the expansion of the Islamic empire involved large-scale forced conversion? --LambiamTalk 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
In answer to the last posting, my understanding is that the Conquistadores actually offered their target audience a choice (not that I condone their generosity either), whereas the modern murderers of the Muslim Faith simply kill, and then blame it all on Allah, quoting the 7th century teachings of Muhammed (praise be upon Him).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.67 (talkcontribs) 15:32, September 19, 2006 (UTC).
What choice did the Spanish conquistadors give? The choice between "Convert and you will be strangled, or not convert and be burned at the stake?" given to Atahualpa by Pizarro? Flamarande 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam is wrongly condoned as a religion of terror. They are patient with their desires & they constantly practice their faith. What right does pope have to comment about the way another sect of population practices its faith. First he needs to advocate & inculcate the habit of proper practice of his faith by the christian community(the west) (Its useless depiction of female status and lack of family values in the west by abusing freedom). :—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.211.243.232(talkcontribs)

what a great debate this is? personally, i have no beef with what the pope says becuase, well, hes a bastard. (ever heard what he says about women? gay men? - offended muslims should count themselves blessed!) but in response to one part of the question that hasnt been addressed: without getting into too much detail (becuase whenever i do, some wikipedant jumps down my throat), without islamic culture, maths wouldnt be what it is today. in fact, through thir contact with india, they brought zero to europe -i mean, their "good"contributions have not been nothing! (boom boom)(sorry that was laboured) 87.113.6.59 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mihai Gheorghiu Bujor[edit]

Dear Sir or M-am:

Excuse me, I'm very sorry, do you have any material, even if not exclusively about that person, on Mihai Gheorghiu Bujor?


Synopsis of Novels[edit]

Are synopsis of novels generally acceptable to add to Wikipedia, or are only novels with a significant social or cultural impacts permitted? There are several (dozen) novels that I would add a synopsis page for, if it is permissible. Faranya 21:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability criteria & Wikipedia:Spoiler warning.--Patchouli 03:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but don't go copying back cover text. Write it in your own words. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Largest city in the world by metropolitan area[edit]

I have searched everywhere and cannot find which is the largest city in the world my metropolitan area, I can find land mass here and poputation statistics but it is still not the metropolitan area which includes other shires and towns that are included in a metropolitan area. Does anyone have or know where I can go to get the facts?

The Greater Los Angeles Area has 87,972 km^2, according to the List of metropolitan areas by population - none of the other top 100 metropolitan areas is larger.---Sluzzelin 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that depends on how you define the city boundaries. Mount Isa lays claim to the title and that got acknowledged by the Guinness book of world records. But it's size is 'just' 42.904 km², against 82.300 km² for Chongqing and 95.288.5 km² for Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. Or so the articles say. A government can easily get one of its cities at the top of the list by redefining the city boundaries. So the question is a bit pointless, unless you have a clear definition of what you want to know. Which starts with what you want to know it for in the first place. DirkvdM 09:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Raffaello Sanzio[edit]

What type of architect style did Raphael use?

Have you read our article Raphael? JackofOz 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes... it doesnt name a style that he used. I dont see why I want to know as the answer to the question. I want to know as it has been topic of discussion in certain circles lately. The largest city by metropolitan area was the question. Not population nor land mass or local government area. I just wanted to know given the definition of "metropolitan area" as given here at wikipedia. So i anyone knows could they answer it here. Many thanks to those of you who have tried.

??? 惑乱 分からん 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosh (Art Director)[edit]

How can I get in touch with Kosh the art director?

                                  Thank you, Art Vickner.
Try asking at his company. --Kainaw (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)