Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/May 2006

May 1

Railway Length in Malaysia

Dear Wikipedia,

I went through the link of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Malaysia to find some information about transport in malaysia, especially regarding to the railways. Here's the data i've got (mentioned that the page was last modified 14:59, 25 April 2006) :

Railways There are a total of 2,418 km of rail tracks, of which, 207 km are electrified.

But i also checked through the Source link mentioned on your site : The World Factbook, which its last update was on 20 April, 2006(http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/my.html), and the data they provided about the railtrack length was :

total: 1,890 km (207 km electrified) standard gauge: 57 km 1.435-m gauge (57 km electrified) narrow gauge: 1,833 km 1.000-m gauge (150 km electrified) (2004)

Please kindly advice which one is correct and most updated. Your prompt reply / feedback upon my question will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks & Rgds! Beatrix Indonesia

If there's a conflict between Wikipedia and a published, reliable academic source, then always go with the other source. After all, the CIA factbook doesn't allow people from the internet to wander on and change track lengths... or add "M4l4yz14 iz d4 b0mb!!!!111" I'll update the article to reflect what you've found. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Need two citations in French

I'm in a bit of a mess here...my girlfiend's MA thesis is due on Tuesday, and I foolishly promised her to check a couple of citations. I was able to track down almost everything, but the last two are giving me serious headaches...our uni library does not have French editions of these books (they're either stolen or taken out until the end of next year), and online searches have proven fruitless. If anybody has either of these two books in French and can look up something for me, my eternal gratitude plus the Barnstar of Tireless Research will be yours. Here's what I'm looking for:

• In the first chapter of Bataille's L'Abbé C., "éponine", there's a passage that starts "Dans ce calme tendu, à travers les vaperus de mon evresse" and ends with "le vent avait soulevé le manteau qu'au monent ou le rire l'avait désarmé elle n'avait pu maintenir sermé". I'd need a complete citation with page numbers for that.
• Genette's "metalepses" (in discours du recit) starts with (roughly translated from my German-language edition): "The transgression form one level of narrative to another can only be accomplished by the narration itself". I'd need Genette's exact phrasing in French of that sentence, plus a complete citation.

Heaps of thanks in advance...whoever manages to look up these citations will be included in my nightly prayers for years to come -- Ferkelparade π 01:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My library's only version of Abbe C. is translated, but it has a "OEuvres complètes. Présentation de Michel Foucault." by Bataille, so I'm guessing it should be in there. It's only copy of "Métalepse : de la figure à la fiction" is checked out, so I can't help you there. I'll try to get you the first citation soon; the second I can't help you with. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I popped into the University of Melbourne library and managed to find these two books: Bataille and Genette.

• Bataille, Georges (1950). L'Abbe C., Paris: Éditions de Minuit. (no ISBN)

The text you quote here contains numerous spelling errors, and is not from the first chapter "Éponine", but rather from the second chapter "La tour". The text should read: "Dans ce calme tendu, à travers les vapeurs de mon ivresse ... le vent avait soulevé le manteau qu'au moment où le rire la désarma elle n'avait pu maintenir fermé." This passage begins on page 54 and ends on page 57.

• Genette, Gérard (1972). Figures III., Paris: Éditions du Seuil. ISBN 2020020394.

The translations of Discours du recit seem to extract and publish that section separately (I found the English and German versions). The French version is part of a book called Figures III., the section is entitled "Discours du récit : essai de méthode", which is divided into five chapters. The link above says the book was published in 1969, but the version I looked at was a 1972 edition. I finally found what looks like the text you are after in Chapter 5 ("Voix") on pages 243-244 under the heading "Metalepses": "Le passage d'un niveau narratif à l'autre ne peut en principe être assuré que par la narration, acte qui consiste précisément à introduire dans une situation, par le moyen d'un discours, la connaissance d'une autre situation. Toute autre forme de transit est, sinon toujours impossible, du moins toujours transgressive."

Hope this helps. I can send you scans of the pages if you require, or if you need any more information, just send me an email, or message on my talk page. --Canley 10:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks...the second one is indeed just the passage I was looking for. Your answer arrived just in the nick of time - I forgot to mention that it's due on tuesday European time, which is in just about twelve hours (don't ask about the night that lays ahead...) Thanks also for correcting all my typos, although that wouldn't have been necessary (my girlfriend is a native speaker of French - I, on the other hand, am not, as you could probably tell. I was just jotting down notes as she dictated and did not really understand the text I was searching for :P ). Your Barnstar is on the way...thanks again! -- Ferkelparade π 22:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Tense

What is the past tense of the verb "to mislead"? "Misled" - or is "mislead" correct as well? zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Misled —Seqsea (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As a boy, I would read "misled" and think it was the past tense of the verb "to misle". It took me a while to work out why "misle" was not in any dictionary. JackofOz 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

heh :) At (probably) about the same age I thought that Canadians came from Canadia and wondered why I couldn't find it in the atlas. Grutness...wha? 13:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

pendants, medelations, coins of NAPOLEON III EMPEREUR

Was there ever two coins from 1870 ever made into pendant surrrounded with copper ? How much would it be ?

front of pendant back of pendant NAPOLEON III family crest EMPEREUR

EMPIRE ERACAIS

5 F.

 1870       
      B

This is a 1870 5 franc coin. There is one for sale on Ebay here for about €5. --Canley 10:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wermacht casualties

How many KIA and MIA suffered Wermacht on east front in 1945? Vess

See Wehrmacht. It lists the battles there and all the major battles have a casualty count. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dynomite Lyrics

Does anybody know where to find lyrics for the song "Dynomite" (Going Postal) by rapper, Rhymefest? 150.250.84.241 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The way I normally find lyrics is by typing into google something like "Lyrics (artist) (song title or snippet of lyrics that I know)". Most of the time this works like a charm. Dismas|^(talk) 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oldest non-admin Wikipedia account

I was wondering if there are many people who are active Wikipedia users, have been for a very long time, but are not admins. Then, I thought, who has the oldest non-admin Wikipedia account? I couldn't find any way of detecting age of accounts. Even then, it looks like I'd have to view every account until I find the oldest one. Surely, someone with db access could answer this with one query. Of course, it doesn't matter - just something that popped into my aching tired brain while I was staring off at the clouds and trying to muster up the energy to do some real work. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The question of what Wikipedia's first edit was occasionally comes up, but it seems that information has been lost somewhere along the way. I suspect the same is true of the first accounts. Henry^Flower 19:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival may help but some of the very old history is lost due to software changes and "features"? Rmhermen 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Harold Lloyd, silent film comedian

Perhaps Harold Lloyd's most famous movie scene is when he dangled from that large clock, above a city street. Where (probably in Los Angeles) was that filmed, and where is a photo of that location today?

Did you try looking at our article on Harold Lloyd? It was indeed Los Angeles, according to this article. And the photo is there too. --Shantavira 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I meant pictures of that street as it is today.

Fictitious legal pleading

The local newspaper had an article today about someone pleading guilty to a crime he very definitely didn't commit, and which all parties involved knew he didn't commit, instead of going to trial for the crime he did commit.

Apparently, since the victim was uncooperative, the prosecutor wasn't certain he could get a conviction for robbery. He could get a conviction for theft, but that didn't have the sentencing range he wanted. The end result was a guilty plea for "criminal copyright infringement".

What's the legal theory behind this sort of thing, and how common is it? --Serie 21:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is called jumping to conclusions. Everybody thinks he is innocent but he pleaded guilty. Everybody gets confused. General Eisenhower 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

See legal fiction. Phr (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is based in practicality. The vast majority of crimminals are dealt with through plea bargaining. Without the system would become over loaded!

Yes, but isn't plea barganing based on pleading guilty to a lesser version of the same charge, such as manslaughter instead of second-degree murder? Despite what the RIAA says, criminal copyright infringement isn't a lesser version of robbery with violence. --Serie 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My first impression is that this would be a case of simple plea bargaining, But I'd just like to make mention of two other legal concepts. They may refer to the case you're talking about or maybe not. The first is the no lo contendre or no contest plea. In this case the defendent accepts the consequences of a guilty plea, while technically not admitting to any guilt. The second is very similar and is known as the Alford plea. In this case, the defendent also accepts the consequences of a guilty plea, but refuses to allocute (i.e. confess to the actual details of the crime). Loomis51 00:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Queen for a day

Anyone know where this expression came from? A little Googling finds a 1950's radio/TV show and a movie of the same title, but I have the impression that it goes back a lot further. There's no Wikipedia article, which seems like am omission. Phr (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just a guess, but I'd be willing to bet that it dates back to May Queen traditions and festivities. Grutness...wha? 04:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

From 50 years of neuronal storage: Queen for a Day was an American black-and-white television game show in the 1950s. A live studio audience would listen to the brief hard-luck stories of 3 women contestants narrated by an unseen voice. After hearing the 3 stories the audience would then clap their hands to indicate the "most deserving". The "applause meter" would indicate the loudest response, and the lucky contestant would be immediately crowned "Queen for a Day" and draped with an ermine-edged robe by the host/master-of-ceremonies. She would stand at center stage with the host, crying tears of joy, and be presented with several gifts, usually major appliances such as a washing machine, while the announcer voice described them. There would be lesser consolation prizes for the two other women. The phrase suggests ironically that someone deserves a brief expression of pity for their hard-luck story, followed by a quick return to her original plight. Could the show really have been as appallingly tasteless as I remember it? alteripse 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a 1910 French film called "Roi d'un jour", which I presume means "King for a Day". Same basic concept. But I also seem to remember much older stories about a boy-hero who gets this kind of gig. JackofOz 05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that it does go back, at least to popular literature in the 19th century. I don't know Hans Christian Andersen very well, but I would look at a story/fable like that. There were Lords of Misrule and carnival traditions, as well as other 'lord of the day' sorts of traditions (e.g. the May Queen), but the phrase was popular when it was appropriated by the radio and then TV show. Once it was taken over, it got huge. I suppose Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable and Patridge's Dictionary of Slang would be the logical references to search. If those fail, go to the Oxford English Dictionary. (That's third because it will be less descriptive.) Geogre 11:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

dust bowl

What was the Dust Bowl of the 1930's?

It was, and still is, well described in our Dust Bowl article. (Of course, the far more famous Dust Bowl of 1987 was the football game between USC and UCLA where pranking CalTech students used 300 gallons of Freon to remove all of the water in the turf, resulting in a huge cloud of dust obscuring the action.) --ByeByeBaby 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Brunelleschi's dome

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunelleschi) Got a HW question: What Roman building may Brunelleschi have been inspired from for the dome in Firenze? Thanks! (Santa Maria del Fiore, that is)

Just consider the other buildings you have covered in your course. Think especially of the ancient Roman buildings you covered. Notinasnaid 10:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Olympic Gold Order

What is "Olympic Gold Order"? Which was the first Indian Prime Minister to be awarded the Olympic Gold Order? There is no article in Wikipedia on the "Olympic Gold Order". Thank you in advance for your help.

• There is an article on the topic under Olympic Order. The PM was Indira Gandhi. See this pdf file Tintin (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. You gave the accurate answer. Is the pdf file available in HTML format.

• Here. Not very readable though. Tintin (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read Tintin's link. Does some one has other information on the Olympic Order except the article in Wikipedia--Olympic Order. --Siddhant 10:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian Churches

There are many different churches within Christianity. My question is this: How can any one be true? And if you answer 'each person must find the church that is right for him,' then I wonder how they can all be right. --165.139.198.19 12:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

They can't all be right/true, and not all of them claim this anyway. It's not even a question of any one of them being right/true, and all the others being wrong/untrue (to the extent of any inconsistency in their teachings). Most churches speak some truths - some more than others - but no church has access to all truths, and no church speaks nothing but truths. This is true of all faiths, not just Christian churches.  :-) JackofOz 13:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making a big mistake in your assumptions. First, we have to distinguish between "churches" as denominations and "churches" as beliefs. Most denominations in Christianity differ on interpretation of the implementation of agreed upon truths. The absolute truths they espouse are largely the same, and therefore they are all "true" according to each other in that regard. However, how to understand the implications and put into practice these truths generates two sorts of disagreements: disagreements of polity (church organization and regulation) and dogma (what the facts or words of the agreed upon truths mean). You should look at the article on Richard Hooker and Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. It was his argument, and the argument of all latitudinarians in all churches that matters of polity are "things indifferent" to the moral value of a believer. As for different interpretations of the meaning of dogma, it depends. They can't all be "true" and "correct" in that regard, but whether these disagreements in interpretation amount to damnation vs. salvation, sin vs. perfection, is, to say the least, up in the air. The answer is not therefore "find what's right for you," as that implies trying on faiths as if they were clothes, but understand that the disagreements between churches do not amount to a difference in religion. Geogre 13:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I might argue that Infant baptism vs Believer's baptism is one of those lines where folks tend to have a hard time seeing anything less than an absolute truth, and where they can't all be right.

As for the original question, the mainstream theological response is that they can't all be right, only my church can possibly be right, and my church is the one that is truly right for you, although I might, maybe, grant that the people going to the church across the street may not all be going to Hell for their serious theological mistakes. This, however, makes a weak basis for the kind of interdenominationalism that has been popular and necessary in these fallen, fallen times when Christians have to circle the wagons and protect our omnipotent God from the grubby unbelievers who deny Him. So alternative logics have been deployed. Arminius offers up one of the better justifications of more tolerance: The Bible should be used not only as a guide to truth, but to distinguishing which truths are more important than others.

Me, I'm an agnostic, so this whole line of argument - "only one can be right" - does little for me, especially since I should think it far more likely that if there is a single, uniform, heaven-sent truth, then nobody actually has access to it. So, let me offer up a different defense of "each person must find the church that is right for her (or him)": The things that you actually need from a church, the reasons why you would want to go to one, maybe even the reasons why God would want you to go to one, have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not its theology is really true. --Diderot 20:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You have some documentation that "mainstream theological response" is "I'm right, and they're wrong?" You have some proof that they're all either bigots or weak-minded fools? You have some citations that Christians feel beleaguered and therefore are interdenominational? It couldn't be, after all, that they have any sincerity, can it? Please try not to dismiss hundreds of thinkers and thousands of years of tradition with snide comments, just because you don't like what they have to say. Geogre 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's start with Google: "errors of Luthernism", "errors of Calvinism", "errors of Methodism", the list could go on. Or we might mention the copious literature on Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Or perhaps the history of Arianism, the Cathars, filoque and the Great Schism, the Reformation and the several centuries of religious warfare that followed, the history of Anabaptism (a gang which tended to display its unity in the Trotskyist way, by splintering into grouplettes at the slightest theological disagreement), or the current risk of schism in the Anglican church over women at the pulpits and gays in the pews. These disputes are not marginal. The history of organised Christian theology has been the demonstration, over and over again, that God can only possibly agree with whoever is doing the theologising. The great breakthough of Protestant interdenominationalism is finally conceding that perhaps all the other people might not simply be doomed to hell because they sing different hymns.

I have yet to see a statement of theological doctrine that said: We think this is what God wants, but hey, we could be wrong. Show me that the major doctrinal statements of most churches include, at least implicitly, something like that, and I'll concede the point. --Diderot 13:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So, because a person believes himself to be right, he has to be intolerant? Because a person sees flaws in the reasoning of others, he simply must be ready to spill blood? That's nonsense of the first water and a simplification that would lead you to not only be an agnostic but a hermit. After all, each government believes itself to be right, and each government has been in wars. Further, you must similarly reject all philosophies, as the far east has been at war. You must similarly believe that all economists are on the verge of murdering each other. After all, they believe themselves to be correct. Or is it only in religion that you feel you have to dismiss all rationality, all compassion, and ignore the fact that people disagreeing is not people killing. Geogre 13:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Where on earth are you getting "ready to spill blood" come from? There's a long distance between "believing that only one set of beliefs is correct and people who don't agree with that set of beliefs are ultimately doomed somehow", which is what Diderot is saying, and "wanting to be the proximate cause of said doom". --Bth

enquiry about ancient india

india now in modern days once called as jambudweepa at bharathavarsha.because while chanting mantras purohits chant as jambudweepe bharathavarshe.

What exactly is your question? JackofOz 13:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You might like to study our articles on Jambudvipa and the History of India. --Shantavira 16:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'd just like to point out that India but back not when at ancient circumstance hammer, nail, spoon, electric toothbrush, yet not all everyone jambudweepa chant because of not having seven. Hope that answers your question. Loomis51 00:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Girdle

What does a girdle look like? Not a modern girdle, but one like in the Illiad, with Hera and Aphrodite, an ancient one. 64.198.112.210 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It was basically a belt, though often including the means to carry a sword or purse etc. --Shantavira 16:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Girdle" was more or less just the way that earlier translators into English rendered ancient Greek and Latin words for "belt", such as ζωνη; to see depictions of ancient Greek women's belts, you can look at illustrations such as commons:Image:Greek-womens-attire-Regency-Empire-influence-hypsizonos.gif &c. Churchh 01:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Female Populations in US States

Hello, I am wondering which US state has the smallest female population. Thanks. Kim

In absolute or relative terms? — QuantumEleven 17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wyoming has the lowest population period and presumably would have the lowest number of females in absolute terms. States with high immigration intake would tend to have higher relative male populations. Marskell 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the last census, using estimates for 2004 populations:

-Wyoming: 251,473 (49.6%) female

-Alaska: 316,525 (48.2%) female

-Montana: 464,600 (50.1%) female

In all other states, women make up very close to 51% of the population. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks, that's what i was looking for!

Pro Nuclear Weapons

I am due to participate in a public debate on whether or not the UK should disarm its nuclear weapons. I will argue that no, the UK should not disarm its nuclear weapons. So, in preparation for the debate, I would like to find some arguments that would aid my side. Can anyone help with this? I would like as many arguments as possible, and if this is not possible, helpful web links would be great. Thanks Chachu207 ::: Talk to me 18:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Standard argument: Nuclear weapons are a show of force. There is no intention to use them. They are there only as a warning that they could be used if absolutely necessary. There is no defense against them, so using them on an enemy who did not have nuclear weapons would ensure a victory in war. However, you lead the opposing argument about using them against someone who also has nuclear weapons. The show of force is lost because using them guarantees both sides will be destroyed. Then, you get into anti-missile systems to defend against nuclear weapons (if you have a defense and the enemy doesn't, you gain the show of force again). --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See Nuclear strategy, Mutual assured destruction, and Deterrence theory. The first two have lengthy See also sections and the last some external links.

Specifically regarding the UK, a strong argument as follows: by disarming its nuclear arsenal is the country forced (further) under the American security umbrella? Tacitly, it could be suggested "we don't have them, but the U.S. still covers us", which significantly undermines any pretence to independent global stature. This thinking has certainly played very strongly in France, which not only has nuclear weapons but has always insisted on independent global launch capability and has a defence industry that produces basically any kind of armament, ideally with a minimum of U.S. supply. Canada is an opposite case: the first country that could have developed nukes but chose not to; all well and good, but of course its a much easier decision to make with the American umbrella overhead. Marskell 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Going down that line of thought... it was recently asked why the UK doesn't produce their own nuclear weapons instead of purchasing them from the US. Assuming that assumption is correct - does the UK continue to purchase nuclear weapons from the US? If so, would it be cheaper to stop buying them and still keep the 'threat' of them in place knowing that the US would cover the UK? --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We do produce our own nuclear weapons, but we put them on top of missiles leased from the US: Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom#Trident. Henry^Flower 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Way simpler argument: Nuclear weapons have been used in exactly one war, and the side that had them won. Not quite as simple argument: Nuclear weapons keep the Americans from invading. I think those are pretty good reasons for Iran to want to have nukes, so I should think it'd be worth something for the UK. --Diderot 20:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In most studies, when n=1, the conclusion is generally that it isn't enough data to go on, not that the fact has been proven. ;-) --Fastfission 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And generally, in warfare. one doesn't get a lot of second chances. The doctrine of better safe than sorry predominates in weapon purchasing decisions for a good reason. --Diderot 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Only if you already buy into the logic of it, which isn't necessarily mandated. One could also point out that Hiroshima did not just involve a simple dropping of a bomb to end the war, but was a highly specific situation relating to the end of World War II, the organization of the Japanese government, their inability to retaliate in kind, etc. etc. All I'm saying is that there are many arguments one could make, but Hiroshima by itself is not an argument. I don't think most weapons purchasing decisions are made with a "better safe than sorry doctrine" anyway -- there are many more factors which get put into a much bigger decision, relating to expected benefits and expected costs, relating to actual use, to unintended consequences, etc., and some of this can be seen in the different nuclear strategies pursued by different world powers (i.e. Britain and France primarily use small, sub-based forces; China uses a small, ICBM-based force; Pakistan and India have very small but highly ambiguous forces; and Israel does not advertise their weapons capability at all). There are many ways to play the game, many ways to interpret Hiroshima in terms of policy. --Fastfission 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the main reasons the UK decided to pursue its own, independent deterrent is because they didn't want to be reliant on the US. Why not? Because the UK was a lot closer to the USSR, and would feel far more effects from a nuclear confrontation in Europe than the US would. Because of the imbalance in potential effects, they didn't want to be dependent on the US to make decisions for them, since the US is, like all good nation-states, going to put its own interests first in such situations. Now a big question is whether the situation has changed significantly since then, since Russia is no longer the enemy and China is a big trade partner. Does the UK really think that the US or France or India or Pakistan or even Russia and China is likely to launch a nuke at them? Probably not. It makes one wonder what the point of having a nuclear force is at such a juncture. The UK has a relatively small nuclear force, it should be remembered -- only a few hundred, enough to guarantee that they will have the ability to respond to a nuclear attack and hopefully thus deter them from happening (as opposed to the US, which has far more weapons than it would need to effectively respond). --Fastfission 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick things: as far as I understand, UK does have its own nukes and does indeed afix them to US missles. France has the triumvirate: nukes, missles to carry them, global launch capability. The UK basically has independent capability, and France truly does. I'm with Fastfission on his first point: one data point is just that. You can't take Hiroshima as a decisive argument for or against nukes.

The second point is partly repetition and partly "accurate conjecture", but there is an interesting add-on I think: the US may superficially appear to have "more weapons than it would need to effectively respond" as second-strike capability. What is interesting with the US though, is that it is arguably the only country that can carry out a completely effective first strike as of now. That is, the US could, in a "one-on-one" nuclear exchange, eliminate any other country's capability (see the Foreign Affairs source at the end of Mutual assured destruction); I'd guess you need nukes in the low thousands to do that. The nuance regarding the UK question to start is that the UK arsenal can only be (merely) deterrence. The US-USSR build-up was at least partly based on one achieving decisive first-strike ability—a duel the US has arguably won. UK and France never had that pretence. It was and is: we have this few hundred, we can kill millions OK? Not "beat you" but rather "fuck you over significantly enough that you won't attack us" (to crudely sum it up). Marskell 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither the US or the USSR achieved first-strike capability, and most of their efforts as I understand it were based on assumptions about what was needed to achieve second-strike capability. There are a lot of uncertainties in there, of course (i.e. whether either the US or USSR missiles would actually hit what they were aimed at, if it came to it), but both built up arsenals of such size and diversity that I don't think either would have at any point post-1960 thought they could have first-strike capability. France, UK, China, etc. don't even try for first-strike, counting on second-strike as deterrent enough. Even if the US was to attack a country with a far smaller arsenal (say, the UK), the fact that the UK's missiles are all sub-based introduces a high probability that at least one of their subs would not be eliminated by the US and could retailiate with grave consequences. The only way you could have a totally successful first-strike capability in such a situation is if you had an anti-missile system, which is exactly why a lot of people argued that the Strategic Defense Initiative was actually something which would encourage war (make the Soviets think we were going for first strike) than discouraging it. At least, that's how I understand it. --Fastfission 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Debate about whether, and how, the UK should replace its Trident missile subs (the ones that carry its nuclear deterrent) has been occurring in a low-key way in the UK papers for months. If you do a search for "Trident replacement" at, say, The Guardian's website, you should find a lot of useful articles, most of which argue for no replacement but this one carries some arguments about why it should be retained. In practice, the real argument is that retaining the arsenal gives Britain international prestige and clout in international affairs that it wouldn't have otherwise; this would be particularly embarrassing, in some views, if France had an arsenal and Britain didn't. Finally, there is the political angle, which has as much to do with it as anything. Tony Blair's game all along (like Bill Clinton, and several other nominally left-wing leaders around the world) has been to largely take committed left-wing voters for granted (who don't have anywhere to go under the British electoral system) and chase more conservative voters. Basically, the argument goes that Labor can't win votes by not replacing Trident, only lose them. --Robert Merkel 22:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Entente cordiale should run it's full course... A merger of the British and French nuclear capability? You read it here first :) Marskell 22:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this time the decision is mostly about prestige and keeping our leaders' place on the top table at summits along with the French and ahead of comparable counties like Germany and Italy. Regrettably, having nuclear weapons counts more than other things in achieving that. Jameswilson 01:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Born in the United States

Part of the controversy over immigration from Mexico is that babies born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, according to the 14th Amendment. But are there any limits on that rule? Consider this hypothetical: A citizen of Sweden comes to New York to visit relatives. Her baby is born in New York, weeks before she expected it. Is that baby a U.S. citizen? This result seems absurd, but that is what the Constitution seems to say. Is the baby a citizen of Sweden? Does it have dual citizenship? What am I missing here?

• Whether or not it would be a citizen of Sweden depends on their own policies. Technically it can claim citizenship in the U.S. but wouldn't be likely to.--Lkjhgfdsa 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• There are limits on the 'born in the US' rule, but not many (children of diplomats is one). See US citizen. The dual part is far from unusual. A friend was born in Zambia to Canadian parents; she had the rights to citizenship of both countries until she became an adult, and then had to choose one. DJ Clayworth 20:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict, so it overlaps with DJ Clayworth's answer)

Answers to your questions: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. A narrow conception of citizenship, endemic to Europe, formed from 19th century quasi-feudal notions about loyalty to the state.

Offering slightly more explanation: A child born on the territory of a US state to a person subject to US jurisdiction is a US citizen. This means everyone except foreign embassy staff with diplomatic immunity. So, a baby born in the US to someone on a tourist visa, or for that matter to an illegal immigrant, is US citizen, then and forever unless renounced specifically and voluntarily, or by the commission of a very small and unlikely number of acts showing intent to disavow citizenship. Take a look at Yaser Esam Hamdi. So yes, your hypothetical Swede who gives birth in the US is the mother of a US citizen. And, Sweden does, as I understand it, generally automatically extend citizenship to the foreign born children of Swedish citizens. This is the policy of most nations. Ergo, this hypothetical child is a dual citizen of Sweden and the US unless he or she specifically disavows one citizenship or the other after reaching the age of 18. And lastly, you are missing the point that this situation happens all the time and is no big deal. Within Europe, there are treaties forbidding dual citizenship in most cases, preventing this situation from occurring. The US, however, is not party to any such agreement, and has no laws or policies regarding dual citizenship except to ask duals to disavow US citizenship if they plan to take high office in a foreign government. --Diderot 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The technical term is Jus soli. AnonMoos 21:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual in having multiple citizenships, either through place of birth, jus soli as AnonMoos said, or through having mixed nationality parentage, jus sanguinis. I knew someone who held British, Irish, and Swedish passports through being born in Northern Ireland to a Swedish mother, and I once shared a train compartment with a British citizen who was returning to his Belgian home after spending his annual two weeks' military service as part of a Swiss Army tank crew. Some countries will require multiple-citizenship people to choose which one to keep at age 18, and particularly in the case of males may require a short period of military service (in Sweden's case I think it's something like 4-6 months; Switzerland is rather more onerous as apart from initial military training there's an annual commitment until your early 30s, then you're in the reserves with occasional call-ups until about age 50). Some people who never intended to claim citizenship find themselves in trouble if they visit their ancestor country - Greece is well-known for drafting young foreigners of Greek parentage, and Italy was known to act similarly while it still had conscription. -- Arwel (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The United States, however, does not recognize dual citzenship, and if you are a US citizen, the US government expects you to act accordingly. If you obtain a passport as a citizen of another country, or vote in another country's elections, or run for office in another country, the US government considers this tantamount to renouncing your US citizenship. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true anymore. Nowadays, about the only way you can lose your citizenship is by going up to a counsel and voluntarily denouncing it. See [1]. -- Mwalcoff 02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a total myth that many Americans still seem to believe. The Hamdi case ought to show how false it is. I don't think any natural-born US citizen has been stripped of citizenship for any reason for at least 70 years. Valdas Adamkus, for example, I think retained his US citizenship until he announced his run for president of Lithuania, and even then, he wasn't stripped of citizenship, he gave it up voluntarily after it caused him problems in Lithuania. --Diderot 06:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship. That does not mean that they remove your U.S. citizenship if you claim another one. They simply will not recognize your foreign citizenship and your U.S. citizenship at the same time. That is the misconception. Some people believe that if you claim you are half-Mexican/half-American, the U.S. will say "Oh no you ain't!" and remove your U.S. citizenship. They don't want to do that because each citizen is tax money. They want ALL of your tax money. So, they will try to make you be 100% U.S. citizen and collect all your income. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think any of these answers is quite correct. The answer here is that the USA does recognize dual citizenship, but only for people who are born as such. If you actively aquire a citizenship of another country, then you forfeit your American citizenship. Most other countries have similar laws, although there is a trend (as in Germany) to expand the dual citizenship idea to also encompass people who aquire a second citizenship. To answer the particular question here: The USA applies the territorial principle that if you're born in the USA, you're a US citizen. Sweden applies the principle that you are a Swedish citizen if your parents are citizens. A child born in the USA to Swedish parents is therefore a dual-citizen. However, a Swede who moves to the USA and chooses to become nationalized will lose his Swedish citizenship, because, like the USA, they do not permit you to aquire a second citizenship. As noted above, not all countries allow either form of dual-citizenship, and force their citizens to choose. As far as the USA's half of the deal is concerned, that is not the case, though. Dual citizens of the USA have to abide by certain rules as well. For instance, you must always enter the US using your American passport, failing to do so can be grounds for losing your US citizenship. Participating in the armed forces of the other country that considers you a national is OK though, as long as they're not at war with the USA. If someone doesn't believe this, read the text in a US passport. --BluePlatypus 19:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. Take a look at the US state department pages and you will see that the US does not consider taking another citizenship to be (automatically) renouncing US citizenship. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html 165.254.38.126 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

East Germany, 1948

Currently doing a project regarding East Germany after the Potsdam Conference, when it [Germany] was originally didvided. Speed up 3 years to the Berlin blockade, June 22, 1948 and that is where I am. Was there a stipulatoin in a treaty that specified that germany be treated economically as one unit? and what was the name of that treaty or stipulation?

what went on with trade unions in EAST germany in 1948

They were to some degree economically one unit until different currencies were introduced into Western and Eastern occupation zones... German mark AnonMoos 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Elizabethian Era

HEllo...

We would like to know the elizabethian view of:

a) The (king) divine right to rule Queen Elizabeth took a moderate position this unlike Here father (Henry) and Her nephew (James) she do not go out of her way to push this principal and generally speaking tried to rule from a middle ground.

b) elizabethian Women

Thankyou :-)

Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

I am no historian, but maybe the articles Elizabethan Era (including associated articles) and Divine Right of Kings will help you? Sandstein 04:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that there was one single "Elizabethian" view? The views of James VI of Scotland on the divine right of kings and John Knox on women having power or authority might have been very different from the views of others on these matters... AnonMoos 16:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

May 3

School of thought

Is Islam the only religion with school of thoughts within their division?

Of course not. Every religion has different schools of thought. Have I misunderstood the question? —Keenan Pepper 02:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It definitely looks like it needs a bit of suitly emphazi'ing. My take on it is "Is Islam the only religion with separate branches or sects", which is again a clear "No", as any glance at the history of Northern Ireland will make very clear. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The history of virtually any part of the British Isles, for that matter. 165.254.38.126 23:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Compare with all the different schools of thought within Christianity—Roman Catholic and Protestant being the most obvious. Buddhism has different schools, as does Judaism, just to mention the first two others that spring to mind. Tyrenius 08:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

By 'schools of thought' in Islam, do you mean intellectual schools (like kalam, philosophy, and theoretical sufism), or sects (like Sunni and Shia)? The answer is yes to both - all major religions have both various sects and intellectual schools. --Iamnotgeorge

American Consuls

who was the american consul in malaya in 1948 during the malayan emergency?...i don't think the misc. desk was the right one to ask this.

I was hoping my 1948 edition of The World Almanac and Book of Facts would answer this, but sadly it only lists U.S. Ambassadors, and not consuls. I suspect that British malaya, as it was then, would have fallen under the ambassadorial area of the ambassador to either India (Henry F. Grady) or Siam (Edwin F. Stanton), but who the consul representing the U.S. in Malaya would have been, I can't say. Even more annoyingly, Political graveyard.com only lists consuls in Malaya to 1932 and ambassadors to Malaysia from 1957. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks - i went there...perhaps i justs wont metion him by name

William Blue, according to these two sources (both pdfs). We don't appear to have an article on him. --Bth 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons Episode

Does anyone happen to know which episode of The Simpson's features newscaster Kent Brockman stating that David Crosby's liver was discovered living in Scranton, PA? I know its a wierd question, but I'm putting it here with a small hope that someone knows what I'm talking about. --Chris 02:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Our article on Scranton narrows it down to "a 1994 episode" (Scranton, Pennsylvania#Scranton in popular culture), but doesn't give the episode title. You could try looking at the capsule episode summaries in The Simpsons season 5 and The Simpsons season 6 to see if anything triggers your memory. Crosby appeared as himself in Season 5's "Homer's Barbershop Quartet", but that episode aired at the beginning of the season, in 1993. Of course, it could be that the dating of the line to 1994 is an error. JamesMLane t c 13:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Crosby is in two episodes that I'm aware off. Homer's Barbershop Quartet and Marge In Chains. I watched both episodes and cannot find the reference. I'm trying to find this because I read it in the Scranton article, and I am a student of the U. of Scranton. I'll keep looking. --Chris 14:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons Archive maintains a mailing list. [2] If no one here can help you, perhaps you could join that list and post this question. If you find an answer, you could edit the Scranton article to link to the precise episode. JamesMLane t c 15:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's the best thing to do. Thanks.--Chris 17:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

reganomics/thatcherism

In compiling context notes on 'Bladerunner', I was wondering how Reganomics and Thatcherism was an influence on the underclass working poor? thankyou in advance

Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

Have you looked at the articles Reaganomics and Thatcherism? Briefly, my guess is that proponents of these policies would say that everyone, including the poor, was better off because of the general prosperity and economic boom they brought, while their detractors would say that they increased disparities of income and reduced social justice. Or did you mean another (non-economic) type of influence? Sandstein 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

photograph based on El Greco's Fabula

El Greco did a painting known as Fábula or fable, an allegory with a boy lighting a candle in the company of an ape and a fool. [3] I saw somewhere on a poster a photograph which I suppose was somehow based on this painting. It was a photograph of a monkey lighting a candle. There was no boy and no fool. The caption read "el greco to goya", which seems to be the title of a book [4]. Does anyone know the photograph? Is it from the book? -lethe ^{talk +} 07:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The book is a history of Spanish painting from 1561 to 1828, so I doubt very much that there is a photograph of a monkey in it. David Sneek 10:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Grwyne Fawr Reservoir

Can anyone find any information at all on the construction of the above named reservoir in the Black Mountains, Wales UK? I've tried searching the web myself but maybe i'm asking the wrong questions (ie. When was it built? by whom? what's it made of? etc.) And maybe i'm just looking in all the wrong places...

M. Marshall.

It's a bit of a myth that you can ask questions of the web to find stuff. Really you need to think in terms of the words you would find on a page that answered the question. I searched Google for

"Grwyne Fawr Reservoir" construction

including the quotes, so I only found the phrase rather than the odd words, plus "construction" anywhere. One of the first hits tells us that there is even a book written about the 18 year project. Notinasnaid 09:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of got the idea that there was a book written on the subject from my searches. What I was looking for was information on- line, which seems to be in short supply. Thanks for your help anyway.

M.Marshall

You're not reading Notinasnaid clearly. He was helpfully teaching you how to successfully use Google and noting that the pages he found even included references to a book. Those pages also contain the information you're looking for. Because I'm in a very generous mood, hereare some links you could have got simply by cut and pasting Notinasnaid's suggested search query into Google. --Bth 15:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being in a "very generous mood". My error was to limit my search to google.co.uk rather than google.com. Thank you again. You are "very generous". And thanks again to Notinasnaid for being helpful.

M.Marshall.

Voting rights to women. Issued recently.

Which Gulf country recently issued voting rights to women in perhaps 2005? Please mention your source of answer. Can you also give me a report on this. --Siddhant 10:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an unsolicited answer that is tangentially related. In Iran, boys and girls who are 15 years old can vote.Patchouli 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was Kuwait. The source of my answer is the article Elections in Kuwait. David Sneek 10:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the answer. You have mentioned the article but it is too big. Can you name the section, please? --Siddhant 11:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A quick search within the page for "women" using your browser's search function would have found it for you in the very first section, "Suffrage". --Bth 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

But it mentions that --"Kuwaiti women have not yet voted in an election." Than what about your answer being correct. Perhaps you can give me an external link. --Siddhant 11:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction here. Women have been given the vote in Kuwait, but they haven't been able to use it yet because there hasn't been an election there since it was passed. When there is, they'll be able to vote in it. (To satisfy your desire for an external link, here's a Radio Netherlands article.) --Bth 11:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read the link and it is perfect. I suggest that the information in the link should be added to Wikipedia. It will enrich the encyclopedia. Inform me when it is done. --61.1.18.61 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

US Code Sections Unique?

Are the sections of the United States Code unique? For example, is it enough for me to just write "USC, Section 1030?" Or do I need to write "Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, USC, Section 1030?" More specifically,

1. Are there other titles with the same section number?
2. Is it possible to just say "Section 1030 of the United States federal government laws?" That is, do the section number of the US Code differ from the section numbers of the C.F.R.?

If you have any more insight on the idea of sections as it is related to law, then please elucidate.Patchouli 11:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer you read the text "How to ask a question"--last point at the top of this page.

--Siddhant 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a legal question in the sense of "do I have a case to sue X" etc., it's a usage question. Each title has its own section numbering, so yes, strictly you need to specify, and your specific example phrasing "Sectino 1030 of the United States federal government laws" doesn't make much sense. However, the Title 18 computers-and-fraud Section 1030 is famous enough that "Section 1030" by itself is a common shorthand for it. --Bth 11:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to specify, but only title and section, not the part and chapter. You also asked about CFR, which is different. The United States Code assembles laws (statutes) passed by Congress. The Code of Federal Regulations has the regulations adopted by various government agencies. JamesMLane t c 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• At the federal level, are there any other set of laws other than the USC and C.F.R?Patchouli 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the beginning, "5 USC 2091" or "20 CFR 1093" should be all you need, providing the people you are writing for are familiar with legal citation. Regarding the second question, the USC and CFR make up most of what we think of as federal laws, but there are also executive orders, internal department rules and guidelines. Also, you may have to think about statutes passed by Congress but not yet codified in the U.S. Code (which you can refer to as P.L. 109-103 or whatever) and regs that have appeared the the Federal Register but aren't yet in the CFR. -- Mwalcoff 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition

I just found out that prohibition was enacted, not just with the passing of a law, but with an actual constitutional amendment. Why was this? Was it because that they feared the Supreme Court would find some sort of protection in the constitution for alcohol, or was it because the court would strike it down because of the whole federalist thing (ie. the tenth amendment)? Or was it something entirely different? Oskar 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First, they wanted it to be national. They didn't want one state wet and another dry. Second, the product was not ruled illegal for any health reasons, and therefore there was no way to legislate against it, so no law could have worked. Third, this was before federal regulatory powers had grown to what they are now, so, without something like the DEA or EPA or Department of Health, there was no body that could have had oversight of alcohol. Therefore, they needed a constitutional amendment as a form of establishing national law in contravention of the constitution's provisions of free enterprise. Geogre 16:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to consider whether modern commerce clause interpretations would tend to permit a nationwide proscription of the manufacture or sale of alcohol (that is, absent the Eighteenth Amendment, might the Volstead Act be constitutional?). A similar question is whether the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments are necessary in view of the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that, absent any relevant federal law, were a challenge to be essayed to a bar of voting rights on the grounds of gender or race today, a court would, in consideration of the Fourteenth Amendment and irrespective of the Fifteenth or Nineteenth Amendments, uphold such challenge and strike down the voting scheme as contrary to the Fourteenth. Such questions help us to see how constitutional interpretation has evolved (or, as some would put it, devolved) over the past 100-plus years. Joe 17:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Some have argued that the current federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is unconstitutional for the very reason that unlike prohibition, it prohibits certain drugs (marijuana, for example), through federal statute alone rather than through a constitutional ammendment. The argument seems to have been decided by the courts in favour of the constitutionality of the CSA, but the debate is an interesting one and is discussed at length on the talk page of that particular Act. Loomis51 23:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

History of California question #1

quest Please describe California's four regions and its natural resources.

Who where the first Californians to arrive in CA?

Can you please give me one of the tribes that would have existed during that time and if possible please briefly describe their way of life?

Try the article on California first. Then come back if you still need someone else to do your homework. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also <pedant> the first Californians to arrive in CA would have been ones who left there and then returned, since they wouldn't have been Californians until they'd been there a while. Unless of course, by CA you mean Canada... </pedant> Grutness...wha? 07:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1 - North California, South California, East California &, wait for it, West California. Natural resources are sand, sun, cacti & coyotes.

2 - The first Californians to arrive in California would be the ones who decided to name it California.

3 - During that time the Yanomamo tribe would have existed, not in California though. AllanHainey 07:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually finding information on California Indians on Wikipedia is not all that easy: California Indians, Indians of California, Tribes of California, Native Americans in California. We have two very short paragraphs in the prehistory section of History of California, a two-thirds blue-linked list of tribes in the California section of Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas but with no text (the Category:California tribes has only a fraction of those), and a good map and a couple sentences in the Greenland, Canada & USA section of Indigenous languages of the Americas. That's all I found. Rmhermen 17:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Laws in California, USA

What are California's equivalents for the USC and C.F.R? I searched for "California Code" and found nothing in Wikipedia.Patchouli 15:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

At the most general level, it seems to be referred to as "California Law", comprising the state constitution, various codes, and statutes. This website from the California state government offers a searchable database of the various codes. --Bth 15:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a little confusing, because California appears to have 29 separate "codes" (all searchable at the page mentioned above) of statutes rather than a single code like the U.S. Code. The regulations are in the California Code of Regulations, available here. -- Mwalcoff 01:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Community,City, and Town rights vs. constitution rights

Hello, Am having trouble finding information regarding our community/city rights. I need to compare them to our consitutional rights. Want I need help on, is finding a site, or if anyone knows, our rights in our city. Thanks you for any information.

Your question is not very clear to me, but under the U.S. system, cities are completely the creatures of the states -- each individual state passes what laws it thinks best regarding the legal status of cities. AnonMoos 17:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos is right. Specifically, a city is actually a corporation. If you want to know the "bylaws" of your particular city then you should go to your city's city hall and ask for them. These would be your city's "rules and regulations" as passed by city council. However, as a city, your city has no constitutional rights, and by extension, whatever is contained in your city's bylaws can be changed at the whim of the state/province within which it is located. Perhaps if your question specified which city/state/country you're refering to, and what "constitutional" rights you're speaking of, we can be of better help. Loomis51 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Folk music font?

Can anyone suggest a font that they feel represents folk music? I'm doing the program for a folk festival, and need some suggestions. -- Zanimum 17:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How about one of those fonts that look like tree branches (crude wood)? You can probably find one online to download if it isnt in your collection. alteripse 22:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From State to Federal

My qestion is how would someone get an issue from a state to a federal level if anyone has any information on this it would be greatly appreciated thank you.

Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

As a technical legal matter, that quite depends on what federal republic you are in. Generally, write to the federal member of parliament that represents you, or to other persons of influence at the federal level, e.g. members of the government or media representatives, and ask them to do something about whatever concerns you. At least, that's the civic-minded way to go about this... Sandstein 19:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your quetion is very vague, it doesn't mention what country you're talking about, and what you mean by "issue". In any case, in federations (not all federal states are republics!), as a general rule, "issues," if I understand what you mean by that that you're referring to heads of power, are meant to be divided between the state/provincial level and the federal level, with as little overlap as possible. So as a preliminary answer to your question, under normal circumstances, getting an "issue" from a state to a federal level is, in theory at least, supposed to be impossible.

Take, for example, the issue of crime in the United States. According to the US constitution, criminal law is a state issue. However, there do exist certain federal crimes, but these are meant to be exceptional. In any case, as a general example, if someone is murdered in one particular state, that state has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and has ultimate authority in trying the accused. Under most circumstances, you simply can't make it into a federal "issue". But again, there are exceptions. I'll stop here, because without further information, such as, once again, what country you're talking about, and what you mean by "issue", it's simply imposible to give you any sort of informed answer. Loomis51 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Desk copies

How do I order a desk copy for future adoption?

Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

You want to adopt a what? Sandstein 19:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

He seems to think that the Wikipedia site is an advertisement for a book... AnonMoos 02:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There are people working on putting together a so-called Wikipedia 1.0. It's a long-term project, though, so the questioner shouldn't hold his breath. And in particular, the exact method of publication is yet to be decided so ordering "desk copies" isn't going to be possible for a long time to come. --Bth 08:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0 has been in the works since 2003 at least. If it materializes, it'll probably be the Featured Articles and maybe a few others, if print. If not print, it'll probably be on DVD-ROM. If it does materialize, I want a free copy. (I also want a hot fudge sundae for lunch.) Geogre 15:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hate Crimes

I recently heard an excellent argument that laws against hate crimes are punishment for improper thoughts. I think the logic was irrefutable. Here is an example: In the evening, a businessman leaves his office. He is well-dressed and carrying a briefcase. He is set upon by several thugs, who steal his money, watch and briefcase, then beat him to death. Obviously, first-degree murder deserving of the most severe punishment under the law. A few days later, it comes out that this businessman was a homosexual. Was that a hate crime? What if the thugs did not know he was gay, but just saw a promising target? What if they knew the man, knew he was gay, but attacked him just for his valuables? Now let's suppose a bystander heard the attack. She heard the killers yelling taunts and obscenities, but could not make out most of what they were saying. Does the anger of the killers make this a hate crime? What if the witness says that she heard the thugs yelling anti-gay epithets - a hate crime? What if she says she heard the thugs yelling anti-French epithets - a hate crime?(yes,he was of French lineage). The point is, punishment for a hate crime of murder is more severe than punishment for a simple murder. Therefore, the added punishment is for the improper thought - hating someone, not just coldly killing them. Can anyone disagree? Can anyone say that the government should punish improper thoughts?

Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

I am not familiar with the U.S. hate crimes issue and this is not a political discussion forum, but governments frequently do punish "improper thoughts" if they are made manifest in some objectionable way. See e.g. libel, slander, pornography, censorship and more generally the category of aggravating circumstances for a crime, which can include motives like greed. Sandstein 19:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Every legal system of which I am aware (and I strongly suspect, every legal system) varies the punishment for crimes according to the motive of the criminal. Punishments for killing someone for fun are generally more severe than punishments for killing someone in anger. Hate crime legislation is simply a codification of this process in one particular area. One can debate whether this codification is helpful, but arguing that it's something new and unusual will not get you far. Henry^Flower 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that hate is not only a thought. It really drives you to acts such as killin' someone. Those are made more reprehensible than just love of easy money : which shows that the law protects us and not only our money. --DLL 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that public lynchings disrupt society to a greater extent that garden-variety murders and as such are viewed more unfavorably by the judge. Dr Zak 23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, by this argument governments publish improper thoughts every day. The only difference between manslaughter and murder is the thought in the mind of the perpetrator. Improper intent is (ideally, though actually only in theory) necessary in order for an action to be criminal. - Nunh-huh 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nunh-huh is right on track. The argument was clearly not made by a lawyer, as any lawyer will tell you that for ANY crime to be committed (at least in western criminal justice systems), there must be (at the very least) two fundamental components: the actus reus (the criminal act) as well as the mens rea (the criminal mental state (i.e. the criminal "thought")). In other words, ALL crimes, to be crimes, MUST, by definition, involve "improper thoughts". Loomis51 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

...heres my take, using your example. if they attacked him just for the money, then their motive is clear, almost rational. the poor french, gay business man was in the wrong place and the wrong time. if however, they attacked him BECAUSE he was gay or french then their motive is a whole lot more sinister. attacking someone beacuase they're gay is surely no different in principal to the anti-semistism in germany in the 30's, to name but one of countless examples. its surely right then that motive is taken into account when punishing a crime —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.20.253 (talk • contribs) .

I recommend reading David Neiwert, who covers right wing extremism in America in his blog Orcinus. He frequently discusses the subject of hate crimes, as in this post, where he quotes Matt Singer: "The real answer is that hate crimes laws don't punish individuals for their thoughts. They punish individuals for acting on their thoughts in unacceptable ways, by targeting a community for violence." You can search for more of his articles on the subject of hate crimes and thoughts through google.[5] -- noosphere 09:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Exchange

We all know about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I heard that in the early 1970's there was an exchane of nuclear wepaons between the USSR and China around the Mongolia region during their border conflict. Is there any truth to this? If so, where can I find information about the subject?

Who did you hear this from? It's certainly untrue, as governments and other organisations all over the world would have noticed the effects of a nuclear war taking place. It seems unlikely that they would all have conspired to cover it up. (Unless of course they were being controlled by the Illuminati). Henry^Flower 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It didn't happen. There have been no purposeful nuclear exchanges since 1945. (There were a few accidents in which nuclear weapons were dropped on other countries, but did not detonate in full explosions.) --Fastfission 20:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

islam

Is Islam the only religion with separate branches or sects

You already asked this question, and the answer was "obviously not". Every religion (possible exceptions... Scientology?) has separate braches or sects. —Keenan Pepper 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

See the earlier discussion: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#School of thought — QuantumEleven 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientology doesn't have any branches??? I see a plan:

1. Create a branch of Scientology.

2. Get a bunch of weird Hollywood types to join.

3. ???

4. Profit!

Yes. That should work. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They'd sue you for copyright and trademark infringement. Scientology's not just a religion, it's a business! --Fastfission 01:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Underpants Scientology? - Nunh-huh 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientology has many breakaway sects, most of which are lumped together into the Free Zone. Since the CoS would like to create the impression that Scientology is "unified", the Free Zone is relentlessly hounded and coerced. Nevertheless, it continues to exist. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So I was right, all religions have sects. —Keenan Pepper 01:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dictator Quotations

I am looking for quotations (if they exist) for certain historical rulers. Specifically Vlad Dracula, Ivan the Terrible and Caligula. If you know of any sources for quotations from these figures or any other bloodthirsty dictators please help. Thank you very much for your time. ------kVox

Try looking these characters up on WikiQuote.

Thanks! I didn't know about Wikiquote. I found a couple Caligula quotes, but nothing else. If anyone knows of anything Vlad Dracula or Ivan the Terrible said or is alleged to have said I woud be very grateful... --kVox

Dracula is a fictional character so you might want to read the book Dracula by Bram Stoker for any quotes. AllanHainey 07:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Vlad III Dracula (aka Vlad the Impaler or Vlad Tepes) was a real historical figure, though. Can't find any quotes from him though. --Bth 08:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You can get further information about him and also some anecdotes from this link Vlad Tepes The Impaler

Any quotation from him not from something he wrote himself is likely apocryphal, though. The guy has too much mythology around him. (Since the same goes for the other's it's presumably why this is being asked in the first place). --BluePlatypus 03:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am definitely referring to the real Vlad III Dracula, thanks for your help. I would be happy to hear quotes from ANY historical figure that has been perceived as a blood thirsty tyrant. Thanks... --KVox 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Try Napoleon. --DLL 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If all you're looking for is quotes from figures "been perceived as a blood thirsty tyrants", then go to WikiQuote and start typing in names like Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, "Papa Doc" Duvalier... If you wan't ones of the level of Caligula, then try Queen Ranavalona as well. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sometimes deocracy has to be a little bloody"

-Augustus Pinochet

That's just a variation, Wikiquote didn't have the original.

Thanks everyone!!! --KVox 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

May 4

Which Civilization Is Older?

Who existed on the earth first, Caucasians or East Indians (from India)?

Thanks,

Vikram

• Well, "Caucasian" is not really a "civilization". If you look at our page on Civilization#Early_civilizations, it should give you an idea of what is currently known about early civilizations. --Fastfission 01:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Indus River civilization is among the oldest known, up there with the ancient Egyptians and the Mesopotamians, when the Indoeuropeans were still in the stone age. Note that most of the people living in northern India today are also Indoeuropeans, and so have the same forebears. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the false title, and thank you for your answer. --Vikram

Physical Outline Map of Europe

Hello. I need help finding a digital verison of a map of Europe, without borders, which I can print and practice with. Thanks, --Vikram

Try Commons:Europe, Commons:Category:Maps_of_Europe or Commons:Category:Maps of the European Union which may have what you need. Sandstein 04:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for leading me in the right direction, but I can't seem to find a map of Europe without the borders. --Vikram

I occasionally use the Online Map Creator for making quick maps - you can select things like projection, area, and which features (borders, cities...) should be included. It's not too shabby, it's online and it's free to use. There is also a more advanced (but still in beta) system at planiglobe.com. — QuantumEleven 06:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

There are many sexual orientations in the world:heterosexuality,homosexuality,bisexuality, and asexuality.Well, if one doesn't like or is not happy with one's own sexual orientation(as if that person is a homosexual who wants to become heterosexual, or a heterosexual who who wants to become asexual) then what should that person do about it?

Read choice and sexual orientation and some of the linked articles. This is an enormously controversial area, partly because many conservative religious groups make an a priori assumption that sexual orientation is a choice and that homosexuality is a bad one. But there is some evidence to suggest that for many people homosexuality is a very strong, deep-seated preference that, even if not genetic, emerges very early in life. Think of it this way: assuming that you're happily heterosexual, how difficult do you think it would be to become exclusively homosexual? --Robert Merkel 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to provide a POV balance, there's also a number of theologians, philosophers, scientists (albeit a minority), historians and others that would disagree with some of the above assertations. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Humans are complex creates, and we've only scratched the surface in figuring ourselves out :) --Robert Merkel 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is probably no such thing as "human nature." Nearly anything you can attribute to it, someone will defy (meaning human "essence" -- a thing that all humans must have in their minds/souls to be humans). However, I can say this: I never recall having any temptation to homosexuality, and therefore I never had to make a choice. Therefore, I cannot take any credit for being heterosexual. I have difficulty, therefore, in ascribing blame to someone who is homosexual. There is, of course, a big difference between desire and action, but the desire appears to be what matters in the moral debate. Geogre 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends, Geogre. The range of attitudes I've encountered includes:

• It's ok to have homosexual feelings and it's ok to act on them.
• It's ok to have homosexual feelings, but not to act on them.
• It's not ok to have homosexual feelings, and you have to do all you can to change the way you are.
• It's not ok to have homosexual feelings, but as long as you keep it your own dirty little secret, nobody will ever know, so we'll just say no more about it, eh. JackofOz 03:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. What has been interesting to me is that people who otherwise emphasize the intent suddenly switch to the deed, and those normally interested in the deed switch over to the intent. For example, the official line on homosexuality in the Roman Catholic seminary is that celibacy is the important thing, not the type of sex one is celibate from (or at least it was -- I'm not sure if the recent papal bulls are changing this). On the other hand, radical protestants, who have traditionally been caught between penalizing the desire and the act, seem to have much less concern over whether or not a person acts upon the desire, for the desire itself is horrific. This is much less clear in their discussions of male homosexuality than of female homosexuality. In the US, the hoi poloi are probably not concerned with either the desire or the act: they are concerned with the seeming. If a person "acts gay," they are gay, whether they have any same-sex attraction or same-sex action. Geogre 12:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Witness the recent ruling about practising homosexuals not being permitted to train for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Once men join the seminary, they're supposed to be celibate full stop, and whatever sex life (if any) they had beforehand becomes irrelevant. It's the most absurd rubbish to think that straight men can any more easily just turn off or cease to act on their sexual desires than gay men can. Which is why blind eyes have long been turned when it comes to priests having mistresses - (and don't get me started on paedophilia). All this policy does is to exclude gay men who are open about their sex life, but not those whose activities are clandestine. It just perpetuates the culture of secrecy and breathtaking hypocrisy that have been there forever. JackofOz 22:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If I recall, the reasoning is that since all good Catholics are supposed to not act on homosexual desires (the act being the problem, not the feeling), how can you say you're serious about being a Catholic priest if you are a practicing homosexual? You are failing to abide by the rules of the church that are there for everyone. And really, heterosexual candidates shouldn't be sexually active either. In both cases, they may have been in the past, but should have been making an effort to overcome their sexual desires before applying, otherwise why would they think they can do it for the rest of their lives? Not necessarily agreeing here, just saying that you have to look at the internal logic. Skittle 11:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you say you're serious about being a Catholic priest if you are sexually active outside of marriage? That's the real moral question. Whether it's straight sex or gay sex is an absolute irrelevance because any sex outside of marriage is supposed to be gravely sinful. Most people have strongly competing desires, but in the case of seminarians the desires of the spirit must become stronger than the desires of the flesh. No man would seriously bother taking the first step to becoming a priest if he knew in his heart of hearts he just couldn't honour a lifetime vow of celibacy. Any sexually active man would have to have a very strong reason for wanting to put that part of their life aside forever. The discrimination issue is that the church now says that straight men who were previously sexually active can be trusted to honour their celibacy vow, but gay men who were previously sexually active are somehow intrinsically incapable. That's the internal logic that's being demonstrated here, and I don't think much of it. JackofOz 12:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"How can you say you're serious about being a Catholic priest if you are sexually active outside of marriage?" That was sort of my point. And I think it does allow them if they have stopped being sexually active for some time. That is, there is an assumption that people can change and not be judged by what they did a long time ago, but that a while has to pass in this case to be sure. However, I do think it's silly that they make such a fuss over homosexual sex specifically in their proclamations. 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're in agreement then. I was picking up a difference in the attitude you were expressing - with gays it was a stern "how can you say you're serious about being a Catholic priest if you are a practicing homosexual", but with straights it was the little more laid-back "really, heterosexual candidates shouldn't be sexually active either". Also you're now describing as "silly" something that I would prefer to call "outrageous and unjustifiable". Maybe one's sense of justice in these matters has something to do with which side of the fence you're on.  :--) JackofOz 13:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe I was employing a little understatement in an attempt to lighten the tone, clearly forgetting the lack of facial expressions and tone of voice in text :-) And by 'silly' I was trying to convey that really they are making poor marketing decisions by advertising the restriction on one side more than the other, when really in practice (and, I think, dogmatically) it is pretty even both ways. It's 'silly' because they're not even thinking properly. I tend to remove fence-panels and sit where they were. Skittle 20:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Drawings of court proceedings

I was reading the article on Zacarias Moussaoui's sentencing, when I noticed something: In an American (and perhaps other countries too) court, I have never seen any photographs taken while the court is in session, is that always the case? If so, why is that? And is that why someone (who?) draws a picture of the proceedings (such as the picture in the BBC article I linked to) - for what purpose? Thanks in advance for any help on this - I'm curious! — QuantumEleven 06:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about America (though I'd presume its the same) but in Britain it is illegal to take photographs of a trial in process. I'd suspect the reason is because people are innocent until proved guilty & to show photos of them in court could reflect badly on them, lower peoples opinion of them & make people think their guilty. Also if photos were allowed in courtrooms it could lead to witnesses being identified & make reprisals for testifying easier. The use of sketch artists is basically just a way to get around the photo ban (though I don't believe they sketch witnesses whose identity needs to be protected). AllanHainey 07:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just realised you asked who too, the sketch artist is employed by news organisations (usually TV) who want to have some pictures to show. AllanHainey 07:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that US federal trials (like this one) work under the same rules as Britain, but state courts are often televised (the OJ trial, for instance). --Bth 08:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Does Judge Judy's court have any real legal status? Hard to tell from the article. JackofOz 09:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, though the people on it sign waivers agreeing that her judgement is binding. It seems to be essentially a form of arbitration dressed up with courtroom superficialities and taking place in public on television. Because if you've got an embarrassing personal situation, the way to make it better is to tell the entire country about it. (The article used to be clearer; User:Nails3jesus0's only edit ever was to remove a reference to other courts as "real" on the grounds that Judge Judy's court is not dissimilar to real small claims courts.) --Bth 10:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm always amused by TV reports that show the court room drawings, but pixilated, so we can't identify who the drawing is of anyway. Adambrowne666 11:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! — QuantumEleven 06:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In United States Federal Courts, the presence of cameras/video is up to the presiding judge, as the presiding judge controls the court proceedings.

Oldest women alive today in Britain

Does anyone please know who is the oldest woman alive today in Britain? Thank you.

Up until March 1 of this year, it was Edith "Judy" Ingamells. It doesn't look like there are any supercentenarians currently alive in the UK, though, and I can't find any lists for people between the ages of 100 and 110. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

But Edith Ingermells is no longer alive TODAY. The question is "who is the oldest woman alive TODAY in Britain?"

Hence my qualification "Up until March 1", and my explanation that information on living people between the ages of 100 and 110 is difficult to obtain. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that we should expect to be able to find this out. Who would release such information? Doesn't it breach the privacy rights of the individuals concerned, if done without consent? What if they didn't consent (or weren't considered mentally competent to make informed consent)? Notinasnaid 10:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There's enough interest in this from news media (and particularly the Guinness Book of Records) that people tend to know, though I suppose a particularly reclusive oldest-person could avoid the limelight. But registers of births and deaths are public record. Using them it would be trivial but immensely time-consuming to find the oldest living person who had been born in a region with good public records. The media however tend to tell us about them when they die or celebrate a particularly milestone-y birthday so Google doesn't tend to show up current ones so much as the recently-deceased. The oldest woman living in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records is Maria Esther de Capovilla of Ecuador; if she was a Brit we'd automatically have the answer but as it is we'll have to keep searching. --Bth 11:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Interest or not, it is still an issue of privacy. I felt sorry for a women I saw on CNN a while back. Her family threw her a 100th birthday and CNN was there to cover the whole thing. When they asked her what she thought, she said that she was upset because she had been telling her boyfriend she was only 90. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Land Revenue in India.

I have three queries regarding to Land Revenue in India:

1. What is the origin and history of Land Revenue in India? 2. What are the diffrent state laws relating to Land Revenue in India? 3. Is Land Revenue prevelant all over the world? --Siddhant 07:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Try here and some of the other links at the side, though beware of POV as it's from a website about a new computerised system for doing it.
2. Sorry, no idea.
3. It seems to be a form of property tax, which is common worldwide. --Bth 08:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You Bth. The first link was extremely useful. If some one has answer to the 2nd and the 3rd answer please answer. --Siddhant 13:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wives of Biblical Adam

I have done countless searches and have only discovered one. Lilith, Adams first wife. The adam I am refering to is the Adam from Adam and Eve. I was told that he supposedly had two wives before Eve. If anyone could help me figure out who the second wife is I would greatly appreciate it.

Erm... your research seems to have turned up some strange results. According to the Bible (not that the Bible is the only reference book in this case, but it's probably the most well-known), Adam had only one wife, Eve (imagine the upheaval if Adam, the patriarch of all patriarchs, had been married more than once without his previous wife dying! Either divorce or polygamy! Aarrgh! ;) ). Where the "Lilith as Adam's first wife" story comes from, see Lilith#Lilith as Adam's first wife - the story is somewhat apocryphal. However, as we're dealing with mythology here, the question of "did Adam have a wife before Eve" can, by definition, never be settled. You may be interested in our comprehensive article on Adam and Eve, it should answer many of your questions. — QuantumEleven 08:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, the Adam and Eve article includes this between-Lilith-and-Eve wife, in the "Later Abrahamic traditions" section: apparently the story is that God didn't put Adam to sleep before creating her, and having seen how she was made Adam was too disgusted to go near her. This story is attributed by the article to The Alphabet of Ben Sira, a Midrash from early medieval times. --Bth 08:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict - Bth got there before I did!) Some further reading turned up the source of your "two wives before Eve" story - The Alphabet of Ben-Sira, a medieval manuscript. According to Adam and Eve#Jewish traditions (about a page down), this manuscript mentions the two wives of Adam, but doesn't give a name to the second (the reasoning being that one account in Genesis says Eve was created from Adam, while the other says humans were created (implying at the same time). Some scholars interpreted as saying there were humans created other than Adam and Eve...). This is a nice example of the trouble one can get into if one relies on a text which has been passed down orally, translated, retranslated, split apart, mashed back together, combined with other texts, and translated a few more times. — QuantumEleven 08:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time. It was a big help

Gallipoli Campaign

The two questions i need help with are:

How did the Gallipoli Campaign come to an end (accurately)

Why did the campaign become so significant for Australians.

The impact these developments had on Australians and Australian Society.

≈≈≈≈

1. See Battle of Gallipoli and August Offensive.
2. See Landing at Anzac Cove and ANZAC Day. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mussolini and the Italian Jews

Is it true that Mussolini did infact start to persecute the Jews and established racial segregation? If it is true, could I please have a source. Thanks.Skittles7841 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This topic came up in Italian politics a couple years ago. There's an article on CNN about it here. Summary: Mussolini and his fascist party did not round up Jews, put them in concentration camps, or kill them. However, they did assist the Germans with locations of the Jews and supplies for building and maintaining their camps. How much of that is fact and how much is revisionist history is up for debate. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I should have also pointed out that Mussolini's fascist party was very brutal and killed the opposition. Many Jews were part of the opposition, but it is a rationalization to claim that Mussolini killed them because they were Jewish. He killed them because they opposed him. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is pure speculation on my part, and far be it from me to stand up for a brutal, murderous dictator like Mussolini who was probably, in any event an anti-Semite, but the facts of WWII would seem to imply that Mussolini's fascism was its own independent breed, and shared very little if anything in common with Hitler's racially based Nazism. The two madmen were merely allies of convenience, and indeed, before the war began Hitler had to take several deliberate steps to get Mussolini onside, and even then, their respective outlooks on the war and what it was about must have diverged heavily. Otherwise, it would be extremely difficult to understand why Mussolini, the leader of what Hitler would no doubt describe as a nation of swarthy, lazy, non-Aryan and therefore sub-human people, would buy into Hitler's racial theories of the dominance and superiority of the German-Aryan "master race". Loomis51 22:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mussolini was an anti-semite. So was Franco, so was Horthy. Both Hungary and Italy had, from the late 30's anti-semitic legislation. (See, e.g.: it:Leggi razziali fasciste, in Italian). As Kainaw points out, there's a revisionist tendency to try to whitewash these guys from all antisemitism - a blatant lie. But it's also overly broad to say they were full-out participants in the Holocaust. Italy did not send their Jews to the death camps until Mussolini was de facto deposed in the Saló Republic, the same went for Hungary where Horthy was booted in an SS-backed coup by the Arrowed-Cross. Fascism is not inextricably linked with antisemitism, though. No other facist regimes (antisemtic or not) ever "bought into" Hitler's racial theories. The alliances were not built on that, but on fascist ideology and megalomania. (although Franco was perhaps not so megalomanial, which is why he stayed out of the war) Also, the Nazis were themselves prepared to abandon their racial theories when convenient to do so. --BluePlatypus 03:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism was not a major element of pre-war Italian Fascism, largely because there were so few Jews in Italy at the time. The early Fascisti were preoccupied with forging a "third way" between Communism and Capitalism, neither of which they associated closely with Jews (until such an association was inherited from the Nazis). By the late thirties, Anti-Semitism had become a tenet of Italian Fascism — a secondary tenet, borrowed from the Nazis, but a tenet nonetheless. The Fascists valued the vitality and cohesion of the state above all else, and as soon as the Jews appeared to threaten that vitality and cohesion, they became enemies of the state. But Nazi-style racism was never a fundamental tenet of Italian Fascism, and had the Axis not been established, Anti-Semitism might never have appeared in Mussolini's Italy. Indeed, there were some prominent Jews in the early Fascist movement, most notably Mussolini's longtime mistress Margherita Sarfatti, a wealthy socialite and journalist who actively contributed to the development of the Fascist ideology. She didn't leave Italy until 1938, just as Mussolini was incorporating Anti-Semitism into his platform. Bhumiya (said/done) 05:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil War The United States in 1800

Why does the flag of the Confederate States of America have 13 stars when there are only 11 states in the Confederacy?

Did you consider looking at flags of the Confederate States of America? --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, why does the questioner make reference to the year 1800? Loomis51 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect he means 1800s. Henry^Flower 22:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Confederates considered Missouri and Kentucky legitament parts of the Confederacy. However these states had a pro union government. Pro confederates organized state governments and exile and where reconized as part of the confederacy.

What happened to Mouschi?

According to the play Diary of Anne Frank, the beloved cat Mouschi somehow ran away from the secret annex. My class is reading the play with me and we are all wondering if it was foul play on someone's part, since some didn't like the cat. Any ideas if it was an accident or intended? Is anything known about what happened to it after it left, if it made it back home or someone took it in? Not a big concern, but my class would like knowing, since we know so much about the people involved.

Did you read the book ? It might be more accurate than the play. --DLL 21:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

According to this, Hermine Gies looked after her after the raid.--nodutschke 13:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

@DLL: How would looking at the diary of Anne Frank answer this question? I mean, it is a diary and it ends before Anne was captured, so there is no way that one would find anything about the whereabouts of the cat after Anne was gone, right?--nodutschke 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Much thanks to all helping me! Great site and a noble effort. ~~ubercreatrix (first time poster)

Swiss watches and chocolates

Can anyone tell me what makes the Swiss watches and chocolates so special? And why are they so famous? thanks

Advertising and product recognition. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For a good starting place to learn about why swiss watchmakers are so famous, take a look at Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, Rolex, Audemars Piguet and my favorite Ulysse Nardin. (The rolex article is the only good article but check out the offical websites too.) --Chapuisat 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For watches, see also COSC. Their chocolate is not special. --Shantavira 06:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Logic

I guess this question should be on the math section maybe, but anyway... 'is truth a tautology'? I have read the tautology article but found nothing to clear this question for me.--Cosmic girl 20:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

According to our truth article, truth is a naked dame. More seriously, in logic a tautology is a statement that is unconditionally true: "All men are mortal, or not." Since most of us hold some non-tautological statements to be true (e.g. "all men are mortal"), I think the answer to your question is no. David Sneek 21:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question, and I think you've asked the it in the right section. I don't think "truth" would qulify as a tautology. But I suspect there's a lot more to your question, and it would be helpful if you provided the context, as well as a more detailed definition of what you mean when you say "truth". In any case, from what I understand a tautology is more of a classification of a particular type of logical argument. For example, the statement "truth is truth" would better fit the description of a tautology. Another thing is that you may be confusing what is logically valid with what is true. The two are not necessarily the same. For example, the statement "little green men from Mars = little green men from Mars" is a tautology, regardless of the fact that "little green men from Mars" (probably!) don't exist. But I feel that don't have the full context of the question, and that perhaps my explanation may be lacking in certain areas, so I open the question up to others who may be able to provide a clearer answer. Loomis51 21:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A tautology says what it says. Truth says more : that the opposite is untrustworthy. --DLL 21:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. thnx. but hey, truth says what it says also, otherwise it'd be false, that's why I say truth is a tautology since, little truths can contrast themselves objectively with the 'outside', but for example, any absolute, can not...so it's subjective, so, according to my weird line of thought, it's a tautology, but I may be missing something, so correct me if you see the mistake. --Cosmic girl 15:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are using the word "tautology" in a metaphorical way, if not poetic manner, as the standard use of it is in application to a statement which has two parts, where basically one part doesn't add anything of much significance to the other part and can even be a reiteration of it using different words to say exactly the same thing. Thus the statement "truth is not a lie" is a tautology. Truth is not a tautology: it is a noun. Tyrenius 09:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another way of looking at tautologies is that they're true by definition. For example, "all unmarried men are bachelors," would be considered a tautology since it's true by definition. Thus, one could argue that "truth" is true by definition, and can therefore be considered a tautology. Of course, that assumes that "truth" exists, can have a truth value, and its truth value is "true". -- noosphere 09:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

see! that's exactly what I meant! thanx Noosphere!, truth is true by definition, or else it isn't... so it's a tautology. :| .lol . --Cosmic girl 14:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ASSIGNMENT

WHAT SHOULD I DO MY ENGLISH SPEECH ON

On latin americas socialist crisis.--Cosmic girl 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On why writing only in capital letters is extremely annoying. Loomis51 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On what writer is a combination of Jorge Luis Borges and Mark Twain. — QuantumEleven 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On a keyboard that can type in lower case. -- Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Or on a dream you have. Or the endangered pastatutes and what steps we must do for their survival. Get some ideas from existing speaches: wikisource:Wikisource:Speeches or commons:Category:Speeches. – b_jonas 23:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A dais. MeltBanana 00:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The pros and cons of suitly emphazing. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 02:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How Walter Shandy was correct and whatever name a person has does determine that person's future personality. Use various "Herberts" and "Margarets" for examples. Compare them to "Johns" and "Beths." Geogre 12:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On why Carthage must be destroyed. AllanHainey 15:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On me ;) , lol...hey! I'm an interesting subject!.--Cosmic girl 00:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What it is like to be someone of your age and generation, your fears and hopes, your thoughts on the world, and particularly how you see this contrasting with your parents' generation. You've already done all the research. Tyrenius 09:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• You should do it on something you sufficently understandable to easily write a speech about!
• You should write something about something which intrests you so you enjoy it!
• You should should also right about something sufficently appropriate for your grade level. For example espessally if your prehigh school age, you not write about anything relating to sex.

Ever popular topics are: "What I want to do when I get older", "My Summer Vacation", "My Life Story", "My opinion on movies", "Why students should get paid to go to school". Go Ahead, have fun...yo mama--[UMT 12,04]

John Keneth Galbraith

In July or August 1971 Galbraith wrote an article that appeared in a Pasadena Ca. news paper in which he said " Women who marry beneath their station in life ARE INVARIABLY CARTED OFF TO SOME GOD-FORSAKEN PLACE LIKE GALLUP, NEW MEXICO AND NEVER HEARD FROM AGAIN ". My wife definitely married beneath her station in life and was stuffing our nine children into our second hand Studebaker to join me in Gallup, NM where I would be studying to become a permanent deacon in the Catholic Church. If you could help me in locating the article, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Deacon Bill Starrs, Clarkdale AZ Ph. [removed, please check back here for responses].

What country has never been in a civil war, or had a threat of aggression.

What country has never been in a civil war, or had a threat of aggression. Any new country that as been formed recently, consider the history of the geographical area.

This is a homework project that my 9th grader came home with yesterday. We spent all last evening trying to figure this one out and find a referance to of support.

Can someone lead us in the right direction for help?

Thanks

<email removed>

Robert

Well, "never been in a civil war" (in the strict sense) includes lots of countries and probably a majority in the world. Countries may have varying levels of civil conflict, protest, and even separatist movements, but not actually experience a civil war. A civil war is in part defined as a country in which at least two armed groups/organizations can claim a basic "monopoly of violence" over different areas. A bomb in a market place is not necessarily a civil war (and many countries have those now and again); a country in which there are provinces in which the (supposed) central gov't cannot operate may indicate a civil war, by contrast.

(Never) "had a threat of aggression" is very difficult. I think you could argue that it is impossible to be a country in this world and have had no threat of aggression. My first thought is Micronesia--perhaps you could find one country in there that would fit your criteria. But no "threat of aggression" for the globe at large may be fanciful. One way to look at it this is: European colonialism covered virtually the entire globe with very few exceptions (Thailand and Antarctica...). Thus, at least within the last four centuries everybody has been threatened with at least that form of aggression. Marskell 22:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, as you state I find this homework assignment has too many varablies. Many which you have mentioned. The teacher did tell my daughter that Antarctica wasn't the correct answer. Any more input will be thankful.

Are you being set-up ;)? A question like this, particularly the last part ("no threat of aggression"), likely doesn't have a "correct" answer. Marskell 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Was there suposed to be one "correct" answer? If so, my guess would be Vatican City. To my knowledge, the Vatican, at least in modern times, has never had anything that can be described as a civil war, and has never been the subject of a threat of agression. Loomis51 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Although its predecessor, the Papal States, certainly did. How about Costa Rica? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the Bahamas? Barbados? Belize? Fiji? New Zealand? Singapor? Zambia? Great, Now I so confused, just trying to help my daughter with her homework and look what I've got into. Thanks for ya'lls input. Mike

The Caribbean is out. During the early European occupation, those countries were formed, reformed, overtaken, formed again, overtaken... then the slaves revolted and eventually things calmed down to what we have today. You may look into Bermuda. It isn't in the Caribbean.

New Zealand's out too - see New Zealand Wars Lisiate 00:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to that one, Lisiate. Bermuda had an abortive coup back in the 1980s, ISTR, and Fiji's been on the brink of civil war several times since the early 1990s. Zambia's probably out, too, though it is one of Africa's more stable countries. Iceland, maybe? Grutness...wha? 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Those don't sound like proper Civil Wars though. A coup is a coup, pretty much. All those countries have been subject to Colonialism though. Iceland too, just earlier than most. :) --BluePlatypus 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. Civil War is somewhat subjective, but under most definitions there are plenty of countries who've never had a Civil War by their own definitions. I'm not sure at all what is meant by "Threat of aggression"? Do you mean threatening other nations with aggression, or being threatened? And to what extent? I think it's safe to say every country has been threatened with aggression either through conventional or colonial expansion. For a European country, Sweden is somewhat unusual in never having had a Civil War (in the sense of armed factions controlling territories) or been occupied by a foreign power (somewhat disputable, but I'll not get into that). They were, however, both the agent and patient of foreign aggression almost constantly for three centuries. --BluePlatypus 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the things about a civil war is that there are many states created by a civil war. Therefore, those states have never (yet) had a civil war. Only by misunderstanding "nation" and "region" can we disallow, for example, South Korea from the list. Similarly, a failed revolution is a civil war, while a successful civil war is a revolution. Again, the distinctions only work if you consider a region as a nation. Has Mexico had a civil war? Well, was Mexico's formation a civil war? Further, threats of aggression are meaningless. I can threaten to go to war against Baffin Island right now, but it's not a credible threat. A threat becomes a real threat only when an army is mobilized and an intent announced or confessed. Have any nations threatened the US? Well....sort of. Have any threatened Canada? Well, that depends on whether Canada was a nation during the War of 1812 or part of "England." You see what I mean: the more you think about the question, the fuzzier it gets. Geogre 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

May 5

NATO Summit 2006

If the Nato 2006 summit is to be held in Latvia towards the end, why am I hearing about something having to do with a NATO summit in Vilnius? — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusion? I once saw an intriguing graffiti reading "Riga is Latvian!" (as if that was contested?). I always imagined it was spray-painted by some frustrated Balt who was tired of folk confusing them. Anyway, the November NATO summit is going to be in Riga. Which is in Latvia. :) There's currently a conference in Lithuania, which is a summit of sorts, but not an official NATO summit. --BluePlatypus 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's probably what I was confusing. It was just that I saw the conference in Vilnius on the Russian News Channel that we get, and was like "what?!" Thanks for the answer :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Law of Returns

Define Laws Of Returns

Why not look it up in your textbook? Dismas|^(talk) 04:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We have an article on law of return. --Shantavira 06:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Alphabet of Ben-Sira

The article on The Alphabet of Ben-Sira quotes Lilith as saying the following:

"'Leave me!' she said. 'I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days.'

The article on Lilith says:

A Hebrew tradition exists in which an amulet is inscribed with the names of three angels and placed around the neck of newborn boys in order to protect them from the lilin until their circumcision.

So, since circumcisions are normally done about 7-8 days after birth and this matches the figure mentioned above, is there a similar rite/tradition/whatever that female babies go through after 20 days? Or was there at one time which has gone out of vogue over time? Dismas|^(talk) 05:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(This is all from Google; I have no expertise in this area but given the intersection between the Internet and Jewish minutiae someone somewhere will.) Girls don't seem to have as much ritual attached to them, so different traditions have evolved in different ways. On Wikipedia, zeved habat explains various customs, but none of them seem to be done at specifically twenty days. This page at about.com lists fourteen different times after birth for naming girls that have been used in various times and places, none of which is twenty days. So it looks like not. (Also note that other sources for the Lilith-is-out-to-kill-your-baby legend have it that she can only get boys within the first night of their life, so it doesn't necessarily tie up with circumcision that closely.) --Bth 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

director of a pvt ltd company

can a director of a pvt ltd company can start his own business under his proprietory Anilsana 06:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

By "pvt ltd", do you mean "private, limited"? And do you mean a second business, apart from the one he is currently a director of, or was that referring to the start-up? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 10:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you mean in the UK or the US or Canada or Australia...assuming it to be Anglophone at all? Geogre 12:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite the almost completely incomprehensible way this question was phrased, if the the question was: Generally in western economic systems, do the laws of corporate governance allow a director of one limited corporation to start a business of his or her own, the answer would be, generally speaking again, YES (unless you can thing of some conflict of interest issues that would arise). But then again, as I said, its very likely that I have no idea what the questioner is asking. Loomis51 00:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid

The notorious system had created unimaginable consequence, yet i wonder if it brings along any positive impacts to the world.

positive impacts to the world,...... nope, sorry I can't think of anything that apartheid did that made a positive impact on the world. People affected or living in South Africa during this period did the best they could and some went on and made a impact on the world. --Jcw69 08:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It provided a rich source for prizewinning literature. Nadine Gordimer and John Maxwell Coetzee both won Nobel prizes for novels based on the apartheid era. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Playing advocatus diaboli here... Boer autocracy did prevent the establishment of the sort of "socialist" dictatorial kleptocracy that characterised the Africa of the de-colonisation era (and often still does). This sort of government might otherwise have been difficult to avoid at the time, and, while hardly less unpleasant than Apartheid, it would certainly have left South Africa far less advanced and prosperous once it gained democracy. Apartheid would thus be a sort of lesser evil, if you will. Sandstein 15:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That was the argument put forward by the South African government at the time, and it was echoed by Richard Nixon, who put a premium on S. Africa as a bulwark against Communism. In fact, the anti-Communist line was the justification for ignoring everything about S. Africa. I shouldn't say that that was a good, though. At most, it would be a different sort of evil, but I'm not sure it's even that. After all, the South African Defense Force was also used, in the name of anti-Communism, to intervene in other nations, so the single element supposed to excuse apartheid (anti-communism and a strong military) was also an evil in interventionism. Geogre 15:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been argued that Apartheid rule was harsh enough to keep the crime rate low and the labor force working. After Apartheid, crime (especially the murder rate) increased drastically as well as unemployment. The counter-argument is that at the end of the Apartheid, the murder and unemployment rate were already rising. In 2004, the South African govt refuted those statistics by showing that the murder/unemployment rates were not as high as estimated. Interpol refuted that report with one of their own reporting double the murder rate. Also, there is the lingering argument that crime and unemployment were underreported during Apartheid. But, if you want to believe that Apartheid kept the crime and unemployment rates low, that would be one positive influence of the government. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid is one of the few cases I can think of of a bad system being phased out peacefully due in large part to nonviolent international pressure. This may have had some deterrent effect. Okay, I'm grasping at straws. --ByeByeBaby 19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It gave Nelson Mandela the context in which his nobility and strength of character could serve as an example to the world. Tyrenius 09:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

Please can you let me know what the name of the last album made by Freddie Mercury is called.

Many Thansk

Barcelona, in 1998. A quick glance at Freddie Mercury would've pulled this up in less than the time it took to add your question here, so try checking things like that out first. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 10:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Abolishing the armed forces

(sorry for the earlier post, this ought to be here, not at Misc)
I was browsing through Wikipedia and came across Costa Rica and list of countries without armed forces. This got me thinking - the countries on the latter list are, with one or two exceptions, either very small states whose defence is assured by a neighbour (eg Andorra), or have historically rarely had armed forces (several Caribbean islands). Have any larger countries (say, Germany) ever considered abolishing their armed forces and only having a civilian police force? Its defence would be provided under the NATO treaty (although, I'm sure that it would, by the same treaty, be obliged to come to the defence of another member... so that might not work), and they have no engaged in offensive warfare for a while. I suppose peacekeeping in third countries would suffer - but, on the upside, the money that goes into maintaining the armed forces could be channeled elsewhere. The threat of invasion of a western country is negligible (although, it could be argued, that's because they have both their own army and the world's largest toyshop backing them up). Has this sort of move ever been considered by some of the more major players in the world? — QuantumEleven 11:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

While neither a "major player in the world" nor a NATO member, Switzerland did hold a popular referendum over the abolition of its then 600'000-strong militia army in November 1989. GSoA, a left-wing group, had collected the 100'000 signatures needed for a referendum on a constitutional amendment in 1986. While only 36 percent of voters did in fact vote for abolishing the army, this was seen, at the time, as an absolutely shocking amount of opposition to one of the country's most respected institutions (although the then-in-progress fall of the Berlin Wall probably played a part as well). The Swiss Army has since been progressively reduced to around 180'000 soldiers. Sandstein 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On the merits, I would argue that there can be no such thing as a state without an armed force, as a matter of definition. Without an army, an air force and (as the case may be) a navy, a government cannot comprehensively enforce its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, which is an an essential attribute of statehood itself. Without an armed force, there is no state, just a bunch of people and buildings waiting to be collected by the next band of hairy guys with weapons (a very common feature in history). Sandstein 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that under your deifnition even many states with armed forces are not technically "states" since their armed forces would likely pose no great difficulty in other states gaining sovereignty over them. Sovereignty and political autonomy are more complicated than guys with guns, though guys with guns are certainly part of the equation. --Fastfission 15:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And 'armed force' in this sense is a term of art: it means 'army/navy/air force', not just 'group of people with some kind of weapon'. I'm sure that at least some of the police in Costa Rica, for example, have weapons of some kind. Henry^Flower 15:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that it's not a black-or-white issue - having a large, well-equipped police may help somewhat. But there's a difference in not being able to repel 10 armoured divisions rolling over your border, and not being able to deal with even some dozen AK-47-wielding armed men who decide they're going to take over your capital as their private fiefdom. Can you see donut-munching police officers going up against even your typical brand of RPG-blasting warlord henchman, now a dime a dozen in Africa? Sandstein 16:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A country without armed forces may very well maintain it's monopoly on use of force (which is a very primitive definition of 'state', BTW). Iceland has no army and the idea that they'd call upon the armed forces of some foreign power to put down a popular uprising is pretty much incomprehensible. The idea of an armed uprising there is pretty much incomprehensible as well. There are a good number of countries which have never had a Civil War or domestic terrorism, and as such have never required a military force to maintain civil order. So that is just a bogus theory. --BluePlatypus 15:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead actor playing himself.

Can anyone one think of any films where a lead or supporting actor (not just a cameo) played himself/herself? (later edit - not interested in documentaries) On my list at the moment I have:

• Audie Murphy in To Hell and Back
• M. E. Clifton James in I Was Monty's Double
• John Malkovich in Being John Malkovich
  • Jooler 12:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Brad Pitt is supposed to star as himself and a guy who looks just like him in Chad Schmidt after he finishes filming Oceans 13. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Goldblum recently played a character called Jeff Goldblum, but he claims he wasn't playing himself - whatever that might mean. It's called Pittsburgh. Rmhermen 15:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not uncommon. Think old TV comedy series - Dick van Dyke, Bob Newhart and the like often played characters eponymously without those characters being themselves. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Julia Roberts played a character impersonating herself in Ocean's Twelve. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Odna, a classic of early Soviet cinema, features a main character called Yelena Kuzmina, played by the actress Yelena Kuzmina. Like Goldblum, however, she was not really playing 'herself'- the character in the film was a teacher, not an actor. Henry^Flower 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Pancho Villa? He played himself in movies about himself. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You could also include pretty much every single gonzo documentary film/pornographic film. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Several people play themselves in United 93. The FAA officials and military people. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe William Shatner played himself in an (obviously) very central role in at least one movie which centred around the trekkie phenomenon. Loomis51 00:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean documentaries. I'm talking about drama or at least docudrama. Jooler 01:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

United 93 is not a documentary. It's a fictionalized dramatic film. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Search for the character name "Himself" or "Herself" in IMDB. This produces a huge list that includes film stars and other celebrities appearing on TV game shows and documentaries. It's like looking for needles in haystacks, but your answer will be there and it would probably take less than an hour. One I did see before giving up was Bud Abbott playing himself in a 1940s movie. Could you report back when you get the full list, I'm interested in knowing. JackofOz 01:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Robert Altman film The Player, there were a bunch of actors playing themselves. Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis among them, but lots more. It's about a Hollywood movie executive. All the main characters are stars playing fictional personas, but there are bunchs of stars playing themselves as well. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Similar things happen in Coffee and Cigarettes. Peter Falk and Nick Cave both appear as themselves in Wim Wenders' Wings of Desire. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of these (apart from possibly Pancho Villa) fall into the same category as the first three above. I said no cameos. As for looking for himself on IMDB I thought of that, but firstly it's too boringto go throught it and secondly you'll note that Audie Murphy and John Malkovich are listed by name. Arguably Being John Malkovich doesn't count in quite the same way as the first two as John Malkovich's character was called John Horatio Malkovich and Horatio is not his real middle name. Jooler

I'm going to harp back to United 93. Ben Sliney, the chief of FAA for the East Coast on 9/11, actually may have the largest role in the film. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And I'm going to harp back to Peter Falk in Wings of Desire - not the largest role in the film, but far more than just a cameo. Failing that, The Beatles appeared as (a fictionalised version of) themselves in both Help! and A Hard Day's Night. Grutness...wha? 13:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In many television shows the lead actor plays a character who is essentially him, based upon his life with the same name as the character.

Seinfied. Everyone loves Ray Arguably I love lucy - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.72 (talk • contribs)

Yeah they do. That's not what I'm asking about. But thank you for stating the bleedin' obvious anyway. Jooler 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mendi

Are there any other naval warships, other than the SAS Isaac Dyobha, who are named after a cleric? --Jcw69 15:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm no naval historian, but it seems safe to assume that a great many ships of historical Catholic and Orthodox Christian naval powers were named after saints, many of whom, in turn, were Christian clerics (and often martyrs). No such appear to be used in the present Hellenic Navy, though. Sandstein 19:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Depends what Navy. Navies of countries where religous leaders play a important political role or did so in the past likely have this. Iran I am sure has a vessel named after the ayattolla and Ireland I am sure has a SS saint patrick.

Indirectly the USS San Francisco. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

what is certeris paribus

Hi In a correction of my paper my professor wrote at the end certeris paribus. I am talking about logistic regression, but the terms seems out of content, unless he means"holding everything else constant"

So, just in general terms what exactly does certeris paribus mean? thanks, Olh.

Just about what you said! "All else being equal." It's actually spelled ceteris paribus, and we have a lengthy article about it. FreplySpang (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

gasoline prices

Without a biast answer from Bush haters, or Bush promoters, what is the main reason for high gasoline prices?

Probably no one outside of the industry knows. What we can know is what the various sides say is responsible. The main factors cited are instability in the Persian Gulf, the nationalizing of the oil industry in Venezuela, and the disruption of supplies in the Gulf of Mexico in the US after Hurricane Katrina. Each of those factors can be easily debunked, but those are the factors offered. On the other side, people suspect collusion and blame oligopoly and lack of reinvestment. A third side argues that prices are up due to increased demand from China, although that, too, is very easy to debunk (the Chinese didn't decide they wanted oil all in the course of 3 months). So, no one knows whether legitimate disruptions caused speculation and price gouging, collusion resulted in a planned shortage, or actual market pressures have suddenly and drmatically driven up prices. In any case, the president of the US would have very little to do with it now, except for exercising or failing to exercise the ability to investigate collusion. (If a President could affect oil prices directly, Nixon, Ford, and Carter would have done so when the US suffered through stagflation.) Geogre 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Supply and demand. Supply has not increased (in fact it periodically decreased). There is theat that Iran will cause a decrease in supply. Demand has increased. The U.S. has really stepped up demand with a continuing fad for driving larger and less gas efficient vehicles. Other countries, like China, have also drastically increased demand. It is normal to point your finger at one man (like Bush), but the numbers are very clear. If demand keeps going up and supply stays the same (or decreases), prices go up.

Compound that simple fact with the oil company practice of raising prices when there is a foreseen problem, but then not lowering them when the problem goes away and you can see how prices are stairstepping up. When there is a good excuse (Hurricane Katrina), they go up $2. Then, they go down $1 to appease the masses. Then, there's another excuse (Iran) and they go up $2 again. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in checking out the data from this graph. Adjusted for inflation, the jump in price really hasn't really been that bad. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind, though, that increasing fuel prices can drive inflation. If the price of fuel increases, the price of delivered goods on which the Consumer Price Index (and other indices) are based will increase as well.DavidGC 12:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

One other point - yes, oil producers and refiners have indeed been making very good profits at the moment. There's been confected outrage from some quarters about this, but IMO there's nothing wrong with this. It's exactly how the market is supposed to work, because high profits will encourage more producers to enter the market and increase the supply, or provide alternatives. And there are plenty of alternatives out there that, with the high oil price, start to become financially viable; they include making oil from natural gas, or coal, oil shale, tar sands, and even biofuels. Finally, higher prices also tend to drive demand down, as people seek alternatives. --Robert Merkel 23:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is based to a large extent on supply (from oil producers) and demand (from oil and oil product consumers) - but it is the open-market which drives the price - and those who trade in oil, including those who create demand in the commodity market (including investors), might not be the consumer of the oil. There are speculative investors that may cause a huge (several dollars per barrel) spike in the price of oil, even though the supply (from oil producers) and demand (from consumers) has not changed at all. That is why fear of political instability alone (which MIGHT lead to a change in supply from a certain country) can lead to a real change in the price of oil, even though the actual supply of oil (from producers) and the demand (from actual consumers) did not change at all. Such a change in price, however, would come about from a change in demand, but that demand is really the demand of those seeking to purchase oil contracts (often including investors), not necessarily those seeking to consumer the oil and oil products.

what are the five most popular photos.....

what are the five most popular photos of the civil rights movement around the world?

this has got to be near the top, if not #1. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

While it isn't just one photo, MLK's "I have a dream speech" photos are high in the list. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Bah, beaten to both. Those are definitely the two that immediately sprang to mind. I'd suppose that the Olympic Black Power salute got a fair amount of attention, though it's mostly a forgotten footnote now. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Rosa Parks on the bus in Montgomery? --LarryMac 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a photo of Rosa Parks on the bus? I've seen photos of her being arrested, but nowhere near the bus. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the one in Elizabeth Eckford is quite famous (or is it because it got a lot of coverage recently ?) Btw, I looked at Civil Rights Movement and Category:Civil rights to get a list of the events that would fall under it, but neither includes Tianenmen square (, or anything else from the recent past). Tintin (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Look under "Chinese Cultural Revolution" in Civil Rights Movement. It describes the events at Tienanmen Square. Also, I feel that the article is rather narrow. It gives the appearance that civil rights movements only took place in the 60's. It even claims that they only took place during one generation. That is an absurd notion. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil Rights to lefties like me does mean America and Northern Ireland in the 60's and 70's only. The other stuff (99%) would be Human Rights.

Old Music

Is it true that the song Opus 17 by the Four Seasons, circa 1965, uses the music of a work composed by J.S. Bach 300 years ago? What is the name of the original piece?

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

From soviet invasion of Afghanistan: "Some of the innovations incorporated into the constitution were a multi-party political system, freedom of expression, and an Islamic legal system presided over by an independent judiciary". Afghanistan was an atheist state from 1978 to 1992! Vess

There is that vague period from 1986-1992 where Mohammad Najibullah tried to make the Islamic majority happy by relaxing the strict anti-religion laws. Perhaps he instituted a more Islamic legal system. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

These were largely window dressing, most communist countries and dictatorships promiss free speech, freedom of religion free expression. Many also have the appearance of multiparties. In fact the in practice the citizens are not given such rights. Innadtion no real opposition parties are allowed, to exist. If the parites leaders are agents of the government who always support the ruleing party line!

What do we call the scary thing(s) in horror fiction?

I was editing Rats and needed to refer to James Herbert's novels about mutant rats. What is the name for the function things like those mutant rats serve in horror stories? Some horror stories have obvious "villains" (e.g. Dracula). In other horror stories (particularly psychological horror) the scary thing (or things) are not in any sense a person - e.g. the dark water in Dark Water (just going on the trailer, I haven't seen this film) and the rats in Herbert - so it seems stramge to call it (or them) "the villain(s)". Perhaps a better way of asking might be: is there a particular label for the premise of a piece of horror fiction? Stroika 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Conceit" is one word that can be used in the general sense of your question. "He deploys the "best friend as villian" conceit in this film, familiar from X's work." "Trope", which specifically refers to figures of speech, is often expanded ("the rat trope", wouldn't sound that crazy). And there is of course "device", with suitable adjectives before: "Rats are a typical horror device..." It sounds like you may have a particular word for the horror genre in mind, but words like this, generally borrowed from Lit analysis, work just as well for film. Marskell 22:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you: trope, premise or conceit would do but you are right I was looking for a word particularly for use about horror. I plumped for "monsters" in the end. I thought there might be a term like MacGuffin particularly for horror: You can't have horror without something horrifying and I wondered if anyone had coined a name for that something. Even a facetious term would do - like Nick Lowe's Plot coupons (the characters collect them all and then send off to the author for a denouement). Stroika 09:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally I asked the same question over at WikiProject Horror (naughty naughty) and somebody there suggested the menace. Stroika 20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does the devil have horns

Does anyone know why the devil is pictured with horns? Is there some reference in the bible to the devil having horns or is it something that grew out of mythology?

Thanks for any info.

He is pictured in the Book of Revelation as, among other things, a great beast. If you'd like, I or someone else, can look up the references for you. --CTSWyneken 00:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article Satan (Wow! Wikipedia is more than just a message board!)...

"Particularly in the medieval period, Satan was often depicted as having horns and a goat's hindquarters. He has also been depicted as carrying a trident, and with a forked tail. None of these images seem to be based on Biblical materials. Rather, this image is apparently based on pagan horned gods, such as Pan and Dionysus, common to many mythologies. Neo-pagans allege that this image was chosen specifically to discredit the Horned God of ancient paganism." --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There's an interesting twist on this if you look at the Halo article and read about Moses and then look closely at the statue in the San Pietro in Vincoli article. Jooler 02:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... something wlse to research. 8-)Our article does not cite a source for this. Presumably its from the bibliography in the article. In the meantime, I've checked the association between horns and symbols for Satan. On Rev. 12:3, the Concordia Self-Study Bible (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House) at least identifies the Red Dragon with seven heads, ten horns and seven crowns as Satan. I'll leave it at that here. --CTSWyneken 11:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Jeffrey Burton Russell, who wrote more than most people would ever want to know about ideas and depictions of the devil and evil throughout history, Pan is the source, and the conflation occurred in the Middle Ages: "The son of Hermes was Pan, who was born hairy and goatlike, with horns and cloven hooves. A phallic deity like his father, he represented sexual desire, which can be both creative and destructive. The iconographic influence of Pan upon the Devil is enormous. What in the tradition made it possible for the image of Pan to be joined with that of Satan?... The root of the similarities is the association of the Devil with the cthonic fertility deities, who were rejected by the Christians as demons along with the other pagan gods and who were particularly feared because of their association with the wilderness and with sexual frenzy. Sexual passion, which suspends reason and easily leads to excess, was alien both to the rationaism of the Greeks and the asceticism of the Christians; a god of sexuality could easily be assimilated to the principle of evil. The association of the chthonic with both sex and the underworld, and hence with death, sealed the union." from page 126, The Devil: perceptions of evil from antiquity to the primitive Christians, Ithaca:Cornell, 1977. alteripse 22:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC).

Wow, thanks for the great answers.

May I briefly add just one more? Asmodeos, an evil demon, known primarily for stirring up matrimonial trouble. He was depicted as a demon with three heads, one of a bull, one of a man and one of a ram. The general concensus seems to be that horns depict some form of animal residing within the whole. My primary source was: http://www.occultopedia.com/a/asmodeos.htm Hope this helped.

May 6

Legacy of John Williams

Centuries from now will John Williams be known as one of the all-time greatest composers? Will his body of work be compared favorably with those of Mozart and Beethoven? Or will the fact that he writes music mostly for films diminish his reputation?

It's impossible to say how works will be perceived in centuries from now. Reputations of artworks and artists tend to wax and wane over the centuries; for instance Vivaldi lapsed into obscurity until the 20th century. But I don't think that the fact he writes for films will diminish his reputation per se, though it may limit its scope for live performance. But then, many of the Bugs Bunny cartoons featuring classical composers have been performed accompanied by live music; it's not hard to imagine that something similar might be done to Star Wars, for instance. --Robert Merkel 02:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, to be frank, Williams's work is not nearly highly enough regarded now for it to be likely to be that highly regarded in future. Then again, history can play tricks that way - van Gogh's art was thoroughly disliked during his lifetime.

Being "only film music" is unlikely to enter into the equation any more than Gilbert and Sullivan's work being downplayed for being "only musical comedy music", which would have been the equivalent of the time. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Danny Elfman is way better anyway. =P —Keenan Pepper 02:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparing composers with each other is a pretty futile and meaningless exercise. Each person has a different opinion, and each opinion is equally valid. Just like Mozart and Beethoven, either you personally like Williams’ music or you don't. I love much of his work, eg. his score for Schindlers List. But he’s also written some pretty ordinary stuff, just as the Mozarts and Beethovens did. Could a piece be great music if it were a symphony but not great music if used in a film? In absolute terms, no. To that extent, the genre should make no difference. Obviously films require a special relationship with their music, and film music works best when the music is crafted specifically for the film. That’s not to say that many film scores can’t be played in non-filmic contexts such as an orchestral concert, alongside Beethoven and Mozart. But the best film music can’t readily be compared with other music. I’m sure musicologists analyse Williams’ and other film composers’ music at a technical level, but ultimately there is no universal benchmark for the comparison of one composer’s music vs another’s. JackofOz 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Come off it. Throughout history there have been people writing schlock and people writing work of artistic depth. No amount of time will change the one into the other. Henry^Flower 21:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

While I very much doubt that John Williams' work will end up being regarded as an all-time great, your neat categorization of the world into "schlock" and "artistic depth" shows an ignorance of history. Many works regarded as amongst humanity's greatest works were widely popular in their time; much "worthy" work popular with elites at the time has revealed itself to be self-indulgent dross. --Robert Merkel 01:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And many works now regarded as amongst humanity's greatest works were widely unpopular in their time too. Beethoven's work was initially described as "cacophony", and Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective has hundreds of equally laughable examples. But just because general opinion about Beethoven's music is rather different these days doesn't invalidate those who were unimpressed. There are still people who are unimpressed by Beethoven (just as there are those who are unimpressed by heavy metal). Glenn Gould, who had nothing if not an educated opinion, held Mozart's piano music in such low esteem that he went to the ultra-perverse trouble of recording all his sonatas just to demonstrate how little musical worth they had. On the other hand, Mozart's music is loved by millions of people who wouldn't know a crescendo from a crotchet. Who gets to decide whether a work is rubbish or genius or something in between? It comes down to individual taste in the end, and the whole question of labelling goes out the window. JackofOz 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You both miss my pont completely. I'm not talking about popularity or unpopularity, I'm talking about artistic purpose. Mr Williams is not attempting to participate in the same field of endeavour as Beethoven, and trying to decide whether his work is 'good or bad art' is a category error- it's not art at all. Henry^Flower 10:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Naturally, you can prove that assertion. I'd be interested in your definitions of "artistic purpose" and "art".
• While he's best known as a film composer, it is not true to say he hasn't participated in the same field as Beethoven: "Williams has written many concert pieces, including a symphony, Concerto for Clarinet ..., a sinfonietta for wind ensemble, a cello concerto premiered by Yo-Yo Ma and the Boston Symphony Orchestra at Tanglewood in 1994, concertos for the flute and violin ..., tuba, and a trumpet concerto ... His bassoon concerto, The Five Sacred Trees, which was premiered by the New York Philharmonic ...." JackofOz 10:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, those are fair enough. Art is a massage for the soul; artistic purpose is the intent to do so. Henry^Flower 15:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that music written in a serious genre like a symphony or a concerto is acceptable as art, but music written for film is rejected out of hand? Just trying to clarify your position here.  :--) JackofOz 13:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that music written as art is in a different category from music written as pure entertainment (art can be entertaining, and entertainment can be art, but there's no necessary relationship between the one and the other). Musicologists understand this: even with composers who have substantial reputations for art music, such as Walton and Shostakovich, they analyse their film music for the light it sheds on their art music, but they don't try to judge it as art in it own right.

An interesting question is why there is great art music written as accompaniment for ballet, but not as accompaniment for films. I suspect that it's because the element of rhythm common to music and dance means that music is naturally more of an equal partner in ballet. I see no reason why film music couldn't be written with the depth of art music, but the films would probably have to be rather different from the ones we have today. Henry^Flower 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming JackofOz is implying that composing for film can be as respected as writing a symphony... Nobuo Uematsu has toured the world with live symphony performances of his music and it was composed for video games. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm implying. David Raksin, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Bernard Herrmann, Miklos Rozsa, Virgil Thomson and, yes, John Williams, are just some of the people who've written film scores that have been turned into symphonic suites that major orchestras and major conductors regularly perform in the same programs as Beethoven/Mozart. Is it art? Depends on one's definition. Will it be remembered in centuries to come? Who knows. Is it good music? Yes. As to why "there is great art music written as accompaniment for ballet, but not as accompaniment for films", I think that starts from an assumption that not everyone would agree with. JackofOz 09:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought so. I don't presume to know what people imply since others have made a habit of presuming I've said things that were actually responses to what I said. You know what they say, when you presume, you make a "pres" out of "u" and "me". --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoffmanesque children's literature

I am trying to find the name/author of a book I read as a child; I had thought it was Dahl, but it doesn't seem to be, though it shares his black sense of humour. It was a collection of stories in rhyming couplets, about terrible children and their comeuppance, in a Struwwelpeter-esque way. One of the stories was about a bully named Quentin; there was another about a miser, and another about two girls who ate themselves obese. It was heavily illustrated, though I can't think who by (not Quentin Blake, for instance). It was probably from the 70s or 80s. I suspect the title was something along the lines of "Wicked Children" or "Terrible Juveniles" but a google search hasn't helped. Please help!

Q is for Quentin who sank in a mire; R is for Rhoda consumed by a fire". No idea - unless, of course, you mean The Gashleycrumb Tinies by the marvellous Edward Gorey. Many of his stories feature just such tales as you mention above. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for gorey as well. alteripse 21:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, but alas, it was not the wonderful Gorey. It was British, in fact--I remember a reference to Watford Gap, and blowing raspberries (Londoner rhyming slang, raspberry tart=fart) from the Whispering Gallery of St. Paul's. And the phrase "pig bin"... all of which are very English.

You may be may be a bit off in your dating. There was a British author/poet in the early 20th c, I think 1920's if not before, who this sounds a lot like. He's quite famous though I can't remember his name at all now. I think he was quite well connected with the upper classes (I think his illustrator was quite famous too), & I think some or all of his poems ended with something like, if you don't listen to nurse... end up something worse. I'll try to remember the name

I think I'm thinking of Hilaire Belloc. AllanHainey 10:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks, but no, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Belloc, but something much more recent, say post-1950s. I suspect the writer wasn't/isn't as famous as either Belloc or Gorey, frustratingly!

mmm. Ronald Searle? Grutness...wha? 01:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I loved this book as a child -- my grandparents had it and I read it often. I think it's the same one, anyway: a compilation called "Beastly Boys and Ghastly Girls," featuring (among other things) some contributions from the great Shel Silverstein. Silverstein also did a lot of "nasty kids come to miserable ends" poems in his own books as well. --MattShepherd 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an Amazon link to BB&GG: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440404673/102-5088022-5531346?v=glance&n=283155 . Hope it helps. --MattShepherd 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

ISBN 0440404673 and ISBN 0529039036 are official Wikipedia links to sources for this book. See particularly RedLightGreen and WorldCat (on the latter ISBN) to see if your local library has it (manual searches of the title there also lead to several results). --J. J. 18:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rock and Roll

What it the purpose of the incorporation of electric guitar, bass, and drums in rock and roll music? Thanks!

My guess would be that drums and a bass are needed to produce rhythm (rock and roll is very strongly rhythm-based), and an electric guitar because they were relatively new (invented around 1930) and rock and roll musicians were looking for a new 'sound' to set themselves apart from their antecedents, who tended to use acoustic guitars. See rock and roll, electric guitar, Bass (instrument) and percussion instrument for more reading. — QuantumEleven 09:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, when you were playing rythm on an ampliified electric guitar, you didn't need to pound out the chords.

Man Songs by Jose Garcia Villa

I would like to ask which website has the voluminous poem entitled man Songs by the Filipino writer, Jose Garcia Villa. I am just very interested to read it. I have been looking for it, but I have never found it until now. I hope somebody can send me a copy. Thank you very much in advance.

---

Carl Richard C. Dagalea Western Mindanao State University Zamboanga City, Philippines

This is a tough one. I've looked about with little success. The article on him is of little help either. I'll ask around and get back if I find something. --CTSWyneken 13:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll still be waiting for any updates from you. I heard the poem really became controversial during the author's time. I really do appreciate your help.

Unfortunately, neither I nor the librarians at a large public library near me could find it. We're wondering if maybe it was published in a small poetry journal or under a different title. I'll try a major university library system next. --CTSWyneken 15:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

203.131.132.66 02:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC) i'm still hoping you can find it. Carlrichard 11:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC) hello, please elp me find Man Songs of Doveglion. thanks

bermuda triangle

can any one please tell me the thing about bermuda triangle is true?

No. David Sneek 12:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This should be posted in the science section

Don't you mean the science fiction section? Tyrenius 09:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

More like Popular culture, Urban legend, UFOs. ;-) Seriously, the military and scientists have investigated it, so maybe folk on the science board will have so additional insights. --CTSWyneken 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no one knows for sure!

Whatever. What I've seen claims statistical studies report no more dissappearances there than anywhere else in hurricane country. If you wish to argue that, please review the article Bermuda Triangle and talk with the folk on that talk page. --CTSWyneken 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

When did the various states of the US disestablish their formerly established religions?

In an interesting book titled "The Right to be Wrong," the author traces the development of America's understanding of the right to religious conscience from colonial times forward. It was not a smooth transition, as the process included the mutilation and hanging of Quakers by Massachusetts Puritans, while Catholics and non-Christian believers there and elsewhere in the colonies were disenfranchised and otherwise marginalized. However, religious conscience eventually came to be viewed as a universal human right, rather than a tolerance inconsistently bestowed on citizens by their government. This new understanding effectively lifted religious conscience out of the realm of politics and placed the right to personal religious belief beyond legislative intrusion or interference. As this happened, the tradition of established religions in the states- particular denominations which received tax support from all citizens- came to an end. The states eventually all 'disestablished' their state religions. I wish the book would have provided a chart indicating the years in which this disestablishment process occurred in each state. Which state was the first to disestablish its religion, which was last, etc. Was there a group of states that held out to the bitter end when the First Amendment's 'establishment clause' was incorporated into the Fourteenth Ammendment in 1876? Thank you for very helpful advice. I have read elsewhere that Massachusetts was the last New England state to disestablish its Congregational Church in 1837, but I'd like to know the whole story on this issue, the rest of the list. My thanks to anyone who can cast some light on this question. Bruce Strathdee <e-mail removed for the protection of the poster, see the instructions at the top>

Something like the chart you might be looking for is here. --Cam 03:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo painting Title and Artist

Does anyone know the title and the artist of this painting?

http://members.tripod.com/~cuir/water.htm

Thanks

Looks like [6] by Felix Philippoteaux who is apparently not famous enough to be in wikipedia. Well not en [7]. MeltBanana 18:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You might like to compare it with another painting which has some similarities by a different artist here. Tyrenius 09:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find this fairy tale anywhere

I have looked in all the fairy tale collections I have, and I can't seem to find it- maybe you can help? I think it's called "The Fiddler" or "The Fiddle". It's about some kind of fairy or elf who disguises himself as a human fiddler to earn money. The fiddle is enchanted, so the townspeople give him all their gold. Then, the magic wears off, and the townspeople petition the King to do something about it. Then I don't remember what happens, but it's important because then the King throws the elf's fiddle in the fire, which kills the elf. What happens in the middle? Thank you very much for your time and effort. --Siobhan

St. David for our web site

I am buidling a web site for our church St. Davids Anglican Church in Delta, B.C.. I would like to use your description of St. David as a content document,. Do I have your permission to do so? Calvin Smith <e-mail removed for the protection of the poster, see the instructions at the top>

Yes, under the conditions set forth in Wikipedia:Copyrights. Sandstein 19:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Our hagiographers are getting used! Woo-hoo. (No, I didn't do St. David. I mainly do really obscure ones.) Geogre 12:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

French

Is French Guiana a part of france? Do they still control the area, and how so? Another question, are there any other areas in the world that is controled by the continental french?. Thanks :)

See French Guiana and French overseas departments and territories. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that handbooks like the CIA World Factbook or the World Almanac do not include French Guiana or the other overseas departments in the statistics shown for France (population, area, etc.). For their political status see the articles linked above. --Cam 03:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is an overseas poccesion or colony of French (Called and overseas department). It is ruled by French but day to day administration is local.

Kerguelen Island is controlled by France, I believe.

Homer Simpson with Gerald Ford and Bush

In one episode it shows Homer fighting with Bush whereas getting along well with Ford. Since I am not American I didn't get the joke (if there was any). Which were the traits of both presidents (if there were any) for one of them liking Homer and the other not?

I saw the episode. There was nothing political about it, especially since both Ford and Bush are Republicans. It was more just a joke about their respective personalities and reputations. Ford was a former football player (which of course appealed to Homer) and generally a simple mannered person, again like Homer. On the other hand Bush Sr. (I hope you realize that it was Bush Sr. and not Jr.) was less the type that Homer would appreciate. Of course this is all reputation and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality, but Bush was often portrayed as a "nerd" or a "geek", traits that Homer would not relate to at all. Loomis51 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Ford is a klutz, constantly tripping and/or hitting people with stray golf balls. Chevy Chase had lots of fun imitating this trait in Ford, which seems rather Homeric (if we could only get Ford to follow each with a "Do'oh !"). Ford is also rather short on hair and generally resembles Homer. StuRat 23:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)... Senior Bush (pun intended) and the Simpsons had a long-running feud which culminated in this episode. In a speech during his tenure as President, Bush said he wanted American people to be, "a lot more like the Waltons and a lot less like the Simpsons." Bart responded by claiming that both familes were struggling through a period of recession. Regarding Gerald Ford, Lyndon B Johnson once famously said that he "can't fart and chew gum at the same time," so in some people's eyes he would have certain similarities with Homer Jay. It could also be said that Homer looks like Ford a little. The Simpsons writers are generally seen as anti-Republican, but then again, they're not afraid to knock anyone. BTW, my favourite line from the episode is when, writing his memoirs, Bush claims that, "since in my one term of office I achieved everything I sought out to do, I had no need to be re-elected." -- Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons don't mind poking fun at Democrats, like Springfield Mayor Diamond Joe Quimby, a Kennedy clone, who sleeps with random young women, including his niece, throughout the show, and wastes money as fast as he can get his hands on it. StuRat 00:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned, Ford is probably regarded by many as the most Homer-like president in recent memory. The golf-ball thing is well known, as is falling down the Air Force One staircase when visiting Austria. Ford was also Nixon's successor, and Simpsons creator Matt Groening seems to like making Nixon jokes and references. For instance the character Milhouse gets his name from Nixon's middle-name. --BluePlatypus 01:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the writers were trying to make a point about Ford. The Bush angle probably dates to the fued between the show and the 41st president. Needing another ex-president to be the new neighbor at the end of the show, the writers had a choice of Ford, Carter and Reagan. Reagan had Alzheimer's by then, so he wouldn't work. Carter had already been mocked in a few episodes, one of which had him called "history's greatest monster." -- Mwalcoff 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The episode, Two Bad Neighbors, was not written as a political satire, but as a "meta-episode", in the words of show-runners Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein. It was essentially a parody of Dennis the Menace, and was an attempt to insert an authentic simulacrum of George H.W. Bush into Springfield. The writers insisted on the DVD commentary that it was "a personal attack, not a political attack". Obviously, this whole thing came out of the long rivalry between the Bushes and the Simpsons.

Incidentally... To hammer home the point that the episode was non-political, the writers decided Homer would end the episode by making friends with a different Republican president. What most viewers don't know is that they originally intended this president to be Richard Nixon. After his death, they rewrote the part for Ford, who was a better choice anyway (definitely more Homer-like). Bhumiya (said/done) 05:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that the episode where Bush, Sr. spanked Bart? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the episode. Bhumiya (said/done) 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another American joke in that episode is that President Bush is treated as having a Mr. Wilson like personality to Barts Dennis the Mennis.

Max Lindner, the man in the silk hat.

Max Lindner was an early film star.

What little I've been able to discover about him, in a short googling session. A great deal can be found in the reviews of "The man in the silk hat" at Amazon.com. I hope this helps.

The dashing comedian Max Linder, called The Master, had sparkling good looks and a divine sense of nonsense. He made dozens of short films, most of which have been lost.

Mr. and Mrs. Linder’s unnerving double suicide occured when he was in the middle of making a full-length Hollywood film. He and his lovely young wife were found in a bed soaked in blood. This writer, at least, finds the juxtaposition of events not a little suspicious.

Lindner was known as L’ Homme au Chapeau de Soie, "The man in the silk hat

This listing about the Max Lindner theater was found at: http://www.cinematreasures.org/theater/6875/

"One of the last district theatres "cinema de quartier" in French, this cinema was founded at the beginning of the 20th century as the Royal. In the 20s a building was erected beside and a balcony was added.

In the 80s the owner, a French movie director, Jean Gourguet, was near to selling the theatre to a supermarket. A group of young cinema lovers decided to take the management with a new manner (several films each day and thematic evenings). The most successful was an evening with the "Star Wars" trilogy.

In 1985 because the projection booth was in a corner they decided to refurbish the building. A new auditorium was added in the balcony with a cosy design and the main auditorium was turned to stadium seating with a new projection booth in the center and a wide panoramic screen. The 50s look of the theatre was preserved and stereo sound added. Behind the huge screen remained the silent movie sreen painted on the wall.

The new Escurial Panorama was very successful with first run films. Around 1987 the team sold the theatre to a independent art movie society.

The cinema was renamed the Max Linder Panorama. The first owner of this theatre Max Linder was a star of the silent movies in France

Contributed by xavier delamare"

The "Skiing History" forum says: "the film "Max et sa Belle-Mere" was made by Max Lindner at Chamonix about 1912. Some great early ski scenes.

I don't know if any of this is verifiable, but it's what I've found so far.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.4.167 (talk • contribs)

Well, that's very interesting, but do you have a question we can help you with? This is the Reference Desk, after all. Otherwise, you might want to contribute to our article Max Linder. Sandstein 04:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

May 7

How numbers were expressed in ye olde times

I understand that in, say, the 18th Century, the number that we now say as 'twenty-one' would have been expressed as 'one-and-twenty'. How, then, would they express the number 4181?

Thanks Adambrowne666 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I also know that they would say stuff like "four-score". --yoma

They would sy "four thousand one hundred and one and eighty", +/- an "and", perhaps. It's still the way numbers in other germanic languages are pronounced. --212.202.184.238 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A thousand thanks. Would they say 'four thousands' though? - I've seen the plural used. Adambrowne666 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not that ancient. My mother still says "five and twenty to" when telling the time. (Everything else is twenty-five). Jameswilson 01:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean other Germanic languages except Icelandic, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish (which also has a vigesimal system). So really just German and Dutch. --BluePlatypus 01:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vigesimal reference, Platypus - but how strict were they about using it? - did they refer to 4000 as 'twenty score'? Adambrowne666 04:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(LOl) I know zip about vigesimal counting, but it wouldn't be twenty score - that's only 400. JackofOz 07:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, in Danish they only use it up to 100. Nowadays they concurrently have a decimal system too. E.g. 50 is usually called halvtreds (short for "halvtresindstyve", "half-three-and-twenty" - 2.5x20 = 50) But can also just say "femti". A thousand is just "tusen" (Swe/Dan/Nor), Þúsund (Icelandic, Old Norse), "tausend" (Ger), "duizend" (Dutch) it's the same in all Germanic languages. Even the Gothic "þusundi". So all Germanic languages have always referred to thousands as thousands. I'm not sure where the Danish vigesimal system came from, but it's not a remnant of something older, or Icelandic would use it. Icelandic, OTOH, does have an incredibly complicated number system, because numbers up to four have declensions for gender, case and grammatical number. --BluePlatypus 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

woops - i guess i mean 'ten score score' Adambrowne666 09:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

great, thanks for that, Platypus. Adambrowne666 10:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica in a textbook

Here's a picture of a world map that I took from a geography textbook from 1941. Note: the textbook picture is actually 4 seperate pictures taken with a digital camera, and then stitched together using panorama making software. As you see, the area where it says "Atlantic Ocean" is stitched together a bit badly, but everything else is good.

File:Textbookworldmap.jpg

What I'm wondering about is Antarctica. Why is it a few different islands and then "Antarctic Ocean"?. Also, was North Graham Land part of the British Empire? Furthermore, why was it called "NORTH Graham Land". It's rather south to be called north...what was South Graham Land then? --Valuefreeperson2 01:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See British Antarctic Territory and Graham Land. Note that I've thumbnailed the image for the benefit of people with slow Internet connections. -- Mwalcoff 01:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Be aware also that cartography is a vexatious subject these days, but in 1941, they were guiltlessly positive about things. All maps tend to put "you are here" at the center, and all tend to emphasize those things that the map makers find important. Thus, Mercator's projection, which is way off and biases toward Europe, has been hard to kill, because folks in the west are interested in Europe and the Northern hemisphere. So, in 1941, a textbook would have de-emphasized the areas that "no one" lived in and emphasized the areas that were "important." Unless this was a geography textbook, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that it eliminated Antarctica. Geogre 12:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote you'd see that I wrote "...world map that I took from a geography textbook from 1941..." Still, no one's answered one of the questions. WHY is Antarctica broken up islands and an "Antarctic Ocean"? Did they just not know at the time that it was a landmass? --Valuefreeperson2 00:00 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a mapmaking choice -- they chose to show the land without the polar ice caps, while today, most world maps show the north and south polar ice caps. The land that is mapped indicates where land was actually sighted at sea level. (See: Coastal types around Antarctica) The continent in between the rocky coasts consists of ice shelves, which extend out over the open ocean, and ice walls and glaciers, where it would be pure conjecture to assume there is land underneath. They colored it blue since if they left it white or another color, they would be indicating where the coastline might be. Similarly, you can walk on the ice at the North Pole, but the north polar ice cap is not shown at all on this map either, because there is no land above sea level. We know today that if the ice were removed, most of the familiar shape of Antarctica is below sea level, so they actually made a pretty good guess at what's underneath. GUllman 00:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Industrial

hi! :), are industrial engineering and industrial psychology extremly similar occupations? ...or...:| what... --Cosmic girl 02:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at our articles about Industrial engineering and Industrial and organizational psychology? They don't look that much similar to me: the first is about industrial technology, the second about people. Sandstein 04:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I read both, and I study psychology, and I also have a friend who studies industrial engineering... but when I research about theyr work fields here in my country, they look similar to me, because industrial engineers also manage people! and industrial psychologists are in charge of 'ergonomy' something that is very similar to industrial technology to me.--Cosmic girl 14:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And you wonder why Peru is in a mess! (Joke). Seriously though, technical specialists (like engineers) often rise to managerial positions which require totally different skills. Its a problem everywhere. Jameswilson 01:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :P yeah! totally! so an engineer studies machines to end up in management where a psychologist's skills would be way more useful... lol!! and I skip all the math and thermodynamics to end up where they would if they worked really hard...lol...funny. --Cosmic girl 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You would be unlikely to end up in the same job as them. The usual paths to the job they end up in depend on building knowledge of processes, people and companies. They still need to have known the maths and thermodynamics, otherwise they couldn't have learnt about the processes or people properly. They will end up in a job managing people to get industrial things done. You will more likely end up in HR or staying as a specific 'industrial psychologist'. Their path potentially leads through the company to the top. Yours leads through different companies, if you want to keep improving. Skittle 10:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

awesome response, thank you!! :) it really cleared my question. --Cosmic girl 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They are different. Industrial psycologists study how a people function in an industrial enviorment and how to develop policies and methods that make use of peoples traits in a way which best helps industry. Industrial engineer study various scientific and manufactureing methodes as a way of having the most efficent industrial process'

R.A.F Squadron 303 - Northolt

Can anyone advise on a book or any publication regarding this Spitfire Squadron during World War 2.

Thanks Bob Brockbank

A google search on RAF squadron 303 turns up this book, we also have an article listed at No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron, which lists a couple of other books on the topic. Search first, it's generally quicker. --Robert Merkel 21:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The book "Lynne Olson & Stanley Cloud. 2003. A Question of Honor. The Kosciuszko Squadron: Forgotten Heroes of World War II. New York: Knopf". was recently greatly praised by critics in Poland, also the book by "Arkady Fiedler. 1942. Dywizjon 303. London (English translation: 1943. Squadron 303: The Polish Fighter Squadron with the RAF. New York: Roy)". is interesting but because it was written during World War 2 you can't expect it to be neutral. Mieciu K 14:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

lawsuits question, from someone who knows nothing about law.

What is it called if someone (call him Steve) wanted to file a lawsuit against someone (call him Dangherous), for example "I'm suing you for £20,000 for robbing a bank on the Isle of Man", making it up completely, just trying to get Dangherous in trouble. So lets pretend that Steve was rich and really hated Dangherous ok? So Steve and his 10 lawyers write to Dangherous and insist on going to court. But Dangherous "hasn't got the time for this shit". I assume there's some organisation that can turn around to Steve and say "No, I don't care how good your lawyers are, he's not going to court". Anyway, is there a legal term for this, and what course of action can Dangherous undertake whereby he doesn't have to pay any money (because he's poor), I hope this question makes sense. --Dangherous 10:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that, according to the info at the top of this page and the legal disclaimer, Wikipedia does not give legal advice. You should consult a lawyer for this. At any rate, the response to your question very much depends on the jurisdiction (English law? Micronesian law?) and whether this is about a civil claim ("you owe me money") or a criminal charge ("you commited a crime"), among many other things. It's either civil or criminal - you can't "sue someone for money" for robbing a bank, unless it was your own bank, and the rules for civil claims and criminal charges differ very much. Sandstein 10:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A lawyer is oath bound not to accept a case unless it has merit. What you or your lawyer should do is use a motion to dismiss for frivolousness. Actually how it would be handled would depend on why the claim is frivolous based on fact or law. If for example he sues you for robbing a bank based on the fact that you walked by the bank, upon the time of the pleading a defendant could ask for a motion dismiss. He then would tell how under the law one has to use a gun and steal from a bank walking buy does not fit the legal defenition. If the judge agrees early on he would throw out the claim. If the issue plantiff sues defendant for robbing the bank and regardless of whether Defendant really robed the bank, if what plantiff says is bank robbery is what the law says is bank robbery their would be a trial. As far as legal representation I would contanct your local bar association or law chapter society, they would be find a free or cheap lawyer BenGurion.

Vexatious litigation in civil cases; malicious prosecution in criminal cases. Henry^Flower 11:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, that's the sort of linkies I was after. Thanks. --Dangherous 11:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to bring a private prosecution for a criminal act under British law, though these are quite rare, notoriously expensive and unlikely to succeed (The case against Peter Hain is the only example I know). In general if the case had no legal merit whatsoever I suspect a judge would throw it out of court. AllanHainey 10:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

heart rate

my heartrate is usually around 68/70.after a 5/6km run what should it be.I am 59years of age and weigh 87kg.

The pulse that is relevant and can be compared is the resting pulse. After a run it could be any value depending on how hard and long you ran, and how long afterwards you took the pulse. That said, 70 doesn't sound like a particularily high pulse after exercise for your age though. --BluePlatypus 16:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• 70 was before the run BluePlatypus. I think you were thrown off by the lack of capitazation in the second sentence. That said, Wikipedia is not the place for medical advice and there's really not a single answer. Your pulse after exercize depends on your fitness level, the level of exercise you've been doing and the time you've been doing it for. It differs from person to person so there's no way we can give a single answer. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. But it's still not a resting pulse. You have to sit still for at least five minutes or so to reach that. I wouldn't say it's more a fitness question than serious medical advice. And I think that's what the questioner was after: What fitness state he was in judging from his pulse. Resting pulse is a pretty good gauge. --BluePlatypus 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Portrait of Chandrashekar Azad

Hi Wikipedia Your link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrashekar_Azad > on the life and activities of Chandrashekar Azad does not have a portrait of this Great Indian Revolutionary. Please add this to the link. Thank You Arvind

Wikipedia can only use images which are compatible with the GFDL license. If you know of any for this subject, we would love to have one. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Edison laboritories

Cleaning out an old building I found 2 records that had the Thomas Edison Laboratories label. It is not a paper label, it is engraved into the record. The records appear to have a type of serial number on them, only one of them has Thomas Edison's signature on it. I was wondering how to find the year it was recorded? Lori

Dear Lori: try the Edisonia page at the Edison National Historic Site, a location in the National Park Service system. If you can't find a way to do this online, contact them using the info at: Reference Service. Bob --CTSWyneken 23:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Lori what you have is likely worth a lot of money!

Operation Edelweiss

I want to add the full German name (Fall Edelweiß may be?) and fix Grott's surname if possible (see discussion). Thanks. --Brand спойт 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. Be bold! --CTSWyneken 23:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When were these Ancient Cities of Greece made

I am wondering when the following cities were made. Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, Argos and Delos. I can not seem to find it in your articles.

It isn't really hidden. Did you look at Athens, Greece, Sparta, Greece, Thebes, Greece... Specifically, look at the "History" sections. Many cities have a separate history article that goes into further detail about when (and how) the cities were formed. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have only found a couple of Greek City-State's day it was form.

I have been looking all over the net for some information on when Sparta, Thebes, Argos and Delos were made. There were Athens and Corinth, I found info for them but not these. So if anyone could reply for me. I have spent over 1 hour looking and only found 2. Thanks

As I answered just one question ago - this is an encycopedia. You can go to articles on the cities. They link to articles about the history of the cities. If you click on that link, you can read about the early history. If you fail to read the articles, it is your problem. For example, you won't find out when Sparta was created by simply scanning the article for a year. But, if you read the article, you will find that tradition says Dorians migrated to Sparta 80 years after the Trojan War. That is the beginning of Spartan history, but keep in mind that tradition claims the Dorians captured it, not just settled there. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Crucifix

I am wondering if anyone has more information about the history of the crucifix, and if the modern catholic image is an accurate portrayl of how Christ died. Thank you.

Have a look at the articles Crucifix and Crucifixion, and also Passion. --Canley 01:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Neutral historians elude to Jesus being executed by the terrible method a epathet associated with crusifixtion

As the Crucifixion relates, almost all historians believe that the nails in the hands went through the wrists. We have archeological evidence of this form of execution.

Christian art, including Crucifixes, are not intended to be depictions of the literal events of the Bible. They try to capture the "spiritual" meaning behind the event, as the artist sees it. --CTSWyneken 11:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Grove Dictionary of Art may provide you with some helpful information. It is the basic encylopedia of art history. You local library should give you online acess.

There are essentially two major types of crucifixs. The Triumphant Christ type depicts him alive with eyes wide open with a glorious expression. The Suffering christ type depicts him dead or rather bloody and in anguish with the eyes typically closed. The tripuphant christ is the older type and it was a fixture in Byzantine Art. The suffering christ superceeds it in France, Germany, and Italy by the Renaissance. Although, these days one can find both types in churches. It depends on whether a community wishes to ephasize Christ suffering or eventual rise from the dead.

In order to bear the weight of his body, the Nails would have punctured the wrists. The nails in the hands is a popular albeit impartical image. --midnight coffee 20:29, 8 May 2006 (EST)

May 8

Looking for two science fiction stories

I am hoping to find the names of two science fiction stories I read a long time ago.

The first was about a man who winds up eating sandwiches as part of an intelligence boosting program. It works, but then he finds out that the reason they work is that his body has been invaded by microscopic alien creatures that were in the sandwiches.

The second features a device which allows the user to experience the world as another human does. A female protagonist in the story uses the device to experience the world as a male protagonist does, and is repelled by how artificial and dead everything looks. While the man winds up going insane when he experiences the world as the woman does, because he can't handle experiencing the world as if it were alive.

Since I read these stories so long ago, I may have some details mixed up... but I'm sure that's the general gist of them. Thanks in advance for any leads. -- noosphere 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The second is almost certainly "Through other eyes" by R.A. Lafferty (not one of his best, in my opinion), originally published in the Feb. 1960 issue of Future magazine, and collected in 900 Grandmothers. AnonMoos 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the delightful Lafferty. I have 900 Grandmothers and probably read it there. Thank you! -- noosphere 06:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't already read it, I'd recommend his novel Fourth Mansions, too...

...and since the heading's already here, I'll also ask a similar question. I can remember stray snatches of an sf short story set in the distanct future, where archaeologists and sociologists have decided that World War II never happened but was cobbled together from myths and legends like Robin Hood or the tales of King Arthur (how else could you explain an evil leader whose name means "Wolf" fighting forces led by a "Hewer of iron", with national leaders having names of "True man", "George" - surely a reference to the country's patron saint - and "The Gaul"!) At first it rang Damon Knight-ish bells, but Lafferty triggered the thought because of his wonderful "What's the name of that town?" Grutness...wha? 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a similar short story in the Novermber 1966 issue of Analog ( http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?ANLGNOV66 ), but as I remember it, it was mainly devoted to debunking the Roosevelt administration as a legend (it's just too coincidental to have someone called "Hull" steering the ship of state, etc. etc.). AnonMoos 08:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This doubtless isn't what you're referring to, since it isn't even close to an SF story, but even so...

The way ancient history can be mangled by well-meaning historians was demonstrated by Otto F. Reiss in the July 1967 issue of Art and Archaeology Newsletter. In a note entitled "A Forward Look Backward," he imagines what would happen if future archaeologists interpret our stories of World War II the same way our liberal scholars interpret the Bible. Obviously World War II must have been caused by competition between two primitive technologies, since on one side we have an Eisen Hower or "Hewer of Iron," while on the other side was a Messer Schmidt, or "Forger of Daggers." France was involved, but the original name of its hero was forgotten, for he is simply called "de Gaulle," and we all know that Gaul was the ancient name of France. There would be some confusion over "Hitler" and "Himmler," which apparently are two different spellings of the same person's name. The future archaeologist's conclusion? "It adds up to the struggle between true man and death, or between good and evil. A great allegory, to be sure. But historical fact? Certainly not!"

(footnote #1 from [8]) —Zero Gravitas 07:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(Addendum: According to Google, neither this 'note' nor its author actually exist, from the total lack of results. But it is the closest thing I've found so far...)

I think I've read the first story, Grutness, many years ago. If it's the one I'm thinking of, the sandwiches were provided by an apparently benevolent alien in a plastic mansuit. As I recall, the alien turns out to be a flatworm type thing - the idea is based on the fact that if you teach one flatworm something, then feed that flatworm to one of its buddies, the second flatworm will acquire that information... I don't know the title, but I'm sure it was written by either Thomas M Disch or John Sladek. Adambrowne666 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's the story I'm looking for. The title doesn't sound familiar; the creatures were definitely microscopic, definitely not tapeworms; and I think he got the sandwitches through a mail-order advertisement, not by way of an alien in a mansuit. I might be misremembering, though, so I'll check out that story as well. Thanks. -- noosphere 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. maybe that was the story after all. Looks like Sladek wrote a story called "The Man Who Devoured Books"... a title which definitely rings a bell for me... and it was published in Introductory Psychology Through Science Fiction, which I think I have. It does start with the line, "We can give you knowledge,' said the salesman-thing." So I probably did misremember the detail about him getting the sandwiches through mail-order... or maybe it was that he got sold on them in-person, but the sandwiches then arrived in the mail. That must have been it. Well, I'll definitely read this story and see if that's the one. Thanks again! -- noosphere 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also a Sladek story called "The Transcendental Sandwich" (in the collection "The Steam-driven Boy"). Can't remember anything about it, though the title might be relevant. Grutness...wha? 05:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sladek's "The Transcendental Sandwich" and "The Man Who Devoured Books" are the same story by different names. -- noosphere 19:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Author of 1960 poem

Hey,

Could you please help me find the author of this poem? I'm not sure if it was set to music.

"We talked of hippies and flowers and rainbows and dope, Of politics and art and the structure of hope.

Strange nights and days of colours in the air, Waiting hopelessly for roses by the stair.

As the world showed its affection for those who were faking it, We got kicked out of school for spreading love and kicked out of home for making it.

This isnt the start of a new era, there isnt even a new plan, I just hope this one's a little better than the last one."

Thanks, Anand

• My guess is someone on the internet and nobody famous. Googling it turns up nothing but other references to people getting it, probably from e-mail forwards. I'm not much of a judge of poetry but it is pretty amateurish to my ear; it sounds like something a high school student would have written (the timing is way off, the rhyming is bad, and the last two lines are positively awful). Whoever wrote it had no ear for the English language. (Some of the other "answerers" suggested Timothy Leary -- it doesn't sound like anything he'd write to me, and the suggestion seems wholly unsupported.) --Fastfission 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with Fastfission. It's not a period poem, as it's looking back on the time. It's also anachronistic, because no one was talking of all that stuff in 1960, unless you mean 1960s. The Poetry Library on the South Bank (I think they're still there) and possibly the Poetry Society at 22 Betterton Street, Covent Garden, might be places to try, as the first and possibly the latter as well had a facility for tracing poems by posting up the text. There are some web sites that do something similar, though I don't have details. Tyrenius 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • I agree with Fastfission and Tyrenius. It would attempt to capture the style of the Beat poets, but so poorly as to be unthinkable as one of theirs. What is sounds a great deal more like is a song lyric. If I were dead set on finding the author, I'd look for a folk-genre (but not folk revival) song of the 1970's or 2000's. If you suspect it's actually a poem in print, the premiere search engine is the Chadwyck-Healey database. It has every poem, pretty much. It's a proprietary database, but large universities will have subscriptions. Geogre 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• • This enquiry is being made on other forums with no success. A clue is the English not US spelling of colour. It's written by someone of reasonable intelligence and education as the phrase "structure of hope" shows. It shows inventive, unorthodox amateurism (or else a professional send-up of the same). It has an "English feel" to it. I have come across the same sentiments and subject matter before. It is someone who was still at school in the heyday of hippy idealism, say 1966–70, which would make them early to mid-fifties now. I've got it—it's Tony Blair! OK, the last bit was a joke, but it's someone of around the same age. My guess is that it's by an unknown writer and maybe even a one-off poem, looking back in nostalgia. It may not be as inept as it first appears, as there seems to be a deliberate use of clumsiness to reinforce the meaning of the last line. Enjoy the mystery. Tyrenius 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You really figure? The prosody is a mess, though. From overly strict iambs to extra feet, it just seems too chaotically wrong to be deliberate. On the other hand, if it were sung, all of those problems could be corrected by the phrasing. Still just guessing, though. (Also, your speculation on authorial age would make a folk song or a quasi-folk song all the more likely. "Windmills of the Mind" and all that.) Geogre 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

This is Anand again...thank you so much for the help - though I haven't yet found the author, it was really nice of you guys to share your thoughts.

thanks again, sgd: Anand

Identification of a Cardinal

Can someone identify the person (a cardinal?) standing next to Pope Benedict in the photograph at Deus Caritas Est? Thanks, Cam 03:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He looks a bit like Angelo Cardinal Sodano to me, but I'm not sure. --Eivind^t@c 12:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is Cardinal Sodano would he not be wearing red sash and piping? That looks distinctly purple (=Archbishop) to me. Given that it is BXVI signing an encyclical (an important document) the Secretary of State (Sodano) or Prefect of CDF, Archbishop (now Cardinal) Levada would be the most likely candidates. The pectoral cross indicates a Bishop at any rate. I'd plump for Sodano apart from that pesky colour. Stroika 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

GOT IT! (I think). According to the May/June 2006 issue of Far East (the magazine of the UK province of the Columban Fathers) it is Archbishop Paul Josef Cordes, President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum. Cor Unum is responsible for the Pope's charitable activity. Charity to be understood in its widest sense: Archbp Cordes was the Pope's special envoy to the States following the Katrina disaster and according to this story he drafted section 2 of the encyclical. He was part of the three man press conference presenting it to the world in January 2006. (Google <site:nationalcatholicreporter.org Cordes encyclical> for fuller information). The clothing is certainly right - as an Archbishop - and given his close involvement it is entirely appropriate that he should be there. I am just not sure if he is the same guy as the one in other photographs I found on google image search. It could be because this is a funny angle. Stroika 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

---

'Pectoral Cross' eh? Reminds me of a joke about Jesuits. Skittle 10:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, don't leave us in suspense, tell us. JackofOz 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't that funny, but seemed hilarious because it was told by a Jesuit during a homily (sermon). Bit of a shaggy dog tale.

Sister Mary was in charge of preparing the parish children for confirmation, and she prided herself on being thorough. Every year when the bishop came to perform the confirmations he would quiz the children on their religious knowledge during his homily, in the Mass, in front of the whole parish. And Sister Mary's children always knew all the answers. These were wonder children, heavily drilled in every area she could think of. They could name all the disciples in the order Jesus met them or alphabetically if you prefered; they could reel off the seven gifts AND seven fruits of the holy spirit, and give you their doctrinal definitions. If pressed, they could even name all the books of the Bible, in order. Sister Mary worked her children for weeks, and took great pride in her record of perfect answers.

Then one year, the night before the confirmations, she had a visit from Sister Joan, the catechist in a neighbouring parish. They'd had their confirmations that day, and Sister Joan was very pale. The bishop had a new question. He'd picked out little Eric (confirmation name:Theodore) and asked him "What is a pectoral cross?". Of course, he hadn't known and the bishop had smiled, secure in the knowledge that he had beaten Sister Joan. Sister Mary was very sympathetic, at the same time subtly implying that her children would have known. But they wouldn't.

First thing in the morning, Sister Mary gathered the children in the sacristy and redrilled them. "What is a pectoral cross?" "A cross that hangs 'round the neck of a bishop." Again and again they repeated it until they were swaying in their new shoes. Finally, they all marched out, into the body of the church, and took their places. The bishop marched up the aisle with a smug look on his face and procedded with the Mass. When he got to the homily, he looked out over the children and said, as he did every year, "Before we go any further, let's see what you've learnt in preparation for this decision." Scanning the pews, he extended his index finger in the direction of Ruth (confirmation name: Wilhelmina) as she tried to hide herself behind a hymn book, bunched into a corner. Slowly, she stood to face her fate, muttering under her breath, as they all were, "A cross that hangs 'round the neck of a bishop. A cross that hangs round the neck of a bishop." With what thunderous tones, the bishop asked his question. "What is a Jesuit?" Skittle 14:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He he. Ta. JackofOz 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ernst Jünger "Red is the color of domination and rebellion"

Would anyone be able to provide me with the work in that he makes this statement? I am writing a paper using the emotional responses of colors and their place within the book "Laughter in the Dark" by Vladimir Nabokov. I have found numerous sites referencing to this quote, and I would Love to use this quote given the origin.

Please help; it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Bob N.

I suggest you simply point out that this is generally accepted. A simple statement of a mundane fact or opinion is not usually regarded as a quotation. What makes a quotation quotable (according to our article) is that it is an "aesthetically pleasing use of language" or "express[es] some universal truth". --Shantavira 12:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Red was the color of unity in Maoist China. It is the color of joy/purity/celebration in a Chinese wedding. Perhaps you are writing strictly about European society's response to colors. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle & Alexander the Great

I have often heard that Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great.

Did Aristotle speak Macedonian, did Alexander speak Greek, or did they rely upon gestures and sign language? Could it be that Macedonian and Greek resemble each other more than English and Spanish?Patchouli 06:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's hard to say, but if I had to guess, I think Alexander spoke Greek as it was the language of the people who's literary works he would've studied. It was kind of like the academic language of the time. Like English is now. - 131.211.210.11 07:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a contentious and partly ideologically-driven debate about whether the Ancient Macedonian language was a Greek dialect, or not Greek at all, but it's clear that by Philipp's time aristocratic Macedonians frequently participated in Greek cultural and political activities, and so must have often known Greek. AnonMoos 07:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As Greek was the premiere regional language, and a universal language they probably conversed in Greek. Also for political reasons Alexander was likely expected to learn Greek. Perhaps Aristotle was hired possibly to teach him the Greek language!

Aristotle was born in Macedonia, even though he was of Greek descent, so he probably knew both languages, too. Chl 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Unknown Sculptures

Hi!
My friend took some pix at the National Art Gallery in Canberra, and I was wondering if anyone recognised them? Thanks! --Fir0002 www 07:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

The third from the left is The Burghers of Calais. That's the only one I recognize. Melchoir 08:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This article gives quite a bit of info about the NAG's sculpture garden - I'd say that those works are

1) "Hill Arches" - Henry Moore (see [9]);

2) "Cones" - Bert Flugelman (in first article cited);

3) "The Burghers of Calais" - Auguste Rodin ([10] shows another version of the same work);

4) ? - Richard Bell ([11]).

Grutness...wha? 08:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Atahualpa

Does anyone have any information on Atahuallpa, the last king of the Inca's? Thank you...

Yes, we do. It's at Atahualpa Grutness...wha? 07:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Max Reger

The back cover of the single of 'Vienna' by Ultravox includes a portrait of the composer Max Reger, with the caption "Struggled to maintain Viennese morale" (I think; I'm quoting from memory here). What aspect of Reger's life and work does this caption refer to? The Wikipedia article on Reger says nothing about him living or working in Vienna; he spent most of his life in Leipzig. --Richardrj 09:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

His early concert tours as a pianist took him to many places in Germany, as well as Vienna and Prague. Apart from that, he seems to have had no particular association with the place. Grove V makes no mention of it. JackofOz 10:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If it helps isolate the search any, the song is about the Interzone era of Vienna, during the occupation. The city was divided up into four sectors, and life for the citizens was almost impossible. Graham Greene described it in The Third Man. Therefore, I'd look for his activities in 1946 - 1948. Geogre 12:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Reger had been dead for 30 years by the time you are referring to, so I don't think this period is of relevance to my question. But thanks anyway. --Richardrj 12:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ak, I was just about to say that. Probably just means that his music cheared people up at that time. Sorry no proof of that. MeltBanana 13:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rats! Confounded by facts again. If the song isn't about the occupation era, then I really am mystified about both Midge Ure and that single. Geogre 13:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it probably is. My question was specific to the photo and caption on the back of the single's cover, which may not - indeed, almost certainly do not - have anything to do with the song itself. The band, or whoever designed the sleeve, probably put the picture of Reger and the caption underneath it in order to enhance the sense of mystery around the song. I'm just curious as to what the caption might mean in relation to Reger's life. --Richardrj 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a shot in the dark. Originally you called it a "portrait", now it's a "photo". If it's a photo of a painted portrait of Reger, I'm thinking the point of the image may not have been the subject (Reger), but whoever the artist was. Is his/her name available? JackofOz 07:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just used the word "portrait" to mean "image". I didn't mean to imply that it was a photo of a painted portrait. I don't have the sleeve to hand, but I'm pretty sure it's a photograph. --Richardrj 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, another thought. Is Reger's name actually shown? If not, is it possible you've mistaken someone else for him? JackofOz 13:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is where it gets difficult for me. I'm asking this question from memory, since I don't have the record where I live. I can't find a scan of the back cover anywhere on the net. I'm 99% sure Reger's name is given, and other pictures I've seen of him certainly look like the dude I remember seeing on the sleeve, but you're right - I can't be entirely sure. --Richardrj 13:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

secular Turkey

Can anyone tell me since when Turkey has had a ban on wearing religious symbols in schools? Do we have an article on it? And also: It's just French and Turkey who've got such a law saying you can't wear e.g. Islamic headscarfs in school. I think there's one in Québec too. --Wonderfool 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I presume since Atatürk's time (Atatürk's reforms). Look further at Laïcité. AnonMoos 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There's definitely no such ban in Quebec. In fact, in Quebec it's quite the opposite. Recently a Sikh student's right to wear a kirpan, a traditional Sikh ceremonial dagger, despite the school board's ban on all possible weapons, was upheld as being one of the stundent's constitutional fundamental freedoms of religion. Loomis51 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dollar Comparison

How much would a $100 (United States) issued in 1915 be worth in today's dollars? (2006)

Just google for "inflation conversion factor". I found two sites that claim the 1915 to 2006 conversion factor is 0.050, so that should be rather accurate. $100 / 0.050 = $2,000. Now, if you were asking how much a 1915 $100 bill is worth. It would be valued at $100, but a collector may pay more (unlikely though). That is the reason you don't stick your money under your mattress. You put it in some sort of savings/investment account. Otherwise, it dwindles in value. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We really need an article on historical monetary conversion. All conversions are suspect and general, really. I frequently have to convert from 1680's pounds to 2000 dollars, and so, being much more distant, the problems are easier to see. What folks generally do is find staple goods from a given era and compare prices. Housing is difficult, since population pressures and land availability will cause wild swings, so folks find underwear and bread and staple drinks. All of these vary with technology (agricultural revolutions drop the prices of bread, but populations catch up to make it scarce to the same degree again; textile improvements make cloth cheap, but then people start wearing finer cloth; war and famine make drink more dear, but then native supplies open or another drink is found). Beyond that, all goods swing up and down greatly. In the case of the US, we can try to compute annually reported inflation rates through the century, but I suspect that that gives a somewhat fishy result, too. We really need to know what commodity is being purchased, because some things have dropped in real price, while others are about the same (or possibly more, as I would imagine that demand for horse collars was such in 1915 that they were common, whereas now they're uncommon and more expensive). Anyway, we get the question a lot, and there's just no sure answer. (People get to publish scholarly papers when they get a good conversion from a distant era.) Geogre 15:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I use [12], [13], and some of the sites that it links to. The second one gives $1842.25 in 2005 (2006 data aren't available). Ardric47 04:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

US immigration

hi, my step-mother and now half sister are american (i'm british) - does anyone know if i can get anything fun like US residency more easily than your average joe? thanks! andrew

You should consult actual lawyers, but I suspect it'll depend upon whether you are a legal dependent or not. Geogre 18:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Immagrate illegal then take your case to either the ACLU or the NAACP. If it works for mexicans it should work for you. TomStar81 05:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The paintings of Slavko Pengov

I have seen some of Slavko Pengov's murals in the Parish Church of Bled, in Slovenia and would like to learn more about the man and his paintings. If someone could direct me to: Any books or web-sites about him, or by him (preferably in English - though this is probably asking way too much) or, Any books or sites with pictures of his works, I would be very grateful. (I have searched Amazon and the British Library catalogue without success and done simple web searches with little useful result.) Stephen

How's about trying the Slovenian Embassy as a lead to further information. What period is the artist (approx)?Tyrenius 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1908-1966. There are a few websites on him - sadly they all seem to be in Slovenian, such as [14] and [15]. Simply googling on "Slavko Pengov" finds quite a few fragments in either Slovaenian or (usually very broken) English. Grutness...wha? 08:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind suggestions - much appreciated. Stephen --86.136.17.88 16:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Crossed rifles on USMC enlisted stripes

When were crossed rifle added to United State Marine Corps enlistd stripes and what do they represent?

Marines were originally sharpshooters. That is the reason for the rifles. I don't know exact dates. Chevrons came from West Point - in the early 1800s (1815?). The Army and Marines wore them points down. Just after 1900, they were turned points up. I assume the cross rifles were not added until the points were turned up. But, that could be completely wrong. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1959, with the introduction of a whole new ranking system. Crossed rifles usually indicates infantry, and has been used as part of a sharpshooter badge. In WW1 a Gunney (USMC) already had crossed rifles (with a grenade on top) below the chevrons. --Seejyb 21:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Everlong

I have heard the introduction of EVerlong by the Foo Fighters in an orchestral version in an episode of friends but is tehre anywhere I can purchase this from because it soudned like a really good version.

thank you x

Try here. There is an album called "String Quartet Tribute to Foo Fighters" which may be the one.Stroika 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Unknown Piece of Music

I was wondering if anybody knew what this excerpt of of music is from.

And if not the name of the piece, maybe someone can identify what chord is played at about 10 seconds into it.

Thanks. schyler 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea what piece it is, but the chord is an E-flat minor, with a hint of a C natural which is a major sixth. —Keenan Pepper 04:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be Wagner. I don't think it's the Ring, so maybe Lohengrin or Parsifal? Henry^Flower 08:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me the chord. My band director didn't know off the top of his head. He did however know the piece. Its from the end of the 2nd movement of Mahler's Symphony 3. schyler 12:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

May 9

TV series -- Reliving High School

I'm trying to remember the name of a TV series but I cannot. Its premise is the main character (or characters) having the chance to travel back in time and relive high school or something to that effect. I believe it was cancelled soon after it premiered, and it had an interesting title. It aired in the past few years.

And it's not Freaks and Geeks or How I Met Your Mother! :)

--Doctorcherokee 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• There were two shows like that in 2002: That Was Then IMDb and Do Over IMDb. --Metropolitan90 02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is this tune from?

I was wondering if anyone knows what the linked snippet of music is or where it comes from? It sounds familiar to me but I can't quite place it (and yes I understand that it's unlikely someone would know it but any help at all would be fantastic). External Link to tune.wav file

The Song Tapper shows these results. You may want to try "tapping" the song yourself and see if it give you any better results. I actually removed the results that I knew were wrong; not sure about these ones and unfortunately this site makes you find the song samples yourself; it's a good place to start, though! --J. J. 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• To Sir With Love - Lulu
• Alive, Alert, Awake, Enthusiastic
• Love Rear It's Ugly Bad - Livingcolor
• Do You Love An Apple?
• Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head - BJ Thomas
• Love Song - The Cure

My! That's perky! I'd say it mostly likely isn't 'Raindrops keep falling on my head' or anything by The Cure. Other than that, sorry. It sounds like something from an old musical film, but I wouldn't bet money. Skittle 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not To Sir With Love. --LarryMac 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Art

Hi,I got 2 questions please i want a answer: 1.-Who is the most well-known Art Designer in the World? 2.-Who is the most well-known Artist in the World? Thank You for your kindness.

2)any of the TMNT guys. Leonardo DaVinci, Raphael, Michaelangelo <---(sorry, that's spelled wrong), Donatello 1)Isn't an 'art designer' the same as an artist? Well, Andy Warhol is a guy, and maybe Salvador Dali are good picks. --172.147.33.50 01:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This depends a bit on your definitions, and also what do you mean by "Art Designer"? It is not a usual term: normally someone would be an "artist" or a "designer", then further defined as "graphic designer", "fashion designer" etc. I presume you mean the former, rather than the latter. Designers do not achieve the same kind of public profile as artists: their work is better known than they are. Neville Brody is someone who is mentioned, however. As far as artists go, I would plump for Picasso as not only the most well-known, but also the artist whose work most people would know something about, i.e. weird faces with eyes in the wrong place. Picasso is also in Guinness World Records as reaching the world's highest auction price. Vincent van Gogh is also a good contender, mainly as the "mad artist who cut off his ear". Salvador Dali and Andy Warhol have also been suggested by some people, but I don't think they achieve the same recognition factor.Tyrenius 03:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think car designers have a fairly good chance of being among the most widely-known designers in the world; I'd bet that a gazillion guys who have never been to any sort of art exhibition know the names Bertone and Pinnifarina. -- Ferkelparade π 14:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I Doubt that theres many in the westren world who does not know who Da vinci was so I'd say he's the worlds most famouns artist Ken

Do you think that this would be a good TV show?

Do you think that this would be a good reality show? Details:

[]-some guy would walk into a surgery clinic

[]-the guy would get anesthetized

[]-the guy wakes up, but apparently it's 'the future' (2025) and apparently 'he was in a coma for 19 years' because somehing went wrong in surgery

[]-the guy has to cope with 'the future' and funny stuff happens, and such/

[]-the show is set in a studio, , but isn't allowed to leave the hospital (because the 'hospital' is actually a studio set)

What do you think? --172.147.33.50 01:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

See Futurama. And 28 Days Later. -- Mwalcoff 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This show, as a reality show could never happen. 1. A doctor tricking his patients would be so unethical and grounds for liscence suspension. 2. The Doctor and producers would guilty of crimminal acts, and could be sued for a number of torts. Including battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment.

As far as reality television is concerned, despite advances in medical science the risks associated with general anaesthesia are significant, and TV companies are unlikely to risk this. --Shantavira 07:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the morality of fooling someone into believing he'd been in a coma for 19 years. But I forgot we're talking about TV companies. AllanHainey 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you see the Channel 4 programme where they tricked people into thinking they went into space? Seems relevant. Skittle 10:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Space Cadets!? --Eivind^t@c 13:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That was it! However, it's probably a bit different to the coma idea as I'm guessing they would have to be told many people they knew were dead, among other things. Skittle 15:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

False imprisonment sounds like a great idea! --Think Fast 23:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Need free beginner English texts

I need about 2,000 words worth of copyright-free and free-as-in-beer texts suitable for beginning english readers (about 2nd-3rd grade level.) I checked Project Gutenberg but was disappointed, as even their children's texts seem geared for post-adolescents. For example, here is the second paragraph of Project Gutenberg's Cinderella:

No sooner were the ceremonies of the wedding over but the mother-in-law began to show herself in her true colors. She could not bear the good qualities of this pretty girl, and the less because they made her own daughters appear the more odious. She employed her in meanest work of the house: she scoured the dishes, tables, etc., and scrubbed madam's chamber and those of misses, her daughters; she lay up in a sorry garret, upon a wretched straw bed, while her sisters lay in fine rooms, with floors all inlaid, upon beds of the very newest fashion, and where they had looking-glasses so large that they might see themselves at their full length from head to foot.

"ceremonies" ... "true colors" ... "odious" ... "scoured" ... "garret" ... "inlaid" -- this is just too advanced for my second graders. It's the same thing for Gutenberg's Mother Goose, The Emperor's New Clothes, etc. Where can I find some simple basic English practice texts which aren't still owned by a publisher? 71.132.139.161 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• There are lots around. Try "The Baldwin Project"[16] -- their goal is stated as "Bringing Yesterday's Classics to Today's Children." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• There's also wikisource and the "simple English" Wikipedia [simple.wikipedia.org]. Stevage 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Quote

Who used the phrase "Tis easier to whisper advice from cover than to risk its merit at point of attack" Was that Shakespeare? If so, which literary work?

If not, who is the author and what is the literary work? the help you can give me

Thanks Kind regards, Rhea Bonsey

It's a line spoken by Sir Cedric Willingham (played by Peter O'Toole) in the movie King Ralph. The actual quote (according to IMDb) is "It is far easier to whisper advice from behind the scenes rather than risk its merit at the point of attack." —Zero Gravitas 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between ..

.. an imaginative, interpretative or analytical piece of work? gelo 13:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the context? I assume you're talking about music or dance. In general, imaginative is de novo, from one's own creativity, while an interpretive work is an explication of a previous theme or work (e.g. doing one's own version of an old folk song, where one expands and interprets the themes present) or where one performs an imaginative work through the filter of one's own passions, and analysis is the examination of how and why and what effects are generated by a given work, so an analytical creation is a creation that breaks apart and considers the elements of an imaginative work or nature itself; an analytical work is criticism. Without more context, there's no way to answer, but I sincerely hope this isn't some exam question you're asking, because any answer we give will make no sense in the context of a specific class you're taking, and our answers will be worth everything you've paid for them. Geogre 13:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's in the context of film. And no it's not for any exam or homework or anything like that.. gelo 05:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, I think what I said above ought to be appropriate. Does it make sense in the context? A film is usually an imaginative work. Criticism is usually interpretive or analytical, although it's possible to have a film adaptation that's interpretive or analytical. (E.g. one could argue...ok, I could argue...that Slacker is an interpretive film based on James Joyce's Ulysses (novel) and that Richard Linklater continued his Joyce kick by doing an analytical film in Waking Life based on Joyce's Finnegans Wake.) If that doesn't fit, let us know. There may be a specialized usage you're up against. Geogre 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Film can be interpretive and imaginative at the same time. Consider the Disney film, Fantasia. It was imaginative - that is certain. It also interprets music that existed before the film into something visual to go with it. As for analytical, there are films that analyze things. Conspiracy films come to mind immediately. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Radical monogamy

Recently, in an advertisement for an upcoming sexuality conference (SexySpring), it was suggested that a possible workshop subject would be "radical monogamy". The only reference I can find to this concept is a single article which has been crossposted many times and only refers to "radical monogamy" in a list of other radical sexual behaviors/modes/practices, such as nonmonogamy, polyamory, transgender, etc. So what is radical monogamy? Is this a term that has any widespread and generally accepted meaning? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.241.81 (talk • contribs) .

Nuns marry Jesus only. --DLL 19:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of that term before, but I may qualify. I don't really date because I don't believe in doing 'married people things' with someone I'm not married to, and this includes kissing. I'm not married, so I don't kiss anyone. I made this choice because I'm a Baha'i and this is a principle in the Baha'i Faith.

A good bit of logic in the idea that science has been pointing out is that you take your premarital habits into the marriage with you. That's why marriages with premarital cohabitation have less of a success rate than those that don't. -LambaJan 22:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, those religions that don't approve of extra-marital sex (which is pretty much all of them) but ALSO don't approve of such things as divorce or remarriage after widowhood would qualify as "radically" monogomous. In other words, in these faiths, it is intended that in one's entire life, there can be only one mate, (i.e. one's spouse) and even if that one mate dies, he or she cannot be replaced.

Pretty much every other faith (with a few obvious exceptions) believe in monogamy in the less "radical" sense. In these faiths, extra-marital sex is still forbidden, and one is meant only to have relations with one's spouse, however, divorce is an option allowing one to remarry and change one's spouse in one's lifetime, and the prohibition of widows and widowers from remarrying is also dropped. The faith still preaches "monogamy" in the sense that one should only have one sexual partner in a committed relationship, yet it's not radical because it allows for changes in one's committed partner due to divorce or death. Loomis51 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good definition, do you know of any religion that teaches that? -LambaJan 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a related question. Can you name any religions that place a blanket prohibition on a widow/er remarrying at all. I know of religions that prohibit a woman from marrying her late husband's brother (although they don't prohibit a man from marrying his late wife's sister, funnily enough). JackofOz 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for my ignorance/confusion, but as a non-catholic I had assumed that, for example the traditional custom of Italian widows to dress for the rest of their lives in black and never to remarry was due to a strict observance of Roman Catholicism. As divorce is also forbidden in catholicism it appeared that the strictest observers of Roman Catholicism were practicing what I described as "radical monogamy". Apparently, the issue is quite a bit more complicated than that, and I would appreciate if anyone could help me out by explaining these intricacies. In any case, the question made no specific reference to "religion", but merely asked for a possible explanation of "radical monogomy". With that in mind, the Italian tradition that I just described would seem to fit just the same. Loomis51 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Roman Catholicism does not prohibit a widow/er from remarrying. If anything, it's encouraged. I'm not sure if marrying one's former brother-in-law or sister-in-law is "kosher", but marrying others is generally perfectly OK. The Italian "black widow" thing is a cultural practice, not a religious one, and I'm sure there are many examples of Italian widows remarrying. I can't speak for the black Greek widows - they are mainly members of the Orthodox Church, which may have different rules (but I doubt it).
• Divorce is neither forbidden nor allowed in Catholicism, it just isn't recognised at all. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder means that once the marriage is validly consecrated it is not possible for any human to break it. If a married Catholic obtains a civil divorce, as far as the Church is concerned they're still married until either partner dies. What is forbidden is a "divorced" Catholic remarrying, because the Church prohibits bigamy(*). The only way a Catholic can cease being married in the eyes of the Church without their spouse dying is to obtain a Church annulment. This is different from divorce in that the Church accepts the marriage was never valid to begin with, and only had the outward appearance of a marriage. A person whose marriage has been annulled by the Church still remains married in the eyes of the law, unless they also obtain a civil divorce, otherwise if they remarry they'd be breaking the civil law against bigamy. We often hear about celebrities getting "annulments" these days, but in almost all cases this is a sloppy euphemism for a civil divorce.
• (*) IANAT (I am not a theologian) - Probably what the Church prohibits is not bigamy per se, but purporting to go through a 2nd marriage ceremony while the former spouse is still alive. It couldn't be bigamy technically in the eyes of the Church because the 2nd marriage would not be recognised as a marriage at all. (But I'm making this bit up as I go along, so don't quote me). JackofOz 06:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I realized that the question made no specific references to religion, but in matters such as this peoples religious beliefs and practices play a large part in their choices. I'm not in the habit of offering unrelated or un-useful information. Had I not mentioned my religion people would wonder why I made a choice that is dissimilar to the current western convention. -LambaJan 19:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Is this a term that has any widespread and generally accepted meaning?" No. What people are talking about in these responses that refer to religion might be more clearly called "extreme monogomy". I'm sure that in the context of SexySpring, "radical monogamy" refers to the idea of engaging in monogamous relationships while questioning mainstream sexual values. But this is not a term with an entire radical culture and dialouge developed around it like "polyamory". --Brian Z 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a widely recognized term, no. But in the context of a sexuality conference (I've been to a couple), I'd guess that radical monogamy is regular ol' monogamy with the twist that the couple is politically or sexually radical: perhaps they embrace BDSM culture, and they recognize the validity of non-traditional relationships, see monogamy as contingent, etc.--but choose to be monogamous. I heard a talk by a polyamorous woman who remarked that among the mostly polyamorous friends she associates with, the few who choose not to be polyamorous are seen as the radical ones. --The Famous Movie Director 08:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No need at all to apologize, Lamba. I'm a very curious person and I'm here to learn. I'm a firm believer in the Socratic principle that true wisdom lies in one's ability to recognize the extent of one's ignorance. With that in mind, I'm proud to admit that I'm quite ignorant in a great deal of matters! Just as I'm appreciative of Jack for offering what he knows of Catholicism, I'm similarly curious about your faith as well. At one job I had, the local bakery where I got my lunch was owned by a Baha'i family. Unfortunately I never got the opportunity to find out more about their faith. Thanks to Wikipedia, there's a quick hyperlink to Baha'i to satisfy my curiosity! But please, never apologize for being proud of who you are and what you believe. Loomis51 01:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Commericial Spokesperson

Who was the Dr. Pepper spokeswoman in 1966 who sang, "Dr. Pepper is the friendly pepper upper?"

The spokesperson was Donna Loren (Born Donna Zukor in 1947).

Krivosheyev

Where is the english version of Krivosheyev's book, "Soviet casualties and combat losses in the twentieth century"? Vess

Amazon? —Seqsea (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

ISBN 1853672807 is the official Wikipedia link to sources for this book. See particularly RedLightGreen and WorldCat to see if your local library has it. --J. J. 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In this society,.who is the best Boys or Girls

Hello Sir How are u? I hope that you will be fine and fit i am happy I use this site i am studnet in little school Tell me about the Who is best boy or girl bye

Well, girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider; boys go to Mars to get more candy bars. So I think we know the answer to this question. —Seqsea (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Best (or better, better) at what, exactly? --Shantavira 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Girls are better because they grow up to be women. Well, some boys grow up to be women too, but I don't count them. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think we're all Sirs? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We've all been knighted. That's why we have the authority to answer this question. Btw, I'm a boy and when I grew up my best friend was a girl and it became painfully obvious over time that girls are better. Us boys just need to learn to deal with it. Girls can help because one of their special powers is helping people deal with things. -LambaJan 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've tried them both and I can categorically assure you that boys are better. JackofOz 23:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

An undercover feminist who spent a year living as a man, so she could uncover more awful things men do to bitch about them in her new book, actually discovered that men are far more supporting of each other, far more open to each other and more welcoming than woman, she felt that men were far more honest, and was surprised to find how highly men speak of their wives when they are not there. She concluded it was far better to be a man, as they look after each other better when they need it, Ithink this is roughly accurate, sory I can't find any links. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Try living without the other and see what happens. --Think Fast 23:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the questioner wanted to know about the film crew member? --Halcatalyst 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Recorded Births in Taupo, NZ

How do I search for a birth recorded in 1959 in the city of Taupo, NZ? Will the Wikipedia be able to give a list of names of births for a particular date and name? Please advise.

Contact public records in Taupo, NZ. I cannot guarantee they keep such records, but if they did, that is who would have what you want. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone at the Taupo Public Library might be able to point you to the best people to ask. Grutness...wha? 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt whether you could get a list of names for a particular date from Birth Deaths and Marriages for privacy reasons. Lisiate 20:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible version in rap/hip-hop language?

I saw a guy (African-American) on TV a while ago promoting a new translation of the Bible (or at least parts of it) in urban poetic verse. He was being interviewed on a Christian TV station; sometime in 2005, although I'm not sure of the original air date or publication date of the Bible translation. He read a few lines from John 1. Anyone know what this translation is called? I've tried Yahoo! Answers, The AnswerBank, and even a Bible forum, but I'm pretty sure their recommendations weren't what I was looking for: The Message, Cotton Patch, and Black Bible Chronicles. See the Yahoo! Answers post for previous suggestions. --J. J. 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was an Ebonics Bible, not Rap/Hip-Hop (there is a difference for those who take Ebonics seriously). It is Black Bible Chronicles, as recommended from Yahoo. Examples of the Ten Commandments from it: 1) You shouldn't be takin' nothin' from your homeboys. 2) Don't waste nobody. 3) Don't want what you cain't have. It ain't cool. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

African American Vernacular English (AAVE) - thanks for putting a name to it; I forgot about Ebonics! You sound confident in your response. Are you sure that there haven't been similar translation projects? FYI to everyone, there are two volumes: the first (your link) is of the Pentateuch, second of the Gospels. The translator's website, PKandCompany.com, mentions a reprint "with study guides" but I doubt that ever happened; site seems to be collecting dust, so to speak. --J. J. 19:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am certain about it because PK McCary was all over TV when it was published. I saw him at least three times on three different shows. I liked one where he was defending his Bible translation as empowering black youths because it opened the writings of the Bible to them. Another person on the show was attacking his Bible translation as oppressing black youths because it kept them from learning a language that allowed them to work in mainstream society. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't McCary a woman?[17] Maybe your saw her spokesman? --J. J. 20:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is possible. I didn't pay that close attention. I leave the TV playing while I program. The name "McCary" popped up over and over and over. The guy I kept seeing was in his 40's, about 300 pounds, and bald - pretty scary if he was a woman! --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the bio on McCary and the time is correct. I remember seeing this when I was in 29 Palms the second time - that was 93. Her book came out in 93. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

sid mcmath

To sannse - We tried to upload a quite poignant 1948 cartoon strip at the bottom of the article, but although it seemed to land somewhere it did not make it onto the article. Please advise. Thanks, Sandy McMath, <email removed>,

Pub. L. No. 95-452

My question concerns the Homeland Security Act of 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/bill/hsl-bill.pdf. Does "Pub. L. No. 95-452" mean that 95 Senators and 452 U.S. Representatives approved the bill? If so, how can that be since the House has only 435 members?Patchouli 20:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. "Pub. L. No." is short for "Public Law Number". Also, Public Law Number 95-452 is The Inspectors General Act of 1978, not the Homeland Security Act of 2002. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• On page 32 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/bill/hsl-bill.pdf, I found "Pub. L. No. 95-452": ...Section 11 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Pub. L. No. 95-452) is amended....

Does this mean that "95-452" is either a random or sequential number that has nothing to do with the number of the members of Congress?Patchouli 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The "95" means it was passed by the 95th Congress. The "452" is, as far as I know, sequential. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of votes. —Zero Gravitas 22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me explain. The law you are looking at is the one that established the Department of Homeland Security. Congress wanted the new department to have an inspector general, like other government departments. So they put a section in the new law that changed the wording of the original Inspector General Act of 1978. Congress added "Homeland Security" to the Inspector General Act's list of agencies with inspector generals. As noted above, the Inspector General Act is called Public Law 95-452 because it was the 452nd law passed by the 95th Congress. The act you are looking at is Public Law 107-296. It passed the House by a vote of 295-132 and the Senate by a 90-9 vote. -- Mwalcoff 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I thank everyone for the superior explanations. However, I have another question. For the Department of Homeland Security, is the inspector general of the department the CIS Ombudsman? I ask this question because the US-CIS ombudsman has written to me that his office and duties are established in the Homeland Security Act of 2002; therein, I could not find the word ombudsman and any of his duties.~ Patchouli

The CIS Ombudsman is Prakash Khatri (as of 2004 - he may have been replaced). The Inspector General James L. Taylor as of 2005. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't pay close attention to those offices, so I can easily get them wrong. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard L. Skinner was confirmed as the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General on July 28, 2005[18].Patchouli 07:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have filled out an application for green card, that is, I-485, seven years ago. I came to the United States nine years ago. I have not received any answer; I believe that the CIS is purposely blocking my case and will not answer under any circumstances. For the past seven months I have been sending scores of messages to Prakash Khatri, who says he has no power to adjudicate applications or grant immigration benefits. He goes on to say that the Homeland Security Act of 2002 only lets him make recommendations to the CIS and send inquiries. I think he is lying.

1. What section(s) of the United States Code specifies after how long the Citizenship & Immigration Services has to answer a green card application?
2. What section(s) of the United States Code or some federal act enumerates the powers and duties of the CIS ombudsman?Patchouli 04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• The CIS Ombudsman at DHS does not have the power to adjudicate applications or grant immigration benefits. (See http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0497.xml) The role of the ombudsman is just that -- an ombudsman (investigating complaints). The CIS Ombudsman's office is not going to lie to you in a form letter about what falls inside or outside their office's purview.DavidGC 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Or 6 U.S.C. § 272.Patchouli 02:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The CIS ombudsman is an absolute joker. No wonder that for the past seven months he has been juggling data, shuffling papers in his office, and sending inquiries to the CIS which they immediately shred.

All right, I hope someone can answer my first purple-colored question.Patchouli 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some questions about the National Gallery, London

I'm hoping to bring National Gallery, London up to featured status some time in the future, but it's a bit of an uphill struggle at the moment as I don't have that many books on the subject at my disposal (not enough to satiate my thirst for info on this topic, anyway). My main works of reference are Google Books and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and Grove Dictionary of Art at my local library, which are good for some aspects of the Gallery's history but hopeless for others. The relevant Buildings of England volume has also been helpful, as has a book on restoration, but I digress... There are a few facts that I'm finding very hard to check:

1. According to the Italian article on the Gallery, somebody was calling for the establish of a national gallery in Britain as early as 1777. Does anyone know anything more about this? (The NG was founded much later, in 1824).
2. The NG used to brag that all the paintings in its collection were on public display, although I know this is definitely not the case today. When did this stop being the case? (Some time after 1977 as that's the most recent book I can find that makes the boast.)
3. I've included an uncited fact ("Kenneth Clark's decision in 1939 to relabel a group of paintings by anonymous artists in the Venetian school as works by Giorgione ... caused an outrage and made him deeply unpopular with his own staff, who locked him out of the [National Gallery's] library.") which I know for sure I heard on a TV programme about the NG in the war years, but obviously a reliable citation needs to be found.

I realise this must be rather arcane knowledge, but I'd be grateful if anyone has the slightest clue as to the answers. Many thanks in advance. HAM 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your best bet for this sort of detail would be to email the NG itself (via their website if you don't have the address). If you mention that you are contributing to their Wikipedia article, I'm sure they will try to be helpful. --Shantavira 07:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Shantavira. I have two slight reservations, one of which concerns WP protocol: would it constitute original research if my only source for some facts/statistics were an email from the National Gallery? Secondly, the NG might not find the section on controversies to their liking – they tend to airbrush over any episodes like that in the potted histories of the Gallery in their own publications, as you'd expect. But I've been reading the PDF on their website about the Freedom of Information Act and it does say they're "committed to openness", so I'll give your suggestion a try over the weekend. HAM 22:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act) they are legally required to provide any information you ask for, though there are certain exemptions (most of which can be challenged on appeal). Any request for information is automatically treated as an FOI request (or should be), whether that is stipulated or not. That means they have to answer within 20 working days. You are probably aware of the press coverage last year over Tate trustee Chris Ofili's The Upper Room, all the result of an FOI request by the [Stuckists art group. ArtWatch UK are genned up on the National Gallery - you could email them. They are also an amazing source of knowledge on conservation and authenticity issues, and publish a magazine about these matters. Tyrenius 02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re. all paintings on display, I can remember this being the case, possibly a few years after your date, when I was starting college. The lesser works were downstairs, which wasn't always open, as I recall. Now it's only open Wednesday afternoon. I wasn't aware that they are not all on display still. Tyrenius 02:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rope climbing

What is this sport called in English: http://www.theropeclimbing.com/photos.php It's a french site, and they call it "rope climbing" but we don't have an article on that. Basically, you have to climb up a rope as fast as possible using only your hands. I've seen it before at the World Police and Fire Games. Amazed that we don't have an article on it...can't see anything at climbing. Thanks. Stevage 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Used to be in the Olympics apparently Link (number seven) Jameswilson 23:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called "rope climbing" in English as well, and it was part of the men's gymnastic competition when it was included. See, for example, Gymnastics at the 1896 Summer Olympics - Men's rope climbing. --Metropolitan90 03:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks! I'll make a stub - it's not every day I find an article missing from Wikipedia. Stevage 09:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

...and he has - here's a link to the article: Rope climbing --Hughcharlesparker 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Incest web

I can't understand the abbreviations here. The key doesn't mention them for some reason. Anyway the chart seems to be useful. --Brand спойт 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Are they people's initials perhaps? --Nelson Ricardo 00:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's initials. A prettier version of the same or a similar thing: [19]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

In SF fandom, this is known as a Langdon chart, which I'm slightly surprised is a redlink. --193.38.88.6 17:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that name varies from country to country - it's certainly not called a Langdon chart in New Zealand sf fandom! Grutness...wha? 07:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

May 10

Physical Map of Charlemagne's Kingdom

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am looking for a physical map of Charlemagne's Kingdom for a relief map I am making for a school history day. Thank you for your help.

Daniel Hillis

See the article Charlemagne and there is a map at the end of the section on his conquests. Click on it and you can get the full size version of the image. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes of Dracula/Opinions

It would be very helpful to me if I could get any quotes from Dracula or opinions from the crew of Wikipedia at all. If it is a quote from a member, I wish to have a name to refer to.

• You can find the entire novel online at various web sites. See Dracula#External links. If that's not what you're looking for, sorry about that. --Metropolitan90 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

History of Puerto Rico establishes when the island got its name, but not what the name means or where it comes from. Anyone know? Just curious, Beland 02:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• It means "rich port", and further detail can be found at San Juan, Puerto Rico#History. --Metropolitan90 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ah, nifty. -- Beland 03:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sabotoge Incident - New York pre WW I

I am looking for the story regarding the Germans allegedly sabotaging a ammuntion depot in New York which took place around the start of WWI.

As the story goes, the goverenment covered it up for a number of different reasons.

[email removed for privacy]

Never heard of it. -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 04:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Coverup? Rumor, maybe? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the Black Tom explosion. Choess 05:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, but Black Tom wasn't "covered up" at all. The incident just isn't well remembered today.--Pharos 08:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of things aren't remembered from that period. How many people know about the millions of people who died in the Spanish influenza pandemic? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I knew that. schyler 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you're special ;-) — QuantumEleven 10:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the 'millions more died in the Spanish Influenza than WW1' one of those really well-known little-known facts? Like the tomato being a fruit? Skittle 10:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

stock exchange hand signals

On the floor of the stock exchange, hand signals are used. I want a translation guide to them, perhaps a page with a drawing of each hand signal, with its English translation.

This isn't what youasked for but I believe Stock Exchange hand signals are derived from Tic-tac, the bookies sign language, we have a bit about it but I can't find anything about the stock exchange version. AllanHainey 11:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a 100% sure, but I believe that the sign language is diferent from one company to another, to prevent the competion from knowing what transactions they intent to do. Since a stockmarket is such a competive area, they probably change their sing quite often, to prevent others from learning it. But don't take this as fact, just the memory of a man who saw a Discovery Channel documentery about the stockmarket ages ago. --Eivind^t@c 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make it very difficult to signal a buy/sell with someone if everyone's using different hand signals?DavidGC 02:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Some interesting gestures can be found in Ferris Bueller's Day Off at the Sock Market scene.User: Pckeffer

What's the gesture for '3 pairs cotton ankle socks, no elastic'? Skittle 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy Roman Imperial colonists in British North America

I am Anglophonic. I'm looking for royal/noble genealogy of German settlers and their relationships to Habsburger Philip II of Spain, Orangist William III of England, Oldenburger Prince George of Denmark, Hanoverian George I of Great Britain and Saxon Edward VII of the United Kingdom. I will work out on my own, anything regarding connections between the Danish Prince George and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. IP Address 12:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Which German settlers? Ardric47 03:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Any in general. Is there a resource or repository with such knowledge, about British Germans? IP Address 04:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Most colonial German (HRE) settlers were peasants fleeing poverty or sectarian religious groups fleeing persecution. Very few members of the German nobility, much less royalty, emigrated to the American colonial wilderness. Those that did usually did so in an administrative capacity and often returned eventually to their country of origin. Tolzmann covers these early immigrants in his first couple of chapters in The German-American Experience. He does not cover Canada. With reference to noble/royal connections, you might have more luck examining those Germans that immigrated after 1776, especially the two waves of political refugees (1830s, post-1848). Good luck! Their would be few nobles, most where religous disidents, furthermore most went to non German colonies!

Oh yes, but they must have had some antiquated, Catholic aristocratic descent (Hohenstaufen, Welf, Ottonian, etc)...which tended to mean nothing in post-Reformation times, Protestant countries like Germany--unless one was Habsburger. IP Address 05:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Big Fish 3 year transition.

Hi!
I've just watched the movie "Big Fish" and I confess I'm a bit fogged as to it's main point/moral is. But what I really don't understand is the significance of the 3 year slots. 3 years confinement when he's growing, 3 years in the army etc. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I don't know if this has anything to do with Big Fish, but in the Bible, three is used to signify a completion of a cycle of time (as a side note, so is 40). --Think Fast 23:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious usage would be for the Holy Trinity. The basic theme of the book is "discovering one's father and the fact that fiction is fact, for fiction is a living truth that surpasses the truisms of living." If one were to really, really, really overstretch the numbers and really, really, really read too much into what I think is just a commercial novel, then the threes would suggest the Father (the story teller/creator), the Son (who must take on the mission and redeem a world that has lost its knowledge of the creator), and the Holy Spirit (the fictions themselves and the spirit of place). Again, I don't agree with what I just typed, and I'd scrawl "PROOF!" all over a paper given to me that made the case, but, well, it is a possible reading. Geogre 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

moby music quesqion

what is the name of the moby music that some part of the lirics say something like "i'm feeling jack" (there is also some keyboard sounds on the music)???

Brazilian song

Hi. When I was an exchange student, all the Brazilian exchange students I knew used to sing and dance to a certain song (I think it belonged to the funk genre). Unfortunately, the only words I remember are "martelo, martelo, martelo". Each word had a gesture. Does anyone know this song? I'm afraid it's probably a bit vulgar. Lesgles (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it wasn't "Marcelo, Marmelo, Martelo"? --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Its is: martela, martela martelao martelão maozinha pra cima na palma da mão é o bonde do tigrão??

Thanks for both your responses. It turned out to be the second one; I was able to find the lyrics. Lesgles (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms/heraldry

How do I create a coat of arms (armoral bearing)? Software (for easy self creation)? No prior family history of CoAs etc... I already know enough but don't want to waste time drawing itout or waste money on artists. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you try this external link, which can be found at coat of arms? Search first. Ees quicker! --Shantavira 07:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i've tried it. Didn't like it all that much. Any more suggestions. Assume I have seached already. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to register it also, to be more official and ensure you aren't conflicting with someone else. This site lists phone #s and addresses for registration offices of many countries. --Shandon 15:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Earth's population

What is the earth's population by country

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. See the article population and you will find the answer (and a lot more). --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think List of countries by population is what you're looking for. --Think Fast 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag/Tajikstan

http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=29iv2.jpg

Can you tell me if I`m right and the flag on top of this building is the Tajikstan Flag? Or even the building either way i`m satisfied.

Look at the article Tajikstan. You'll see that the flag in the article and the flag in the picture are practically identical. It is possible another country has a highly similar flag, but I doubt it. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The uppermost fesse did indeed appear red, and so, even as the image surely didn't seem to be that of the Tajik flag, and notwithstanding that the building appeared Indian to me, I concluded that the flag was most likely that of Tajikistan. An image we have of the Indian flag, though, looks nearly identical to that of the picture to which the questioner's link goes, and so I imagine that the top of the flag, from a distance and in certain lighting, appears red. Joe 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's not the Tajikistani flag in the picture, (and there's no place named "Tajikstan" - you left out the genetive "i". Tajikistan - land of Tajiks), it doesn't seem very improbable, Kainaw. --BluePlatypus 00:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Its ok the flag is Indian just not a got a clue what the building is.

The building is the Delhi Fort, commonly known as the Red Fort and located in scenic Old Delhi. So the flag on top is not Tajikstani, unless there's been a lot of happenings that my newspaper hasn't picked up on. --ByeByeBaby 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The flag is Indian for sure. Reywas92 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Visa (document) - What's the history?

Dear Madam/Sir,

I'm curious about the origin of visas. Not the credit card of course, but the travel/residency document. I've looked through the web, and still - unless I haven't been looking enough - no luck so far.

Your assistance will be kindly appreciated.

Many thanks!

Did you try looking at the article Visa (document)? Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked the article and didn't see any information on the origin of visas, which the questioner asked about. I did some fairly basic Googling but was unsuccessful and then got distracted by something shiny. --LarryMac 21:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a little more historical information in passport. I imagine that visas arose fairly recently. Quotations in the OED suggest that the word wasn't used before the 19th century. Originally, a visa was just a signature on a passport signifying that it has been examined and found correct. Lesgles (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

World's largest fishing fleet

I heard many times that Japan has the world's second largest fishing fleet, but do you know which country has the largest fishing fleet? Do you know of a website where I might find this information? Thank you for your time. --PGSable 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

According to FAO it's China, see [20] --Eivind^t@c 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I could swear I've seen a ranked list of every country in the world by fishing fleet size, but I'm having trouble finding it. It may depend if you rank them by tonnage or by number of boats, etc. However, I would say almost beyond a doubt that China is #1. According to this list (ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/stat/summary/a2.pdf), China caught about 4x as much weight in fish and crustaceans as Japanm and very few countries come close to Japan. It looks from different news articles like they must have cut their fleet since then, but that gap is just too huge to have been closed. --Brian Z 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I supposed China would be it, but I wasn't sure. --PGSable 21:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Common British Names

What is a common British name? In America, you could say John Smith or Paul Johnson are common names. Also what is a common British surname, common like Johnson and Smith? Or is it basically the same? Chile 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

List of most common surnames#United Kingdom has what you're after. —Zero Gravitas 00:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See also John Q. Public, John Doe, Placeholder name#Kadigans in the English language for people, etc. Ardric47 03:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That list of surnames shows that your example of Johnson is much less common in the UK than it is in the US. This, apparently, is because many American Johnsons were originally Johanssons (very common in Sweden, as the list shows) or similar, who anglicised their names when they emigrated (or had them anglicised by others :)). Nicola79 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

John Q. Public and John Doe are both Americanisms. I don't think there is a normal Biritsh equivalent: maybe Fred Bloggs. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The question was asking for a common name, anyway. John Q. Public, John Doe, Joe Bloggs are all in use as placeholder names, but no actual people are called any of them. ...at least, I hope not. —Zero Gravitas 17:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bloggs is common enough, but John Smith is also quite common over here. --Jrothwell 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zero Gravitas: I had a teacher called Andrew Doe and he had an uncle called John Doe. Pace DJ Clayworth John Doe is not an Americanism. The American legal practice of using them for anonymous parties in a court case derives (IIRC) from the Common Law (=English!) practice of using those names in fictitious pleadings. The names of a lot of old cases in the English law reports involve Messrs Doe and Roe in some way. Substantive law used to be much more rigid and the activity of the courts was concentrated developing procedural rules. The three different common law courts (Kings Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer) in England pre-1875 had different remedies at their disposal. You would choose your court on the basis of the remedy you wanted. If strictly speaking on the facts your case belonged in the wrong court you would fictitiously allege a group of facts clustering (e.g.) around John Doe or Richard Roe to get it into your preferred venue. Two of those courts (KB and Exchequer) technically required the crown to be a party so the judges connived in the fiction - also they were the only venues at which junior advocates could appear (Common Pleas was reserved for the now defunct Serjeants). It was in everybody's interest that the procedural rules be bent in this way. Stroika 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

US citizenship questions?

Does anyone have any idea why we get such an enormous amount of US citizenship questions? Perhaps wiki should set up a new category "US citizenship".

As for me, I live some 60km from the US border, which is definitely close enough! I'd just like to point out that I'm not at all anti-American, and I wish my country would take a more American approach to global affairs, especially those regarding the war on terror (which it finally is, thanks to our new administration.) Nonetheless I've also spent quite a bit of time in the US, and despite my favourable position as to US foreign policy, I find US domestic policy to leave much to be desired. The US is a tough place to live, and I'm happy to live in a country that is somewhat "kinder and gentler." I hope any Americans reading this won't be offended, as it's not my intention to do so. I just think we can both learn from each other.

Perhaps wiki should set up a page outlining the A to Z of how to become an American citizen, so the rest of us non-Americans can go on with answering questions where we can be of more help. Loomis51 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• With respect to the latter suggestion, I can conceive of such a page that would be encyclopedic, but one must remember that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I certainly don't think our creating another desk to handle U.S. citizenship questions, for example, would be appropriate; IMHO, users with queries ought to be directed to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (or, where one's questions are more nuanced, perhaps to U.S. Customs and Border Protection), whence a user may navigate to the agency's homepage. One workable solution might be for a user who is conversant with the procedures one must follow to apply for U.S. citizenship to create a subpage of his/her user page, to which we might then direct those whose quarry is a how-to guide (or those with general queries w/r/to U.S. citizenship); I certainly agree that it'd be preferable if we had a singular resource to which to direct questioners, inasmuch as citizenship-related questions are copious and often require several follow-up responses. Joe 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• IMO, even a user subpage is a bit dicey - it's not really in the realm of Wikipedia (although would probably be tolerated). The best place for such a how-to guide would be Wikibooks, and I'm sure that there it would be much appreciated! — QuantumEleven 10:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Which country are you in that's taking the American position in the war on terror, and why do you think that the American position of running recruting drives for terrorist organizations is a good one? --Serie 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not engage in Personal attacks. We're here to help. --CTSWyneken 23:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't abide the suggestion that Serie's comment was a personal attack. Even as the comment likely wasn't RD appropriate (the RD is not a place at which to engage in debates, at least where the questioner does not solicit such debate) and was likely gratuitiously gauche (inasmuch as Loomis adduced his beliefs apropos of the war on terror only toward the proposition that he wasn't biased against the United States and not in an attempt to foist on the RD a political agenda and inasmuch as it's generally seen as less-than-tactful to impugn a user's political views where the user hasn't actively and stridently asserted those views or hasn't indicated that he/she desires a discussion), the substance of the comment was to pass judgment on the war on terror (which many understand as serving to grow the number of "terrorists" worldwide) and to intimate that few countries support the U.S. position (a factual assertion over which one may quibble). One's questioning the reasoning of another editor with respect to a specific issue (cf., generally, as in "Are you wholly incapable of constructing a sound argument?"), even where such questioning is indecorously formed, is not, IMHO, one's PAing. Joe 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Or, in other words, "I don't think Serie's comment was a personal attack. Both the comment and the use of a straw man argument were probably inappropriate here. However, the point of the comment was to make a political statement and question the reasoning of another editor, which is not a personal attack, in my opinion."[21]202.63.55.96 08:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case, to clarify, I really didn't mean to start a dialogue on US foreign or domestic policy, even an intelligent one, which doesn't seem possible in this case given serie's rather obtuse and inarticulate comments. Even my suggestion that wiki set up a page about how to become a US citizen was somewhat facetious. I really don't think such a page could possibly be set up on wiki. My question was merely if anyone knew why we get such an enormous amount of questions regarding US citizenship. What would probably be a more proper response would be to add to what wiki says about asking "medical, dental or legal" questions at the RD, and perhaps to point out that legal questions include questions about acquiring US citizenship.

As for the rest of what I wrote, I just wanted to point out that my question should not be interpreted in any way as being anti-American, because after all, despite our usual petty differences (one of our biggest gripes up here regards the US position on softwood lumber exports to the US! In a world where countries make claims seeking to "whipe others off the map", I'm infinitely pleased that one of our biggest differences regards the trade in 2 by 4's!) the Canadian-American friendship is the envy of the world. I suppose I got a little carried away by delving into politics. Mea culpa. Loomis51 11:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How many Americans do emigrate anyway? Certainly if you are at the bottom end os the scale economically it would seem to make sense, with the minimum wage in Britain being $9 (and higher in some European countries). Jameswilson 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

copyrighted material

Can anyone help me find the do's and don'ts of photocopying copyrighted material? I need it for my Pitman course. Thank you

The Designers and Artists Copyright Society (DACS) www.dacs.org.uk/ is one organisation that deals with this and provides downloadable fact sheets.

Fair dealing PDF:

FAIR DEALING

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 includes certain provisions regarding “fair dealing”, which are certain uses of copyright works that do not require the permission of the copyright owner nor infringe the copyright in the original work.

These uses are:

(a) Fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study;

There is a fact sheet also on Educational use of artistic works PDF

You should be OK for private study and personal use, as long as you are not making money from it.

Regulations differ in different countries, so you need to state what country you are talking about.

Tyrenius 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Publishing it on the internet would also be problematic. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, publishing it in any form would mean it was no longer covered "for the purposes of research or private study", but then you didn't seem to want to publish it anyway. Tyrenius 02:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

May 11

Baseball caps and history

I would like to know when they first started putting buttons on the top of baseball caps and why.

Thanks! Pat K < e-mail removed >

I don't know if they "started" at any one point. I would guess (and this is only a guess, sorry) that the little button has to do with the manufacturing process and is used to keep the hat together. If this is true, I would guess that it has always been this way. Once again, this is only a guess, but it makes sense to me. Hope that helps:) --Think Fast 03:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A European's Backyard

Do Europeans frequently travel to a foreign country to say "party" in a bordering nation, simlar to Americans going to Tijuana or Toronto? Or Canadians traveling to say Buffalo, New York?

Canadians may go to Buffalo to take advantage of the strong Canadian dollar, but there's no Canadian equivalent to the way Americans view Tijuana. Canadians may go to "party" in New York or Chicago, but the thought process would be no different than an American's in that regard.

One European town that could be considered similar to Tijuana is Dubi, Czech Republic, just across the border from Germany on the E55 highway. Although there are fewer restrictions on prostitution in Germany than in the Czech Republic, the hookers are a lot cheaper in the CR. The E55 in Dubi is lined with prostitutes displaying themselves to German drivers. Many of the prostitutes are Gypsies (Roma) and people from Eastern Europe (Ukraine, etc.)

The Czech Republic as a whole is popular with Western European men for its insanely cheap but world-renowned beer. When I was in Prague, they had a big problem with (some) British and Irish men going there to drink their brains out and smash stuff. -- Mwalcoff 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Mallorca might be along the lines of what you're looking for -- particularly if you have Brits or Germans in mind. Obviously not a bordering country, though. When I lived in Germany, the neighboring country to go to for cheap stuff was the Czech Republic, and for crazy parties, it would definitely be the Netherlands (specifically Amsterdam), but that's just my own experience.DavidGC 08:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of Brits go to Amsterdam to party, yes. And even more probably go to Dublin. One of the main manifestations of this kind of behaviour is the stag party. --Richardrj 08:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes stag & hen parties nowadays tend to go abroad quite a bit to party, mostly Dublin. Also popular party/drinking/behaving rowdily spots for Brits are Ibiza & Faliraki. AllanHainey 11:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

seems to be quite a lot of the irish take weekends breaks in the UK to escape the smoking ban. although this will probably stop as we now have one. Also brits to "booze cruises" to calais (france) to pick up cheap (less taxed) alcohol. 87.194.20.253 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, did someone actually suggest that Americans (or anyone else for that matter) go to Toronto to "party"? Jeez...you guys really don't have a clue about how to really have fun if you consider Toronto to be a "party town"! Loomis51 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Montreal, Loomis' hometown (sorry, quick check), is almost certainly a better place to hit for a weekend than Toronto, but Toronto may have a bigger profile for the moment ;). People from Detroit, say, may go to Toronto because the downtown is (relatively) safe, things are cheap (if the dollar is low), and the clubs are pretty get-along. But no, it isn't a party town when compared. It's a city of neighbourhoods more than anything.

As for Europeans... No mention of southern Spain and Portugal! I thought the British had colonized the area. Beyond Europe, an enormous number of Germans hit Dubai and, as fatalities from the 2004 tsunami showed, northern Europeans also hit the Asian archipeligo for beachs. Europeans do wind up in the Caribbean on vacation but in much less proportion to Americans and Canadians. Marskell 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

and stag parties in Tallinn, Riga, etc. Jameswilson 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of the question...just crossing the nearest border... Going somewhere where the drink is cheaper is popular everywhere.The English go to France, while the Finns go to Estonia [22]; both of these happen to be by boat and are called "booze cruises". (N.B. of the British, only the English, because France is too far from Scotland and Wales). And then there is just the need to, as Homer Simpson put it, "shop in strange exotic malls". In broader terms, getting around Europe is now pretty quick by air (except from Scotland to France), so party and shopping breaks are common all over. Notinasnaid 07:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No europeans all hate fun!

Quirky songs

I'm trying to come up some catchy, perhaps slightly quirky songs. Any ideas? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I really have no clue

When would this project be due?

That's your cue

Who'da knew

Do you use shampoo?

Is that true?

No? In some countries, that's taboo

What about a tattoo?

Or own a kangaroo?

Have any library books overdue?

Those you should renew

Oh pooh.

Do you Do The Dew?

You see how easy that is. It's just simple rhyming. I mean you could do a lot more and make it in Iambic Pentameter, or Shakespearean Sonnet. schyler 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... what? I'm lost. I'm not trying to make up catchy, quirky songs, I am trying to think of them to purchase legally and put on a CD. You know, like Rockapella's version of the Gummi Bears theme. That type of stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, LV, I knew what you meant. But your question is very wide. Do you know the Beatles, for example? Or the Kinks? They did loads of catchy, quirky songs. The list is endless. --Richardrj 11:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry to you

Perhaps, Blink-182?

Your question did ask "come up with" so I assumed you were trying to come up with a song, but I guess I misunderstood. In this department I don 't think I'll be a very big help. I am more of an Instrumental kind of guy. schyler 12:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...have you checked out Oscar Brand? Spike Jones (not Spike Jonze)? Me First and the Gimme Gimmes? Pennywise? Hayseed Dixie? Any number of Ska bands that do covers of famous rock songs (The Busters, which are unbelievably a redlink)? I could come up with a gazillion more suggestions, but I have no idea what exactly you mean by "quirky songs" :P -- Ferkelparade π 13:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Most stuff done by Fountains of Wayne is quirky, and, of course, They Might Be Giants is quirky and short. Also, for instrumentals, I love Birdsongs of the Mesozoic doing the Rocky and Bullwinkle theme. Geogre 13:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some great quirky songs on the album 69 Love Songs by The Magnetic Fields. --Richardrj 13:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks all. I've more than enough to keep me occupied for now. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

First Commercial Flight

My girlfriend and I are trying to determine the first commercial flight in the U.S. Timeline of aviation is less helpful than one might expect. I'd assumed the oldest U.S. airline was Pan American World Airways, making the first Pan Am flight (apparently from Key West to Havana) the first one, but TWA is older than Pan Am. --♥ «Charles A. L.» 03:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to know specifically in an airplane (not balloon, etc.)? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

From a New York Times article:

The first commercial flight in the United States occurred in Florida on Jan. 1, 1914, when Tony Jannus flew A. C. Pheil the 21 miles across the bay from St. Petersburg to Tampa in a two-seat Benoist at an altitude of 15 feet.

(if you're willing to give them money you can read the full article here but otherwise all they'll give is what I just pasted.) I can't testify as to how reliable this is, though. —Zero Gravitas 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Seems we have an article on the man—Tony Jannus—but the only additional info it adds about the flight is trivia. And, as LV notes, if you want balloons that's something else entirely... —Zero Gravitas 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Creation vs. Evolution debate and Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises

In Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, in chapter 12, Jake and Bill go out fishing and Bill starts making a mock sermon, spurred by the discovery that lunch is eggs and chicken. He says "First the egg, then the chicken. Even Bryan could see that." My question is, was Bryan a REAL person, or an invented character? I can't seem to figure it out on my own... Russia Moore 03:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't be sure, but it probably refers to William Jennings Bryan, a participant in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Is this for a school project? ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes he was referring to William Jennings Bryan. AllanHainey 11:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, I don't know WHY that didn't occur to me :P In answer to LV's question, it is sort of a school project, I suppose... It's a college essay. I am writing about Jake's issues of faith and the themes of searching for meaning in the book. Interesting (to me at least) and tons of material, but there's so much all through the book... Sigh. It IS good for my brain. Russia Moore 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Registered Religion around the world

1. How many religions in the world are registered today? 2. Is there any international institution that caters the registration of religious denominations?

There's really no such thing as registration of religions in the way you mean. (Some jurisdictions require individual churches to register for tax benefits e.g., but that's totally different.) —Zero Gravitas 07:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in visiting http://www.adherents.org for more on membership in religious groups. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That link's a cyber-squatter; I think you meant http://www.adherents.com. —Zero Gravitas 08:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• There are many people who are only nominally Christians and have never been to a church -- actually this applies to other religions as well. There is also the Metropolitan Community Church that ignores the statement found in Leviticus on homosexuals. Moreover, there are a few (we hope) Catholic child molesters. My point is that the word Christian per se is very broad.Patchouli 08:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Going to church is really not the essence of any religion. A lot of people who go to church regularly are only nominally Christians, because they generally practise un-Christian behaviours and have un-Christian attitudes outside church. And a lot of people who have never belonged to a church are far holier than the Pope. Maybe the Catholics are further along the road of acknowledgment and honesty about pedophilia (God knows they need to be); but it's certainly been happening within other denominations too - in 2003 the issue brought down a Governor-General of Australia, former Anglican archbishop Peter Hollingworth. JackofOz 11:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

editorial remarks aside, counting adherents is a really tough thing to do, even when you count people who say they belong to one. The adherent.com counts are as good as any. But remember: these things are very slippery.--CTSWyneken 11:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't already googled see [23]. It's a Christian site (I think) but it comes up at the top of various google searches and gives a good breakdown. Marskell 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Christmas Celebration

1. When did the celebration of Christmas start? 2. Is it a Christian tradition?

See Christmas. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Originally it was a pagan tradition but the Christians hijacked it & made it a celebration of the birth of Christ. Now it looks like the pagans have taken it back & made it a celebration of the art of shopping. AllanHainey 11:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. But I agree it DOES appear that pagans celebrate it vigorously as "a Mall and the Night visitors. (sorry, bad pun!)

Our article does a fairly decent job of it. Just to cut to the chase: Christians did not celebrate Christmas for the first few centuries of the history of the church. The first celebration of the birth of Jesus was on January 6, the day his was believed to have been baptised by John the Baptist In the West, around 325, Christmas entered the church year calendars at December 25th, the winter solstice. The Church used the day as a way to cut into the pagan cult of the Sun, Sol Invictus. If new Christians had to be in church on December 25th, they reasoned, they wouldn't be in the temple of the Sun. This kind of worked, so the feast stuck.

Most, but not all, Christians celebrate Christmas in some fashion. The early church and the Puritans (think Pilgrims) did not. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• To say that the pagans have taken the holiday back is misleading and a conflation of the word "pagan," which can refer either to those who practice Paganism or to those who do not practice monotheism (such as when a Christian refers to certain nonbelievers as pagans). The former group are those who originally celebrated the winter solstice in their own belief system prior to the creation of a Christmas holiday by the Christian Church. It would be very difficult to make a connection between those who practiced Paganism at the time (or even those who do today) and the broad social movement that has resulted in the Christmas holiday becoming so largely commercialized.DavidGC 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you believe about Dale Carnegie training philosophy?

Dear Sirs, I am asking for your kind help so that I manage to find out whether Dale Carnegie franchised trainers are indeed using manipulative and immoral techniques in order to gain money and to broaden their network. I recently answered an add wanting young people, educated in management fields, to be trained to become trainers, in order for them to work for a large american training organisation. i went to the interview where they promised me free training -that would last approximately 2 months- in leadership, sales techniques, world client service, and presentation skills. After that period i would become a licenced Dale Carnegie Trainer and they would send me to enterprises-clients in order to train their personnel or middle management. As I am interested in employee training activities, I happened to find the proposition quite interesting and I was ready to commit, when i read in wikipedia that the Dale Carnegie training has received criticism and is considered by some to resemble pyramid-multilevel marketing schemes. Do you happen to have more information around the Dale Carnegie corporation activities?

Thank you in advance

--88.218.57.203 11:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Metaxa E.

I am not personally familiar with this method, but the way you worded one of your comments raised a red flag to me. You said that they have promised you free training for 2 months so that you can work for them with various clients as a trainer. Aren't they also paying you for your time during these 2 months? It would be ridiculous for them to expect you to pay for your own training within their company, but if they're not also compensating you for the time that you're in training with them, something is not right. (Naturally, this is in reference to the specific company you are dealing with, and not the training method itself.) DavidGC 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Carnegie training is pretty well respected. Some people find just about any type of marketing immoral so they'll trump up criticisms of any form of it. Sure their offer to train you for free so that you know their methods and will spread them is a way to spread their influence. That doesn't mean it's bad. Look more into their mission and if you agree with it then there is not really a problem. I haven't looked at our article, but see if the criticism is cited, consider the source and read their criticism in full, then make your own mind up. The Carnegie's book (and maybe their training by extension) does get a bit of criticism for being a little superficial, Covey describes it as part of the personality ethic, and you can read in seven habits his views on that. That doesn't make it all bad though, and Covey wouldn't say it is either. - Taxman ^Talk 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I detect someone using Dale Carnegie techniques, like repeating my name excessively, I think to myself "this is a sleazy salesman, so don't believe anything they say". StuRat 19:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

HELP for CD!

How to find the inventory in "SIMPLY ACCOUNTING PRO 2005"cd?--86.62.212.97 14:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't post the same question on multiple reference desks. And please be patient; if somebody can find the answer, he or she will post a reply. --LarryMac 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And the answer is going to be the same. You are much better off asking the makers of "SIMPLY ACCOUNTING PRO 2005". DJ Clayworth 17:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

New Book

Can someone give me a title for this book: Some guy gets a heart attack but before he does, he plays a game of golf with God. =207.70.37.9 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of Match Made In Heaven: A Tale of Golf by Bob Mitchell. (Hmm... I'd have been able to come up with a better title if the character had suffered a stroke instead.)DavidGC 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me that one with Peter sending his golf ball in a thicket. Then his friend puts his in a pond and goes walking upon the pond. Then the third player plays, the ball is eaten by a fish, lifted by an eagle, rebounds upon a meteorite and so on. And holy Peter, disgusted : "I won't play with you nor your daddy anymore!". --193.56.241.75 14:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the one thanks =207.70.37.9 15:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

coffee plantation

i want to ask what is full sun production

From what I can tell, full-sun production of coffee is growing coffee beans in clear-cut fields and not under the canopy of the rain forest. The couple of articles I Googled suggested that coffee farmers have being moving this way for thirty years -- burning down the rain forest to clear the land. --CTSWyneken 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which Movie has been in Production for 20+ Years?

There is an ongoing movie project which has involved the lead actor filming new scenes every year for the last 20 years (or more). I saw a British documentary about this project about 5 years ago, it appeared to be a fairly low budget independent movie made for artistic reasons, possibly financed by the star himself. I think the lead actor was a classical British actor (in the style of Ben Kingsley, Anthony Hopkins, etc).

I can't find anything about its existence though. 172.138.13.40 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a close fit, but the only thing I can think of is the Seven Up! series of documentaries. The participants have been tracking their lives for the past 42 years and are not actors at all, but real people (Disclaimer: This is not to suggest that actors aren't real people. Well, not necessarily anyway). JackofOz 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not it. My description is pretty accurate, I would just add that I don't believe this movie has been released yet, the impression I got was that it still had a few years to go before it was completed. 172.149.50.86 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The mystery piece of music

I have rather liked a certain piece of music for some time now, but I've never found out its name. It's contempary and was recently used to open the BBC1 television programme Through Hell and High Water. Could you please tell me what it's called and where I can obtain a copy (if I can)?

Thanks

--Jrothwell 19:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Contact the BBC directly. You can also phone as they have a customer service. Tyrenius 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Average SAT scores for US primary-school teachers

What is the average SAT score for primary school teachers in the United States? I had trouble finding this information from teacher, Education in the United States, or Scholastic Aptitude Test. Thanks! -- Creidieki 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This does not seem like the type of statistic anybody would keep. I doubt that providing a record of one's SAT score is required before being hired to teach school. The last time I had to supply that information was when I applied for college admission. --LarryMac 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also... I never took the SAT. I just applied to college without it. It should not be assumed that all college graduates took the SAT in the past. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this one's going to be difficult if not impossible, as people are not systematically asked for their SAT scores upon application for a job as a primary teacher, so the information is not held anywhere unless someone has done a study with a sample group. Your best bet to get something close might be researching the SAT scores of education majors at universities, but this will not give you an accurate answer to your question, since not all primary teachers get a degree in education and education majors naturally wind up doing other things than solely teaching primary school.DavidGC 00:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some college graduates take the General Graduate Record Examination; this is very much like the SAT and the score of it would be more recent. A student learns immensely after four years of full-time study.Patchouli 10:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In general, the SAT/ACT are for undergraduate admissions and the GRE is for graduate admissions. They are rarely interchangeable. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Primary school teachers in the United States would generally not take the GRE unless they go to graduate school or are just plain masochistic. :) Either way, it would skew the sample group. DavidGC 23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

indians

i need to know who were the most important indians in usa, because they are many and i didnt find these info, thanks

Are you referring to Native Americans or people from India? --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Most Important" is really an opinion, but if you mean "Historically significant," you could start by looking up historic events involving tribes, assuming you mean "native American" by "Indian," and then after some more rounded research choose those who you, personally, feel are/where most important. You could also look up individual tribes and nations, such as Lakota or Hopi -Russia Moore 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that historically, Mohandas Gandhi is definitely up there as one whom many Americans would consider one of, if the most important Indians in recent history. Looking further back, I would have to say the most important and influential Indian of all time would have to be the Buddha. Loomis51 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Or if you are looking for people of Indian origin who live in /are citizens of USA, Category:Indian Americans should help. Tintin (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Teaching at Univ level without PHD

In the US one usually needs to have a PHD in order to teach at the university level. Are there countries that are more lax about these types of formal requirements for teaching, say, philosophy or literature (in English) at the university level?

I know having a higher degree would probably be an asset wherever I go and whatever I decide to do, but I'm not young anymore and don't know if I necessarily want to devote another 5 to 8 years of my life to doing that just on a formality when what I want to do is teach. Thank you for your advice and understanding. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.96.32 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 May 2006 UTC.

You can teach in the US with a Masters and then work on a PhD part time. You get to start teaching rather quickly and still eventually get a PhD. As for teaching outside the US without a PhD, have you considered getting a TEFL? --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Assistant prof yes, Associate or full prof no. And this is broadly mirrored in countries that adopt American and (so far as I understand) European curricula and standards. I would suggest that there are countries that are more lax about what constitutes a university but in countries that do attempt to have standards that at are least close to the Western norm, university level = PhD. In a sense, you aren't a university if this isn't true. See Professor BTW. Marskell 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I taught English literature at a Chinese university with no qualifications other than a BA in Law. Conditions were not ideal, however. TEFL is anomalous because your role is more like a sports instructor than an academic teacher (you teach a skill, not a subject); qualifications required can be lower than for academic teaching, but the rewards are not the same. Henry^Flower 21:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit of a comment on what Henry said. I'm assuming that your Bachelor's in Law was not your first University degree. Law schools usually only accept university graduates, admittedly with some exceptions. In any case, as I'm sure you're aware, had you done your law studies in the US you'd have a Juris Doctor or J.D. degree, which is technically considered a doctorate (actually I believe the exact status of a JD as a true doctorate is somewhat controversial, and for an American lawyer to insist on the title "Dr." before his or her name would be extremely obnoxious, as even American lawyers never bother with that.) Unfortunately for us in the Commonwealth, we tend to be more modest than our flamboyant American counterparts when handing out degrees, and so our equivalent of a JD is the LL.B., a mere Bachelors degree. Oh well. Loomis51 21:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not American. (Quite the reverse). Yes, my BA was my first degree. Henry^Flower 22:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this make you a Nacirema, Henry? :--) JackofOz 14:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Heehee... I remember reading an article on the 'Nacirema' in my first cultural anthropology class. Hilarious stuff.  :) DavidGC 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, universities in the UK can hire whom they like to do their teaching, regardless of qualifications. However, you would have to have some exceptional qualities (or good connections) if you weren't qualified adequately. The best thing would be to contact some universities directly and ask them about their policies. Tyrenius 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A lecturer's job at a university includes some teaching, but is also a research role. Teaching at that level requires a level of understanding of and involvement in your subject that comes from participating in its development. A universtiy will recruit you based on their belief that you can do that - a PhD is usually a big part of that, but not always - one of my university lecturers had no doctorate - his web page might be of interest to you - follow the personal page link for his academic history. I also know someone who's studying for a PhD while lecturing, as Kainaw suggested.

A PhD is far from a formality. If you don't have a research background, then a supervised research project will give you an excellent start. It sounds to me, though, as if your passion isn't for your subject so much as for teaching. Depending on what your subject is, you might be happier in a role in a technical college, or adult education, or, as Henry Flower suggested, teaching a non-academic subject at a university, or something else along those lines. What's your subject? --Hughcharlesparker 10:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Al Gore doesn't have a Ph.D., but I heard that he was lecturing at some campuses of the University of California after 2000. John Edwards has only a Juris Doctor and he lectured at some universities after 2004.Patchouli 22:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but 2 issues with this: being a lecturer or adjunct professor is very different from a full professor, and people with considerable experience in government or other areas are often able to teach at universities who welcome them because of the uniqueness and significance of their experiences.DavidGC 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Help w/ a simple sigil/piece of art.

A new co-worker has a tattoo, and I'd like to know what it "means" (if anything). I thought it was the Einsturzende Neubauten man, but it's not. No scanner or upload skills, so I'll try to describe it: a stick figure without legs (essentially just a line "torso" with a perpendicular line for "arms" crossing it), a round circle with a large dot in the middle for a "head," and the bottom third of a circle as "horns" on top of the head. It rings a bell -- but that may just be because of the head-is-a-dotted-circle Neubauten memory. I'd just ask her, but she's darn cute and I wouldn't mind impressing her. :) Thanks for any help! --MattShepherd 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a kind of transgender symbol? David Sneek 20:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the symbol for an intersexual or hermaphroditic organism... David Sneek 20:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for both simutaneously answering my question and dashing all my hopes. --MattShepherd 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Chin up, lad, maybe she just likes Mercury.

Or is into astrology. David Sneek 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And it doesn't have to dash your hopes. If she's cute and intersex, she may still be interested, and interesting. Why not find out and report back here? Skittle 09:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I call V W V = virtual Wiki-voyeurism. :--) JackofOz 14:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, you still have a chance. Black Carrot 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Austria's President

Hello, I really like wikipedia. I enjoy the fact that it is a free online encyclopedia. There is one piece of information though that you do not happen to have that would be useful to others who do reports on Austria: Their President. I, myself, am doing a report on Austria and could not find that information anywhere on your site. I ended up finding it on Answers.com. It is currently Heinz Fisher. I would very much appreciate it if you had that information on wikipedia for me and for others.

Thank you.

Thank you for the suggestion but the Austria page does already include that information. --12.106.14.201 21:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Yes, we do have that info, it's here and here. I found it via the Austria article, but sometimes it's easiest to search this site with Google, like this. David Sneek 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

dangerous car

Somewhere I remember reading about/hearing about a car that was going to be really cool, but was promptly recalled because the windshield broke wierd and sliced people's heads off. For some reason I thaught the name was The It but the article it doesn't list... umm... it. Whats is the name given to this car? Thanks. schyler 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Dynasty Electric Car Corp. manufactures an electric car called "the iT". However, after a brief google search for "dynasty electric car" with "windshield," I was unable to find any references to either decapitation risks associated with the vehicle or problems with the windshield.DavidGC 02:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• There was a car in eastern europe that the people called the "guillotine on wheels" it was the Škoda Auto 105 and other similar models with the hood mounted on side hinges. It oftened happened that during head on crashes the hood would "go inside of the car" and decapitate the driver or the passanger. Today proably all life threatening features are removed in the early phases of the design process. Mieciu K 14:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cannibalism in Aotearoa

Does anyone know the date the last person was consumed by Maori in New Zealand. There is a tapu place in Waitangi said to be the place where the last person was consumed. Is this true? What is the last documented story of the last act of cannibalism in New Zealand. Pre or post 1840?

• I'm pretty sure the settler press accused the Hau hau of cannibalism, and in Monday's Warriors (admittedly a novel) Maurice Shadbolt descibes some token ritual cannibalism by Titokowaru's brother (eating the heart of the first enemy killed). James Cowan's history of the wars can be found online here - http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Cow02NewZ-f5.html. And here's Cowan's description of the "last act of cannibalism in New Zealand:

"Kepa engaged the Hauhaus till dark, when they drew out to Weraroa. In this skirmish the Hauhaus had three killed. They took utu for their losses by decapitating Kepa's comrade, whose body was left on the field, and cutting out the heart and liver, which made a cannibal meal for some of the savages that night."

Cowan states this took place on 3 February 1869, I'm not sure where Weraroa is, presumably somewhere in Taranaki. Lisiate 02:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite a bit further south. It's just outside Levin. Grutness...wha? 05:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What film is this quote from?

Men are like parking spaces: the good ones are all taken and the available ones are all handicapped.

It seems to be from The Astronaut's Wife [24] see [25] JMiall 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just saw Jaime Pressly on Martha yesterday and she said that was her mother's (or grandmother's) favorite saying, so it must not originally be from The Astronaut's Wife. --Chapuisat 14:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

May 12

Question;;Count Basie band members

Hi >my name is Jim , I got to know a Jazz piano Player( Al Tinney ),He played with Count Basie and Duke Ellington.I would like to know if Al' s name apperars on any of the album covers?( and with one?) ANY information would be greatly appreciated Thank you Jim

I was surprised to find that we didn't have an article apropos of Tinney, inasmuch as I think he's likely notable per WP:MUSIC; if you've some good sources, please feel free to create an article at Al Tinney (I realize this doesn't answer your question--a cursory Google search wasn't of much help--but you might interested in any case). Joe 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Easy way to find this sort of stuff is All Music Guide. A search there for Al Tinney (and a glance at his credits) shows he's credited on a couple of re-releases. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Two Different U.S. Codes?

Version one of THOMAS at the Library of Congress is http://uscode.house.gov/download/download.shtml and lists Title 6 as

Title 6, Domestic Security

Next, version two at the U.S. Government Printing Office is http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/browse.html and lists Title 6 as

Title 6 Surety Bonds (Repealed)

These differ radically. Are there any other version? What is all this confusion?Patchouli 01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• The current version is the first one, while the second version is from 2000 and is now outdated. Title 6 "Surety Bonds" was repealed in 1982, so its presence in versions of the USC from 1982 to 2005 was merely for record, as it was not being enforced (hence the "repealed" designation). In 2005, the current Title 6 "Homeland Security Organization" was adopted, replacing the repealed "Surety Bonds" which previously occupied the position of Title 6.

Basically, the position of Title 6 has been open since 1982, and the action by Congress in 2005 finally put something new into that spot in the Code.

(Note: I hope you don't mind, but I've edited your question to eliminate the list of codes that are not relevant to your question, in order to reduce clutter. Feel free to revert back if you have a strong objection to this.)DavidGC 02:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you.Patchouli 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I would like to know if it is a conflict of interest for an employee to hire an attorney for whom he works for at a lawfirm.

Not as far as I know, but it can lead to difficulties if things go wrong. I know someone in a law firm (in the UK) who was represented by his firm on a conveyancing matter. They made a mistake and he would have sued them if it had been another firm, but didn't because he didn't think it would help his career much to sue his own firm. In your example, where is the conflict? Both the people have the same interest; there is not a conflicting one. A conflict of interest is when someone has simultaneously two agendas or obligations of allegiancies, and one is incompatible with the other. If someone asks a lawyer to represent them against a company, and the lawyer also happens to be a director, shareholder or whatever of that company, then the lawyer has a conflict of interest. However, this is not a legal opinion, and you should consult a lawyer. Tyrenius 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

IANAL either. One obvious example is where the employee has a legal issue in relation to their employment with the firm. The attorney should refuse to handle the employee's case because the attorney has an existing responsibility towards the firm to represent its interests above all others. JackofOz 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

conflict in international relation

explain conflict as it relates to international relations with examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.149.138 (talk • contribs)

Please do your own homework. Stroika 06:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

...and learn the difference between a question and an instruction. --Shantavira 07:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

...instead of giving me flashbacks of my SFS orals. DavidGC 07:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

From your IP you are based in Israel, do really need us to give you examples of conflict in international relations? AllanHainey 12:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help. Just tell me how many words are required and when the deadline is. Loomis51 21:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

ooo. good template! Grutness...wha? 06:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Public Service Law

Dear Wikipedia,

Could you please help me find a law on public service from any country at all? I have tried through search engine but I couldn't find it. Thank you. 219.83.20.248 07:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Here you'll find Australia's Public Service Act 1999. JackofOz 07:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The see also section of the Civil service article could be a good place to start looking for others (although I'm a bit surprised there's no article on the Australian public service). Natgoo 10:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as an escapee, I'm not the least bit surprised. JackofOz 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you speak German, French or Italian: the Swiss Federal Personnel Act (Bundespersonalgesetz). Sandstein 09:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Junks vs Western Ship of the Line

Hi

In a sea battle, taking place in 1705, between 74gun (24 pounders)Western SOL's having crews of 700 and hybrid 40 gun (42 pounders)Japanese ships having crews of 1000, would the Japanese have a chance of success? I realise that many factors would also need to be considered such as weather, experience and just plain luck for example, but any input you can give would be useful.

I ask because I take part in a historical wargame by post in which I play the position of Japan. In the last 5 game years I have developed Japan in to a very strong nation. However a Catholic Alliance is a constant threat. I am looking to develope a style of Japanese warship that could take on and win Western style warships.

The game, whilst just agame, is a great deal of fun and has lead me to take a huge interest in history and Japan in particular.

Thank you.

All other things being equal, why not? The lower number of guns is compensated for by the heavier weight, which would cause correspondingly greater destruction. Tyrenius 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Larger cannon may have a longer range so the number of guns may not even enter into the matter. If you can engage first, you have an advantage. Rmhermen 01:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

All cannons of that time were smooth-bore so thay could only be used effectivly at close ranges since they quickly lost accuracy, the european cannons would probably be made of better quality material and have equal or similar range as the japanese cannons. Also the european crew would probably be able to fire much faster because of a longer history of maretime traditions in europe. I would bet my money on the Western SOL's. Mieciu K 13:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

English titles of Georgian author Otar Chiladze's works

Specifically, I am looking for the English title of the second half of the series by Georgian author Otar Chiladze known as "A Man Went down the Road". The first half is titled "Aeetes", but I need the title of the second half. Anything pointing me in the right direction will be greatly appreciated.

84.132.218.254 15:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The book actually has three parts. Second part is "Uheirro" ( the name of soldier with broken legs), and the third part is "Farnaoz" - the son of Uheirro.

Sovier losses

How many were soviet dead (dead only, not missing and POWs) in 1941 and other years of great patriotic war? Vess

There are casualty figures in the Great Patriotic War article. It says 10.6 million --Shandon 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My Fair Lady time frame

What era did My Fair Lady take place in? Preferably which decade, but even era is fine. -- Zanimum 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. It's based on George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion which was written in 1912, but so far I can not find a specific reference to the era depicted in the movie or the play. --LarryMac 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's actually quite precisely 1910. How do we know? Well, according to this, the Ascot outfits are mostly black, because Edward VII had just died. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have never guessed that we'd get more than an era, just from clothing. That's quite interesting. Thanks! -- Zanimum 15:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I looked a bit more at that reference, and it's referring to the stage show -- I thought I was remembering something differently; I hadn't recalled the Ascot Gavotte having black outfits. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so only in this director's interpretation of the show do they all have black ascots? Would it be safe to say that the play took place between 1908 and 1914? -- Zanimum 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say 1910 at the latest -- that's the very end of the Edwardian period in which the show is set. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's still a fraction too precise, jpgordon. While there's nothing to suggest it was set in the future, there's equally nothing to say it was in the past. I'd say it was set it in "the present day" for 1912. What era was that? In terms of fashion, this would still have been called the Edwardian era (because clothing styles didn't suddenly change on the day Edward VII died in 1910). But was the question about the fashion era or some other type of era? It was certainly during the pre-war colonial era when the British Empire was at its height. JackofOz 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The routine use of the telephone in private homes places it pretty much in the 20th century, and the fashions in the movie (which used mainly black-and-white -- not mourning, but very little color -- for the uppper-class characters) set it in the pre-WW1 period, and also before the hobble skirt fad. To see the difference between the Victorian and Edwardian fashion silhouettes, look at Image:Coronet Corset Co.gif. Churchh 01:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

JackofOz has a good point -- I was being too precise, and probably wrong. Actually, since Pygmalion was written in 1912, one could easily assume that Shaw was setting it in his present. Well, enough of this; I've started reading the play for the first time, and it's delightful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I always thought poor Freddie got the short end of things in the musical version. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

His compensation is that he gets the best song of the whole show, "On the Street Where You Live". What a classic. JackofOz 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, one of my favorite stalker songs. Apparently in the stage version, he sings a reprise, drunk and slumped on a lamp post, which explains a bit why Eliza might have not quite appreciated him. In Pygmalion, Shaw provides an epilogue explaining what happens after, and basically, the two of them wed and Freddy never amounts to much, though Eliza does get her flower shop. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thanks to everybody for their interest in this topic, I never expected such a healthy reply! -- Zanimum 13:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Website for Financial Data

Hey boys and girls, would anybody know of a good site to find historical financial data (prices of stocks, indices, exchange rates etc..) beyond the maximum five year range that's available on sites like Yahoo? Say for example I wanted to graph the performance of the Dow or the exchange rate between the US and Canadian dollar from 1950 to today, would any of you guys know of a good site for that? Much appreciated. Loomis51 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How much are you willing to pay? Most such services cost. Natgoo 12:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out ECONOMAGIC for free time series data. I know for sure that you can get financial indicies (daily and monthly closing averages) since 1950. I also know they post the daily US/CAN exchange rate since 1970... and you might be able to find monthly average exchange rates earlier than that. Good Luck. --WonderBread 18:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also oanda which looks pretty comprehensive (click on 'FX History'). --Richardrj 07:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The price on "mona lisa"

Since the movie "the da vinci code" is almost in the theather, I was reading some stuff about Mona Lisa. I was just wondering: How much is the painting worth(in money)???

• Didja try looking at Mona Lisa? It suggests something in the range of US$600 million. (I'll take two.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• The bottom line is that this question is impossible to answer. A painting is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, and that can't be tested, because no one's had the chance to buy it recently. Guinness World Records gives the record world auction price as $93 million (£56 million) on May 5, 2004, for Pablo Picasso’s Garçon à la Pipe (1905).

A billiongazillion is actually a pretty good estimate.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Priceless, the Louvre would probably not let it go unless it would be better for the painting somewhere else. With a painting like that, galleries don't think in terms of money they think in terms of what would be good for the painting. Benjaminstewart05 17:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish that were the case, Ben, but even the most sacred of things have a price. (Especially considering that we're talking about the French here ;). Loomis51 00:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You think the French are capitalist pigs? I'll see you on my talk page. Stevage 22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, my comment had nothing to do with the French being capitalist pigs. In fact, France is a rather socialist country. I was refering to other values, which probably shouldn't be mentioned on the RD. Loomis51 11:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

May 13

Constellation Draco

Can information on the constellation Draco be added to Wikipedia? I found info on the name Draco but nothing on the constellation of the same name.

It's already here, at Draco (constellation), which is included in the "other uses" noted at the top of Draco. —Zero Gravitas 06:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mantra

I can't understand why, something's good got to die, before we miss it! -- S.H.

And how. —Zero Gravitas 06:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be that way. This weekend, ring up all your friends and relatives and tell them how much you love them. Don't wait till it's too late. You may have a sore ear and a hefty phone bill, but consider the alternative ....... JackofOz 06:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Do You Realize??--Hughcharlesparker 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Early 20th Century Thearte

How often were plays held? eg, a weekly ritual, weekends etc.? Was there audience involvement eg Cheering etc? What was an actors way of life like like their standard of living, and acceptance from other members of society?

Try being a little more specific; which country are you asking about? We unfortunately don't have a 20th century theatre page yet, but if you are more specific someone here might be able to help. We do have a history of theatre page if you want to try to guess trends :-) Skittle 14:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

humanities

how is christianity and judaism connected

There are two wiki articles on the subject: Judaism and Christianity and Judeo-Christian. In short, Christianity arose from Judaism of the first century. They are both monotheistic, consider the books of the Hebrew Bible to be sacred scripture. They share many of the same ethical principles. They differ chiefly over Jesus and the role of God's law in the life of the faithful. Does that help? --CTSWyneken 12:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Judaism is the oldest surviving Abrahamic religious tradition, (i.e. religions coming from Abraham). Christianity is a much newer form emerging in the first century in a true form. Indeed Jesus was a Jew, and he didn't know he was creating a new religion, just giving salvation, gospel etc... see christianity.

The religions are very much similar, for example christianity uses the Jewish scriptures (torah) in its old testament and the God is the same, they both believe in almost the same things. However the differences start over Jesus and this is when the split occured. Jews believe that Jesus was not the messiah and Christians do. There is one obvious example of difference, Jews carried on their customs and traditions, most of which survive to today, and christians forged (gradually) a new religion based around the teachings of Jesus.

The exception being Messianic Jews, who believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah, but hold that maintaining Jewish tradition is still important. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Another (more important?) example is that the Jewish religion places much emphasis on following divine laws and customs to appease God, and to be good people. Christianity focusses much more on actions making you a better person, and worshiping God in that way, for example, giving money to the poor and helping the needy as laid out in the Gospels and other books of the new testament. I hope this helps somewhat, and if you have any more queries about religion, do not hesitate to ask as I have a keen interest in these matters! Benjaminstewart05 13:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are not "wiki" articles, those are Wikipedia articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wiki" is often used within Wikipedia pages as a shorthand form. Tyrenius 15:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? If so, it's being done inappropriately, as Wikipedia is a registered trademark. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And surely they are wiki articles, as they are written in a wiki in a wiki fashion. They are also wikipedia articles, and it is perhaps more precise to call them that. Skittle 16:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To make it clear, Skittle is explaining that Wikipedia is a form of wiki.

Zoe, the fact that "Wikipedia" is a registered trademark (if that is indeed the case, which it probably is,) in no way creates any sort of restriction, whether legal or linguistic, on anybody calling it whatever they feel like calling it. Nicknames or shortenings of registered trademarks are done all the time, and sometimes the shortenings themselves get registered. So if I say that I'm planning on "taking my Beemer over to Micky-Dee's for a Coke(R) after checking out a few things on wiki", I'm not doing anything inapropriate at all. Loomis51 00:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

french translation

have I translated this right: Carl wants to go to Paris. Karl veut aller à Paris.

how do you read that?

is there any website in which I can hear this French sentence?

Looks right to me, except why did you change the spelling of Carl's name? (By the way, this question should probably have been asked in the Languages section.) Loomis51 13:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That translation is right, but I wouldn't change the spelling of the name. Carl/Karl/Carlos/Charles etc are all different versions of (basically) the same name, and the French version of it is Charles, so if you were going to translate the name, that's what I'd pick, but usually people don't like having their names translated. - user:rasd

I agree that it looks right, but keel the spelling of Carl as it is in English. Of course, it's not the only way of translating it, though it is probably the most common (you could also say "Carl a envie d'aller à Paris", for instance, though that probably translates a little closer to "Carl has a desire to travel to Paris"). Grutness...wha? 13:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would pronounce it "Karl vuh-tallay a paree", but bearing in mind the 'a's should be short like in 'cat' and the 'r' in 'Paris' should be in the back of the throat, nothing like an English 'r'. I'll try to find you a link. Skittle 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Although not having the specific sentence, this first page has links to .wav files of french pronunciation of letters and some words. That might help. The second is a library of words and phrases as sound files. [26] [27] Skittle 14:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. I really do appreciate it. 58.69.14.122 09:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the French nearly inevitably translate foreign names into French, I'd go with "Charles veut aller à Paris.". - Nunh-huh 04:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What? Since when in living memory did the French ever translate foreign names? They don't translate names any more than English-speakers do. That is, when they did, it was mostly in old times and for kings and such. (E.g. King Károly of Hungary is known as "Charles" in both English and French.) Check a French newspaper. For instance, George Bush is "George Bush". Not "Georges Bush", and certainly not "Georges Buisson". And Dick Cheney is "Dick Cheney", even though "Dick" as a nickname for "Richard" is unknown to most French. --BluePlatypus 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Barring people so famous as to be known by their names in the original languages, it's routine to translate names when translating into French. See, for example, the French Wikipedia's page on Juan Carlos and note how it mentions that he is also (sometimes) "Jean-Charles". Note also his ancestors, "Marie" des Deux-Sicilies, "Victorie Eugénie" princesse du Royaume Uni; "Henri" de Battenberg, and "Alphonse XII" roi d'Espagne (instead of Maria, "Victoria Eugenie", "Henry", and "Alfonso"). - Nunh-huh 06:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Juan Carlos is Juan Carlos in French, and sometimes Jean-Charles. The names of monarchs have historically been translated into French, just as they have been translated into English, and now the habit is falling into disuse. Just as it is in English. The French have never translated any other names. Ever.

Oh, and English still translates the names of popes, for example: we've got Pope Benedict XVI, not "Benedictus" (Latin) or "Benedetto" (Italian). Same thing with Pope John Paul II: not "Ioannes Paulus" or "Giovanni Paolo". - ulayiti (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read my post before responding, Nunh-huh? I specifically pointed out that the names of kings are sometimes translated, both in English and in French. That does not mean all other names are. --BluePlatypus 23:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, of course I responded to my psychic impressions of it wihout reading it. Because of course I didn't reference it in any way. The same way you responded to my citing several non-kings whose names are translated in the French Wikipedia article on Juan Carlos by denying their existence. The facts are: the tendency in French is to translate names. French responds to non-French words like an oyster does to sand: they are an irritant, and they are dealt with. - Nunh-huh 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have recorded the sentence: http://aurelien.langlois.free.fr/charles_liaisons.wav and http://aurelien.langlois.free.fr/charles_noliaisons.wav —the first one with two liaisons ("veut aller" and "aller à"), the second one without any liaisons. Pronouncing the liaisons is considered more formal; just as Skittle, I would naturally pronounce only the first one. --Aurelien Langlois 09:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

aurelien, hello. I can't find the first site you placed there. I had no problem with the second one. There must be something wrong with the address or something. Thanks. Carlrichard 09:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There was something wrong, indeed... Aurelien Langlois 11:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What are all you guys talking about? "Charles" is the French translation of the English "Carl"??? That's not right. "Charles" is the French translation of the English "Charles". Never heard of any English people named "Charles"? Let's see...there just happens to be one who's the Prince of Wales. Besides, "Carl" is a perfectly appropriate first name in French, I know of several. Loomis51 13:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As Rasd says, Charles, Carl and Karl are different modern forms of the same historical name. Yes, the French name Charles would translate to English as Charles, but the English names Carl, Karl or Charles would all translate to French as Charles. Rasd points out that names are usually not translated - there are exceptions for practical reasons, not least in the case of people called Hugh. --Hughcharlesparker 16:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it's more appropriate to say that these forms are "equivalents" of each other, not "translations" of each other. We don't even translate names of royalty any more; King Juan Carlos of Spain is not King John Charles. JackofOz 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"We" don't, in English. The French do. See the French Wikipedia for Jean-Charles.... - Nunh-huh 06:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, "Charles" is not the "French translation of the English 'Charles'". It's the opposite. The name "Charles" came into English from the French. And "Charles" and "Carl" and "Carlos" and "Karol" are still all just variants of the same name. --BluePlatypus 23:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A few other things: I wouldn't pronounce the "t" in "veut". I'd say, phonetically, "Carl vuh-allay a paree". No "t" sound. Also, if you want to phrase it as Grutness suggested, you'd have to include an "L": "Carl a l'envie d'aller à Paris". Finally, my given name is Lewis and I've lived in a French city all my life and not once has anyone ever translated my name to the French "Louis" (Loo-ee). I've simply never heard of that so-called practice. Perhaps it was once done for royalty or popes or whatever but for regular Joes like me (or our friend Carl, assuming he too is a regular Joe), it's simply never done. Loomis51 23:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

oops - good point. I missed the "l'". Grutness...wha? 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, why wouldn't you pronouce the 't' in 'veut'? To me that sounds as unnatural as sayig 'a apple', but I haven't listened closely to French people speaking French for a while. Skittle 16:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist, and I really can't explain why the "t" is not pronounced, except to say that in all my years of speaking and hearing French, I've never heard anyone pronounce "veut aller" as "vuh-tallay". What I can say though, is that pronouncing "vuh-allay" is nowhere near as awkward as pronouncing "a apple". The "n" in "an" is meant to alleviate this awkwardness. "Vuh-allay", on the other hand, is far easier to pronounce. Again, I'm not a linguist and I don't know the terminology, but when pronouncing "a apple" there would be an awkward "stop" between the two a's, whereas in "vuh-allay", there is no such "stop"; the vowels just seem to blend together, almost as if they're all one syllable. Perhaps a more accurate phonetic translation of "veut aller" would be "vua-lay". Loomis51 03:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper names are usually untranslated (today it's usually the spelling that counts in legal documents etc.) Exceptions are names with well-known translations such as traditional place names, names of monarchs including popes, and a few others. If, however, "Carl" is not a real person, but just a name picked for a translation exercise, it would probably be acceptable to translate it. Peter Grey 04:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A French teacher whom I had in middle school insisted on translating surnames, such that, for example, the late Reggie White became Reggie Blanc. Joe 05:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Garfield assassination

Where exactly in present-day Washington D.C. was President Garfield shot? 66.213.33.2 16:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

James_Garfield#Assassination. Henry^Flower 16:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but the article does not say exactly where it happened in present-day Washington D.C.

It didn't happen in present-day Washington DC, it happened in 1881 Washington DC. :) Seriously, "The President was walking through the Sixth Street Station"; do you want the platform number? Henry^Flower 16:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, but that station no longer exists. I believe the location is near the mall, but where exactly? Is it now the site of the National Archives, the Mellon museum, or where?

From Baltimore and Potomac Rail Road:

The original Washington station was on the National Mall, at the present location of the National Gallery of Art, at the southwest corner of Sixth Street NW and Constitution Avenue. Tracks ran south from there along Sixth Street to a wye in Sixth Street, Maryland Avenue and Virginia Avenue.

—Zero Gravitas 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Four regions of the USA

I noticed in Scientific American that the USA was divided into 4 "regions" a small East and larger South Mid West and West, this was an article on guns and death. Is there some standard for defining these zones ? AS in where do they start and why ? ( The guns bit is of no interest to me )

Well, I'm not sure how standard this is, but my understandin as one who went to public schools in the U.S. is that the North (East) borders the South at the Mason-Dixon line, the Mid West is between the Appalachians and the Louisiana Purchase and the West is of and west of the Purchase's territory. -LambaJan 19:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw: List of regions of the United States. -LambaJan 19:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Census Bureau-designated areas are the answer I was looking for Thank you

Meech lake

The proposals in the Meech lake accord gives more power to the provinces, but are they crafted to target Quebec in particular?

Did you read Meech Lake accord? --Robert Merkel 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the five proposed ammendments, actually the most controversial one that led to the rejection of the Accord, was the recognition of Quebec as a "distinct society" so it's hard to deny that at least that part wasn't crafted to target Quebec in particular! Loomis51 10:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Huck Finn

In the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tom created a coat of arms for JIm when he was held prisoner as a runaway slave near the end of the novel. the discription of the coat of arms is:

On the scutheon we'll have a bend or in the dexter base, a saltire murrey in the fess, with a dog, couchant, for common charge, and under his foot a chain embattled, for slavery, with a chevron vert in a chief engrailed, and three invected lines on a field azure, with the nombril points rampant on a dancette indented; crest, a runaway nigger, sable with his bundle over his shoulder on a bar sinister; and a couple of gules for supporters, which is you and me; motto, Maggiore fretta, minore atto.

Can someone plese show me what this would look like? thanks

You should go to the Heraldry page and draw it yourself with the terminology. Some of these are just jokes: Of course a "runaway nigger" will be "sable" (sable means black).--Teutoberg 22:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's gibberish: a nombril point can't be rampant (and I'm fairly sure you can only have one nombril point); gules is a colour, not a countable noun. Henry^Flower 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I counted sixteen words that I did not know meaning of. It is supposed to be children's literature, eh ?

Who supposes it to be children's literature? Even if it were, the whole point of the passage is that the words are obscure: Tom doesn't know what they mean either. Henry^Flower 12:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, the motto "Maggiore fretta, minore atto" is Latin for "More haste, less speed." GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not latin, its italian. alteripse 14:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "runaway nigger" could also be "proper", meaning "its natural color", instead of just "sable". User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

May 14

Mary - mother of Jesus

I have learned that Mary - the mother of Jesus - is the Mother of the Catholic Church, but what makes her the Mother? Is it merely because she is the mother of Jesus? Or is it because of some virtues she possesses?

In 1964, at Vatican II, Paul VI introduced the modern use of the title Mother of the Church. The text of the address in which the declaration was made is available here. It may help answer your questions. --Cam 02:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

All mother goddesses look alike to men. See also Isis#Links to Christianity. --DLL 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And The Two Babylons, interesting article in its entirety. The questioner may want to consider the significance of the hymn lyrics

"All I have I give you,

Every dream and wish are yours,

Mother of Christ,

Mother of mine, present them to my Lord."

Also, this may help. <<Pius XII, in a message to the Marian Congress of Ottawa, Canada, on July 19, 1947 said: "When the little maid of Nazareth uttered her fiat to the message of the angel... she became not only the Mother of God in the physical order of nature, but also in the supernatural order of grace, she became the Mother of all, who... would be made one under the Headship of her Son. The Mother of the Head would be the Mother of the members.">> From [28] Skittle 16:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the doctrinal point of the Blessed Virgin Mary and particularly of the immaculate conception. N.b. this has nothing to do with parthenogenesis. All of the mainline churches say that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus, but immaculate conception refers to eternal virginity. The exact status of Mary is hard to specify in RCC theology. Perhaps "chief of all saints" would be a way of thinking of her, as well as "top intercessor of all humans." She is not divine by even the most radical and non-conformist Catholic tradition, but she is as blessed and sanctified as possible. Geogre 17:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

All of the mainline churches say that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus, but immaculate conception refers to eternal virginity. This is a common misconception (no pun intended), Geogre. The two claims are:

• Virgin Birth: That Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb without a human father, and that she remained a virgin even after giving birth to Him
• Immaculate Conception: That Mary herself was conceived without stain of original sin. JackofOz 08:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WAIT JUST ONE SEC. Why would a woman be at the head of the Catholic Church? Isn't all glory supposed to be to God? Isn't that why Jesus sacrificed himself for us? That raises the question: Why do Catholics pray to Saints? Doesn't that totally destory exactly what Jesus set up? --Welcometocarthage

Looks like a set-up to me; nobody in this discussion said that Mary was the head of the Catholic Church. In Catholicism (in theory), all glory goes to God. The saints (including Mary) are just there to help. It's like when you ask people in your community to pray for you, except you know they don't have much else to do :-) You can say someone is pretty fab without that meaning you give any less 'Glory' to God. And how does praying to saints 'totally destroy exactly what Jesus set up'? Did Jesus set up a 'don't pray to saints' club? I thought it was meant to be a bit deeper than that. Skittle 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

'39

In the article for the song '39 by Queen, it says the lyrics include, "your mother's eyes in your eyes/cry to me...All my life/still ahead/pity me!" I've been listening to my recording of the song over and over again, and I'm pretty sure they're "from your eyes" and "For my life". Can I get a confirmation on this? Black Carrot 02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[link to copyvio website removed], [link to copyvio website removed], and [link to copyvio website removed] agree with you. But [link to copyvio website removed] is the only one on the the first page of a google search that returned that it said "Your mother's eyes in your eyes cry to me." All of them, however, agree with you on the "for my life" part. schyler 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated it. Black Carrot 14:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

EXPCITE

What does this mean in the context of the United States Code?Patchouli 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The help section of the united states code webpage says that EXPCITE stands for EXPanded CITation (seems the U.S. Government is starting to turn to Newspeak afterall). Also, all I did was a Google search inputing "united states code expcite" and it was the first return. Pretty easy. schyler 02:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you.Patchouli 02:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Snowy Mountains Scheme

Does any of you know of any articles or good books about The Snowy River scheme and specifically the immigrants that worked on it? Even stuff like Journal articles I can track down if you know of something particular.

Thanks Waynejkruse10

My Dad has a couple (one very mediocre written by a former worker, and a much better one written by a professional historian), but I don't know their names. Normally, we don't answer questions by email, but in this specific case contact me on my talk page or through the "e-mail this user" link to remind me and I'll ask him next time I speak to him (probably in a day or two).

If you're in Victoria a good place to search for books like this is to check on Coolcat, which lets you search all the academic libraries in Victoria including the State Library and all the University libraries. I assume there are equivalents in the other states. --Robert Merkel 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: Messages and Metaphors in the song Leningrad by Billy Joel

Firstly, here is a link to the lyrics of that song:

[link to copyvio website removed]

I am looking for historical refrences and messages in this particular song. So far I have come across these:

And never saw his father anymore; A child of sacrifice, a child of war; Another son who never had a father after Leningrad - Battle of Leningrad in WW2, very bloody battle.

A cold war kid in McCarthy time - Joseph McCarthy, anti-communist.

Stop 'em at the 38th Parallel - Korean War

Blast those yellow reds to hell - Refrence to Communists but I am unsure why its the "yellow reds" rather than just "reds". Does this mean anything else?

Under their desk in an air raid drill - Duck and Cover in the USA

But children lived in Levittown - Levittown, iconic image of suburbia after WW2, planned city.

Until the Soviets turned their ships around; And tore the Cuban missiles down - Cuban Missile Crisis

Haven't they heard we won the war; What do they keep on fighting for? - Im unsure about this one, was there a particular point where it was obvious that the USA was domonent in the Cold War?

Can you spot anything else that I have missed? Any particular meanings that are significant?

Thanks.

"Blast those yellow Reds to hell" is the Korean War again, referring to North Korea and/or China, which of course had/have communist governments.

"You took a yellow Red before a white American, which is pretty pinko."

"You're even boring in Technicolor."

—Zero Gravitas 04:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Besides being an icon of suburbia, Levittown is also where Billy Joel himself lived as a child. --Metropolitan90 05:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks y'all.

• "Haven't they heard we won the war; What do they keep on fighting for?" -- is most certainly ironic. Think about what it would mean for a songwriter to write that today, except about the war with Iraq. --Fastfission 22:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For that matter, much of the song is meant to be ironic, as I look it over a bit more carefully. It is fairly explicitly expressing the idea that the that Soviet citizens were portrayed in the U.S. as being pure militaristic evil, and yet the Soviet citizens were really the ones who suffered the most during the entire period. --Fastfission 22:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Death of Frederick II of Prussia

Where did Frederick II of Prussia die? It doesn't say in the article, and I'm looking for his place of death so I can add his name to WikiTree.

Potsdam (specifically, Sanssouci) - Nunh-huh 04:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Black-Velvet 09:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Water management of the Nile

What water management techniques are there in use on the Nile, other then the Aswan High Dam? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trinityx 8 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC).

While I can't answer your question myself, this article, based on a UN press release may be able to get you started on the right track for your research. Another helpful thing might be to search the UN homepage for "Nile water management." One of the documents that came up when I searched for it was this PDF file which might also be useful in your research. DavidGC 11:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mother's Day

Maybe I need to put his in the formt of a question. Mother’s Day is a farce created by a capitolistic society. I dont need Hallmark to tell me to appreciate my mom on May 14th. And to show that apprectiation by buying her some pre-determined genre of a gift. Any proof to that?

• Forgot to buy your Mom a present, I take it. Not sure we can help you convince her how meaningless the "holiday" is at this late date. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• How about checking out the "History" section of Mother's Day? The reference desk is not the place for soapboxing or debate.Wikipedia: "Also an encyclopedia!" --DavidGC 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• You ingrate. Apparently, you weren't spanked enough as a child. --Nelson Ricardo 22:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• So don't buy her a fancy gift, just make her something nice, with a unique card. You can make mother's day work for nothing at all if you are clever about it. And yes, like most holidays this one is an excuse for companies to try and make you buy their stuff. But like all holidays there are ways to do it without buying a thing. Be creative. But it's a little late for that. --Fastfission 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• See Parents Day.Patchouli 08:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just tell her that you don't recognise Mothers day as something you need to specifically give a present for, for the reasons you allude to above, don't buy her a present or card but be nice to her at other times. She'll probably moan a wee bit for the first year or so (mine did) but she'll be ok with it. AllanHainey 08:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Mother's Day did not start so very commercialised. It was actually tied in with religion for a while. Russia Moore 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I was insulted.

I was having a conversation with an asian assosciate of mine and he, jokinly called me what I understood as sounding like:

lanchoos banderjuda bander de bund

Now I believe he is pakistani. I am aware these were insults but I dont know what htey mean or even what language they were in. I apologise for my ignorance.

thank you

Perhaps the Language Reference Desk would be a better place to post this. Isopropyl 18:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Is the U. S, House of Representatives exempt from the provisions of the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT?

IANAL, however according to Wikipedia's FOIA article, the act governs only federal government agencies, which would limit it to the executive branch. If this is true, there would be no specific exemption for the House of Representatives, as it would be unnecessary since the legislative branch would already fall outside of the act's purview. There may be other laws or procedures that govern similar issues for the House and Senate. --DavidGC 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

DavidGC is right. Congress exempted itself from FOIA. How nice of them. -- Mwalcoff 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI there are also some absolute exemptions from the UK Freedom of Information Act, relating to certain government areas. Tyrenius 03:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Gustav Mahler's "Unplayed Symphony"

I have been told that there was a symphony written by Gustav Mahler that is very rarely played as it invokes suicidal thoughts in listeners. I'm not sure if this is related to his fear of the Curse of the Ninth, but any information about the validity of this would be greatly appreciated.

Em, no. Henry^Flower 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing related to this that I was able to find was that he discovered his wife was having an affair, which led to his scrawling suicidal notes on the unfinished manuscript of his Tenth Symphony, which you can read about here. Additionally, his youngest brother committed suicide in 1895, the same year his Second Symphony premiered in Berlin, which you can read about here. Neither of these are really examples of what you're looking for, though, and any piece of music that would actually move its listeners to suicide merely by listening to it would be immensely psychologically significant. DavidGC 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe somebody has said this is the reason why all of Mahler's symphonies should be very rarely played. :-) Tyrenius 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, and they're entitled to their opinion. But there's never any problem attracting an audience to a Mahler symphony, so he's going to continue to be performed and recorded, which I for one am very happy about. JackofOz 06:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:-) = joke (don't want anyone getting upset here) Tyrenius 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I saw the smiley alright, Ty. Maybe my response was imbued with a kind of Mahlerian angst. Maybe I've been listening to him too much .... nah, never.  :--) JackofOz 01:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not thinking of Gloomy Sunday, are you? It's not by Mahler, but it's a song that is said to invoke suicidal thoughts in listeners. --Richardrj 07:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be his kindertotenlieder? alteripse 13:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

King Wen & the I Ching

How did King Wen contribute to the Book of Changes ? Did he add some chapters or did he write a commentry or what ?Hhnnrr 20:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I presume you've checked out I Ching which has some info. There's an interesting site that says he introduced the 64 hexagrams, their name and description.Tyrenius 15:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you , the site did help . So it seems that Fuxi wrote the foundations of the I Ching , but King Wen is the one who inventdd the hexagrams that make it up today .. as the Book of Changes did not receive that name until his time . Am I right ?Hhnnrr 10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Radicalism in Modern Germany

I'm doing a project for my German class and I need information on radicalism in modern Germany. I'm looking for info about the anarchist, communist, socialist, syndicalist, etc. movements specifically, but any information about leftist radical groups, people or events currently taking place would be great.

Thanks.

Here's a start List of political parties in Germany, Anarchist Pogo Party of Germany, Left Party (Germany). Look in these pages for further links. Tyrenius 22:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

their is a resurgence of nazi groups as well.

Thanks a lot. Pckeffer

Baseball, steroids, and Congress

Why is steroid use in baseball such an important topic, worthy of congressional hearings? --71.103.104.121 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Some might view the use of illegal substances by professional athletes to be problematic in light of the position of many professional athletes as role models for youths. I'm unfamiliar with Congressional hearings on the issue, and the issue of what is worthy (or not) for Congressional hearings is debatable -- essentially it's whatever they decide to have a hearing on. However, I would not be surprised if the preeminance of athletes in United States culture (and the apparent perception that steroid use among athletes -- especially baseball -- is unacceptably rampant) combined with other factors to move Congress to consider the issue for a hearing. --DavidGC 02:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say, more cynically, that the selection of topics for Congressional hearings is based less on the national importance of an issue than on the opportunity for the majority party to garner publicity or advance its political goals. Note this example:

Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors.

In the past two years, a House committee has managed to take only 12 hours of sworn testimony about the abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

That's from The Boston Globe [29]. As for steroids, millions of Americans don't care much about most political issues but do care about baseball. This issue therefore moves ahead of others that are more important and more within Congress's purview. JamesMLane t c 18:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this explanation is pretty accurate too. --DavidGC 03:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How is the I ching used ?

I understand the I ching is a book of divination .. but how exactly is it used ? I mean do they flip a coin in order to determine to draw a broken or an unbroken line ? What I read told me what these lines mean .. but how does one get the lines in the first place ? Hhnnrr 21:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you see our article at I Ching? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Very strangely, (unless I've missed it) it doesn't seem that our I Ching article actually contains that information! The older, more traditional method of divination involves a complex ritual involving 50 yarrow straws. The more convenient method uses three coins. For each line of the hexagram, toss the coins. get the total, adding 3 for heads and 2 for tails. The result wil be 6, 7, 8, or 9.

6 (three tails)= changing broken line

7 (two tails, one head) = unchanging solid line

8 (two heads, one tail) = unchanging broken line

9 (three heads) = changing solid line

The lines are drawn from the bottom of the hexagram up. Toss the coins for each additional line, adding it on top of the ones you already have.

The primary hexagram is the one for the primary divination. Then you change the changing lines (from solid to broken or vice versa) to obtain the relating heaxagram. For interpretative methods, take a look at [30] - Nunh-huh 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pirate Flags/Symbols

Hello!

I'm looking for a list, or maybe just a link to a list, of all sorts of different pirate flags. For instance, there's the normal Jolly Rogers, the red 'jolie rogue', Black Beard's time-counting skeleton, Calico Jack's flag and the dancing skeleton. But are there any others? So, a list would be most appreciated, especially if pictures are attatched.

Thanks, S.M. See Pirate Flag or Jolly Rogers

This site, linked from our article about piracy shows a number of pirates' flags. -- AJR | Talk 23:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Flags Of The World also has information, both on the page linked and on additional pages in their index. The first page I've linked has links to about a dozen flags used by specific pirates ( Stede Bunnet, Henry Every, Christopher Moody, Emanuel Wynne, Thomas Tew...) Grutness...wha? 06:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a Wikimedia Commons category commons:Category:Special_or_fictional_flags AnonMoos 07:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

May 15

Artist of a Painting

Can someone tell me the artist of the following piece?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Samsara.jpg

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.195.3.235 (talk • contribs) .

The image page gives the details of its source which is from a Google image search, linked to the web site [31], although the image is no longer on that page. I suggest you contact them. I notice the person who posted the image emailed the site and got no response. However, there is also a phone number to try. Tyrenius 03:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Either the guy lived in a period when loin clothes, red dye, balls, books and rings existed yet, either he was the greatest inventor of his times. --DLL 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That picture was in an edition of the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is that I bought about 12 years ago, now unfortunately lent-n-lost. It was a hardcover printed in India if I remember correctly, and sold by the local Krishna community. It was authored by AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. I see it is at spiritual.com.au reincarnation page, maybe the people there could guide you further. You may find other places to help you if you google for "picture reincarnation" with or without "krishna", or ask on one of the Krishna web sites. Hope this helps --Seejyb 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Public School Rules

In many public schools, there are certain rules for the students to follow; dress codes, use of electronics, etc.

Taking dress codes for example, isn't hindering a citizen's freedom of speech (through clothes) unconstitutional? Do schools have the right to have these codes? If they do, does that mean that a minor isn't a real citizen?

I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but from what I remember, schools as well as other institutions that have an interest in maintaining order (such as prisons or military bases) can generally curtail the rights of persons on the premises or under their control. --Impaciente 03:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, there are a wide range of juvenile laws in the U.S. legal system (and in many other countries) that treat youths much differently from adults. These include but are not limited to curfew laws, laws against smoking and drinking, and laws regarding sex.

If I recall the laws correctly, in some states it is illegal for someone who is 18 to have a sexual relationship with someone 2 years younger... and in some states there is an awkward period where it is theoretically possible for someone to break the law for having sex with someone who is only one or two days younger than themselves. There are other situations that arise due to such laws, such as being able to vote, smoke, and kill people in the military at age 18, but still being unable to consume alcohol legally until age 21. DavidGC 03:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal student speech case (the holding of which remains largely intact) and its progeny, and the general discussion at in loco parentis. Joe 03:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Joe is right: it's all about in loco parentis. Your school is your alma mater in more ways than one. At what age the powers of in loco parentis ends differs from place to place. N.b. all of these discussions are a propos only in the U.S. Geogre 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A minor is a real citizen, but not an adult citizen. Wherever one is, the legal minor does not have all the rights, nor priviledges of a legal "adult". Nor do they have the obligations, nor are they judged (criminally) in the same way as adults. Taking choice of body covering as something as precious as freedom of speech is difficult to understand for to those who does not have freedom of speech. --Seejyb 18:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the U.S., often juvenile suspects are tried "as adults." That means that if a teenager is an Eagle Scout, volunteers at the old folks' home, gets straight A's and launches his or her own million-dollar computer company, he or she is still treated as a child, but if he kills somebody, he or she is an adult. Regarding the schools thing, it's a tricky issue. Yes, the school is part of the government and should be limited in the restrictions it imposes on people. On the other hand, you can bet that people who work at your county courthouse aren't allowed to wear jeans to work (maybe on casual Fridays for charity). But then again, they're not forced to work there, but you're forced to go to school until you're 16. Certainly some restrictions are necessary to ensure a proper learning environment. Unfortunately, in my experience, schools tend to attract workers who get a kick out of telling other people what to do; the kind of people who in other countries would be members of fascist death squads. -- Mwalcoff 22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of dress is not freedom of speech. Furthermore, it is not unconstitutional to hinder freedom of speech (in the United States). — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many circumstances in which a governmental rule restricting freedom of dress is unconstitutional (in the United States) because the rule violates freedom of speech. Tinker struck down a public school's rule that students couldn't wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Similarly, Cohen v. California held it unconstitutional for a state to punish someone for walking into a courthouse wearing a jacket that used an obscenity to express opposition to the draft. JamesMLane t c 13:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it just that its a rule, no-one will force them to wear uniform, but as its a private school, if they don't the school has the right to throw them out, and abiding by the school rules is probably part of the agreement on which they allow you to attend the school. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

in the interests of a broader picture, this very issue has just played out in the high court in the UK. basically a muslim school girl sued her school becuase they wouldn't let her go to school with a more conservative dress. she argued that this breached her right to freedom of expression and religion. this case was won then the school appealed and had the verdict overturned. the judged eventually ruled that the school (with a muslim majority) has accommodated (some) muslim's desires but the right to impose a school uniform, if you will, was deemed to overule the idividuals rights to abrogate from it- for whatever reason.it was thought that if you allowed muslim girls to compete to be seen to be "more muslim" this would have done more harm than good. additionally you may or may not be aware that in France, schools have no uniform as such (for reason's you've outlined) and yet forbid any displays of one's religion, which, for the country with the highest muslim population in Europe, is causing a little anger amongst muslim girls who wish to cover up. 87.194.20.253 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

country music

Why are country singers obsessed with saying honky tonk? A Clown in the Dark 03:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Honky tonk. --Cam 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It provides a link to traditional country music, rural Americana and so on, no matter how slickly produced the music. The same way rappers talk about drugs and guns a lot, really. It's an attempt to imbue their music with authenticity. And, seriously, honky tonk. It's a really great phrase. All those "onk" sounds. I'm going to start saying it more often, myself! --ByeByeBaby 04:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Periods of Relative Peace

An interesting thought came to mind today. I am curious to know if [1] there has ever been a period in all of recorded history when no war was taking place (I can assume there is always at least one small conflict or skirmish taking place throughout the world), meaning "war" in a strictly technical sense (i.e. The Peloponnesian War, World War II, The Vietnam War, etc)? And [2] if so, what was the longest period of relative peace ever to occur on a worldwide scale? Thanks ahead of time for your input. - R_Lee_E (talk, contribs) 04:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon considered the time of the Antonine emperors to be the best candidate for a period of near-universal peace and prosperity (at least in the segment of the world known to the Romans). God only knows what was going on elsewhere. alteripse 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

During the Antonine period (130s-180s), China seems pretty quiet, until the AD 184 Yellow Turban Rebellion. The main Indian dynasty of the time, the Satavahanas, were involved in some border scuffles, but probably not all-out war. If you want real wars, and not just dust-ups at the local honky tonk, perhaps War cycles might be of interest. --ByeByeBaby 05:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

When I was a teenager, my grandfather gave me a timeline poster that showed every war in recorded history. At absolutely no point in time was there a period in which there was no war if you consider civil wars and military invasions to be wars. If you limit it to just formally declared wars (ie: Vietnam did not formally declare war on itself and the U.S. only went in as a "police action". Also, Iraq did not formally declare war on Kuwait. It just invaded.) then you have periods with no declared wars, but you also extend conflicts. North and South Korea still have a declared war but there is no active conflict. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice use of honky tonk. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff. Thanks guys. - R_Lee_E (talk, contribs) 14:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Gibbon's note was no coincidence. The Pax Romana was not only a truism for scholars through the 19th century, it was also linked in with Christian typology and Christology. The argument went that the King of Kings was born in a time of universal peace. As recently as Auden and Isherwood's The Dyer's Hand, there is some speculation by serious people that this was a portentious time of peace in the world. Geogre 16:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know much about the "Antonine Period". If it is from 130AD to 180AD as ByeByeBaby noted, then there are some major conflicts at that time. There is the Bar Kokhba Revolt (a Jewish-Roman war) that the Romans certainly knew about. There is also the Parthian war(s). As for civil unrest, that period would line up with the end of the Han Dynasty in China, when civil unrest led to enough rebellions that Dong Zhuo was able to topple one instution of dynasty power after another. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Augustus states proudly on the Monumentum Ancyranum

Janus Quirinus, which our ancestors ordered to be closed whenever there was peace, secured by victory, throughout the whole domain of the Roman people on land and sea, and which, before my birth is recorded to have been closed but twice in all since the foundation of the city, the senate ordered to be closed thrice while I was princeps. Dr Zak 01:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Old books

Are there any surviving copies of the 1488 Homer edition by Demetrius Chalcondylas? Are any exhibited anywhere? dab (ᛏ) 07:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's on display, but Niedersächsischen Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen has a copy, OCLC#56856166. --CTSWyneken 12:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The New York Public Library has one too. You may find more by searching Demetrius Chalcondylas homer on Google or another search engine. --Halcatalyst 13:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lvov-Sandomierz Operation

The german lost 37,400 men and the soviet 198,000!? Source? Only in the Brody pocket the german losses were 25,000 dead and 17,000 prisoners! The soviet lossesw were, according to Krivosheyev, 65,001 irrecuparable and 224,295 medical. Vess

42. Henry^Flower 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on; no one Suitly emphazied this? You're slipping, guys... Joe 20:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

locating a computer

I frequently talk to people over such chat programs as msn and aim, but I have the feeling that some people are lying to me about where they actually live. Usually I would not care but I have become close to these people. Is there any way without them knowing that I could find out where they live? I know there is a number or something that each computer has that lets you know what city it is coming from, but can I get that number without flat out asking them for it? thanks for your help.

I know that unless they have stricter privacy settings, ICQ would show the IP address amongst the user information. To the best of my knowledge AIM does not display IPs, but I don't know about MSN at all. Anyway, if you do find their IP displayed somewhere you can use the appropriate Regional Internet Registry (for instance you can search American IPs at http://ws.arin.net/whois/). Be aware though that the IP address your computer sees could be the number for the proxy that they are connecting through rather than their own computer's, so such a check still wouldn't eliminate a tech-savvy fraud. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Try getting them to send you an email, perhaps by sending them one first. The email should contain the user's IP number in its headers. Laura's words of caution still apply here. --DavidGC 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• If you don't trust them not to lie to you, perhaps you're less close to them than you believe. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mona Lisa

With all the media through the famous "Da Vinci Code," I'm curious.. What is the Mona Lisa REALLY about?

It's not about anything. It's just a picher. Henry^Flower 22:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A person and artist of Da Vinci's creative intelligence would undoubtedly have a deep and complex agenda, philosophically, psychologically and aesthetically, which fed into the picture's creation. The trouble is that we don't know specifically what it was in relation to this painting, which started off as a portrait, but which he kept with him all his life. This has helped to augment its mystique. The bottom line, as the previous answer, states, is that it is a picture, which speaks for itself. What do you think/feel it's about? Tyrenius 23:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it'd been a much more interesting painting if he'd named it "Lady smiling because she has a secret." ;) --BluePlatypus 23:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. --DavidGC 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Extraterrestrials were to give Da Vinci the power of invisibility if he painted 'Mona Lisa' for them; they never came back to pick it up, and it ended up in the Louvre.--Teutoberg 03:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

They did, however, compensate him for his work, which is why he never makes public appearances anymore. --DavidGC 04:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pish, pshaw and nonsense. For the true involvement of extraterrestrials with the Mona Lisa see here.

It's a fake. --Bth 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

People have speculated over the "meaning" of the Mona Lisa for centuries. Freud had a wonderful theory, if I recall, that the Mona Lisa was supposed to be the result of an unconscious memory of Leonardo's mother, from whom he was separated at the age of four. But it's honestly anybody's guess -- Leonardo didn't leave behind a manuscript saying, "OK guys, here is what it is about." There are a number of interpretations which can probably be disproved or ruled out (it was clearly not supposed to be a reference to, say, anything that happened after Leonardo's death), but there will most likely never be any way to know about any of those which are at least semi-plausible. It's this inexhausibility of the emotions and interpretations evoked by the painting which makes it one of the classics. --Fastfission 02:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

May 16

Haake Und Slasche

Just out of curiousity, has anyone ever heard of the California-based fencing club named Haake Und Slasche?

No sorry!

• Well, I hadn't until I searched for it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Haake und Slasche" is the name of the Varsity Fencing Team of Victor Valley High School in Victorville, CA. They also host a tournament by the same name "Haake und Slasche" as one of the San Bernardino Opens. Their website is Haake und Slasche.

Gender of God

What do you think the Gender of God really is..Male or Female? And why is this so?

• I think he has no gender because we have never heard of a spouse or any sort of relationship.Patchouli 01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• From my perspective, He is male because He calls Himself "Father" in the Bible. --CTSWyneken 01:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but God also describes Godself as "suckling" the Children of Israel, "giving birth", and countless other metaphors involving breasts, motherhood, and birth. So the Father argument is unconvincing. Father is a masculine name of God, but God also has Shaddai and Shekhinah, both being feminine related. In my opinion, gender and gender language, a human attribute, is irrelevant and inappropriate when discussing God, who is above such things. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• What on earth would God do with genitals? He doesn't need them! --Eivind^t@c 01:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Gender is only meaningful in the context of human limitations. God does not have human limitations. Peter Grey 01:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Which god are we talking about here? The question is too vague. Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not to get into an argument, but please note this is from my perspective. The question asks what the answerer thinks. A little more unpacking. God the Father is not human at all. But as creatures, we come in two genders. We find it difficult to imagine a person without gender. It seems impersonal, which, as I understand God, He is not. That would be the end of it, were it not for the fact that I believe God the Son became Man in Jesus Christ. To me, it is simply a matter of believing what I think God has revealed in the Bible. You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish.--CTSWyneken 01:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this question came up. I FIRMLY believe that God has no gender. Gender is an animalistic trait that God, being pure spirit, would completely transcend. I believe that God is referred to in scripture as He/Him or our "Father" due mainly to the limits of human language. I'm tempted to refer to God as "It" but "It" just sounds too disrespectful. I also wouldn't use the terms She/Her or "our Mother" because I believe that to do so would inject an undue degree of gender politics into the issue. So I'm forced to refer to God in the masculine. But I still FIRMLY believe that He/She/It has no gender.

As far as the idea that He/She/It would have some sort of relationship, I actually find the whole idea quite silly to think about. We're not talking about some man or woman-like creature having "relationships" as we understand them. I leave that to the primitive pagan conceptions of gods like Zeus and Hera etc... God, as I understand Him/Her/It is pure spirit. Loomis51 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh, c'mon, he fathered a Child!</sarcasm> User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he's a transsexual. --Nelson Ricardo 02:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm casting my vote solidly for intersexual here.  ;-) --DavidGC 03:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• He's surely male; the article Jimmy Wales makes that clear. Joe 04:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• God has no gender. The limitations of English require some pronoun and all we have are "he", "she" or "it". Traditionally, God has been depicted as a white-bearded man, and the pronoun He has been used. But are there any languages that have an indeterminate personal pronoun? In those languages, is God referred to by that pronoun, or still as He? JackofOz 06:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• In the Persian language, the same pronoun is used for he, she, and it. However, it is specifically stated in discussions that it is male.

I believe God is depicted as male because writers of mythology and religious books were exclusively males themselves; women were encouraged to be illiterate before the Renaissance - almost always. Here, we are postulating that there is a God for which there has been no clear proof. Even Albert Einstein who beat his chest talking about God also acknowledged that there is no divine intervention in people's daily lives.Patchouli 08:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one area in which the scientific method is utterly irrelevant. There never will be proof. And there never will be disproof. Einstein, for all his genius, was no more of an expert about the ways of God than anybody else. JackofOz 11:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There are an infinite number of premises that can be neither proved nor disproved, all of them useless by virtue of their unfalsifiability. Einstein couldn't comment on the gender of God, but he couldn't measure the mane of the Invisible pink unicorn either. Does that mean her mane is a profound mystery? Bhumiya (said/done) 23:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Useless? Maybe in a scientific context, but since when was science the only valid paradigm for considering things in the human realm? Science has nothing to say about whether I love my children or not, but I assert that I do indeed love them, and this is in no sense "useless". Science can't be used to know anything about God, including his existence or non-existence. You have to look elsewhere for your answers about God. The question was about the gender of God, not about what science says about the gender of God. JackofOz 23:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much the "official" answer among accepted theologians of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (if that's what you want) is that God has no sex as such, but that the words for "God" in the languages in which the holy scriptures of these religions are written (Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic) have masculine grammatical gender (which affects how humans refer to God, but is not a limitation on God's attributes). AnonMoos 16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

When the absolute takes flesh into reality, it is always following what we call the principle of gender, frequently seen as sex amongst living things on earth. There can't be any mono-gendered manifestation. Also, Christ had his consort (parèdre in french), Mary Magdalene, according to St Dan. --DLL 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there's the God of the theologians and the God of popular belief. I think Mormons regard God's masculinity as an article of faith, but that's a very uncommon position. Most religions do not emphasize the issue, and may take pains to de-emphasize it. Indeed, Muslims consider it blasphemous to speak of God in personal terms.

Nevertheless, if society were more favorable to the idea of a male or female deity, it wouldn't be too terribly difficult for theologians to "prove" God's sex using some clever exercise of sophistry. All sorts of "attributes", which ought to be unknowable, have been associated with God over the years, even when they flatly contradict one another. For instance, He (She?) is at once all-powerful and all-knowing, omnibenevolent and vengeful. Any impressive-sounding notion may be attributed, and any apparent contradiction may be rationalized as a byproduct of one's "imperfection" or "faithlessness". At any rate, that's my view of the debate — that there is no debate, only metatwaddle. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

surely God's a woman. if 'it' was a man 'it' couldn't bear to sit back and let evolution run its course -he'd just have to get involved and tinker. and i think we all know that that didn't happen. 87.194.20.253 23:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Could the author of that sexist remark please identify herself (or possibly himself) by signing what she wrote? Sounds to me like a female chauvinist pig. Loomis51 00:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring everyone else, God must be a man. God, first, helped t ocreate Jesus in Mary's womb, but obviously in a very special way, because she was still a virgin afterwards. Maybe there is a heavenly "mother" figure, but if the world knew about her, they'd probably trash her just as much as they trash God. --Welcometocarthage

Title 8, Aliens and Nationality

What section of the United States Code specifies after how long the Citizenship & Immigration Services has to answer a green card application?Patchouli 01:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You can look it up on the CIS website here. Wikipedia does not give legal advice, so see an immigration lawyer if you have any problems or queries. --Canley 02:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I know that Wikipedia does not provide legal advice. I have searched the U.S.C. and C.F.R., but could not find an answer. I am asking this question with the minuscule hope that an immigration lawyer stumbles upon it, and drops a reply.Patchouli 03:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

halal meat

Is a Sunni muslim take a halal meat from a Shi'a Muslim shop?

Not that I'm any sort of expert on Islam at all, but it would seem that Sunni's and Shi'as would certainly accept each other's Halal meat. I'm mainly saying this because I know as a fact that, believe it or not, Muslims (perhaps not all) actually consider Kosher meat, that is, meat that has been prepared according to Jewish religious requirements as being, by definition, Halal. It would seem to me only logical, that if Muslims accept Kosher meat as Halal, than they would surely not squabble about whether the meat is Sunni Halal or Shi'a Halal. But I may be wrong. I've seen stranger things than that. Loomis51 02:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Halal means prepared in accordance with Islam law. Whether the muslim who did that is Sunni or Shi'a is when it comes to the meat totally irrelevant. The only reason they may not take the meat from another muslim is if they don't like that particular person. How do Sunnis and Shi'as think about each other? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

quotations

Who said "Politics makes strange bedfellows"?

The phrase was originated by Shakespeare in The Tempest: "Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows." Loomis51 02:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was Charles Dudley Warner who said that. It makes no mention of it in the article but a Google search for the quote did. -- Colonel 12:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And Wikiquote:Charles Dudley Warner (wikiquote needs more advertising) is even more specific. MeltBanana 17:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Religious leader

The name and title of India's religious leader that was exiled in the 20th century if i'm correct but not sure.

This doesn't seem to be a question. Do you mean you think you know who this religious leader is but would like to check? If so, please tell us your idea, and also check if Wikipedia has an entry on this person. Notinasnaid 09:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not how the question reads to me. I think he means that he thinks there was an Indian religious leader who was exiled in the 20th century, but doesn't know his name or title. So, fair question I think. Not that I know the answer... --Richardrj 14:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean a religious leader exiled to India in the 20th century, could be the Dalai Lama... AnonMoos 16:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a guess too. I think the question means an Indian religious leader who was exiled somewhere else, i.e. outside India. Tyrenius 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rite of Spring

What is the awesome chord in The Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky at about 3 minutes into it. You know: buh buh buh buh buh BUH buh BUH buh buh buh BUH! I really don't want to cut out that part, convert it to OGG then upload it. Hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about. schyler 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally know what you're talking about and I'm listening to it right now to figure out what it is. —Keenan Pepper 03:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I definitely hear the notes E, Bb, C#, and D#, but there may be others. I guess you could call it an E-13-flat-5 if you really wanted to. —Keenan Pepper 03:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Double-bass F flat and C flat; cello A flat and F flat; viola G and B flat; violin D flat and E flat; there are also F horns notated as playing C flat, E Flat, G flat, D, F, A flat and B flat, but the transposing is beyond me. What does that make? Henry^Flower 08:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fb-major-13-sharp-9-sharp-11. —Keenan Pepper 13:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wo... I almost crapped my pants when I put that into Finale Notepad and it was right (except for the horns. It may be in the score, just it's Finale playing it, not humans). That is soooo cool. schyler 12:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What Piece of Music is This?

A friend asked me what this piece of music was (it plays at this page [32]). What is it? I think it might be by Liszt, but not being I fan I wouldn't know.

Page not found. Henning 08:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That link is broken or external linking has been blocked by that website. Could you tell us how to navigate to that page? --DavidGC 08:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Taiji , Tao , and the Unique Principle

How are they related ? From my understanding they seem to be the same .. so are they ? I Know Taiji is the unique principle ..But Tao ? Hhnnrr 11:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY need an answer to this .. doesnt anyone have a clue ? I've looked everywhere and I found some one on the Taiji talk page saying Taiji is the practical term for Tao ( not that I know what that means ), but I can't find the sentence in the article which puts me in doubt .. Hhnnrr 21:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

From the sense I get reading our article (I've not heard the term before you mentioned it) my answer would be yes. since Zhuangzi is one of the most respected Taoist masters and it is the highest principle, according to his text, the two should be roughly the same. The caution is that philosophical and theological texts are often very subtle with fine distinctions and precise definitions. So, a Daoist master is likely to say, "yes, but..." --CTSWyneken 10:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Secular Countries & Religious Holidays

I understand countries like the United States and the United Kingdom are considered secular states not ruled by religion , but what is reason behind having religious ( mainly Christain ) festivals as national - or official - holidays ? Christmas is the obvious example . Is there a law that defines which religious occassions are to be nationally observed ? Hhnnrr 11:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Christmas is not nationally observed at all; it's just that a lot of people celebrate it, so it becomes a sort of "default" national holiday. (As for the United States being considered secular, lol). Battle Ape 12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Christmas is a holiday for federal employees (see below). While it's true that Christmas certainly is a religious holiday, there's a perfectly reasonable secular reason for it to be a day off. A lot of people would take the day off anyway, so very little would get done if the office were to remain open. -- Mwalcoff 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there not official vacations ( schools etc. ) on Christmas in the US ? I think so , and I think that makes it some what an official Holiday . And isn't the US supposed to be secular ?!13:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically (constitutionally) the U.S.A. is supposed to be secular in the sense that there is no official state supported religion & a separation between church & state (though how separate these are is debated, especially in the current Administration). It isn't secular in the sense that most Americans are very religious (at least compared to Europeans), frequently attend church and focus to a greater extent on religion as a justification/explanation for events. The U.K. isn't secular as it has the state supported churches the Church of Scotland and Church of England which are the official religions. However despite this the U.K. is certainly a more secular country than the U.S.A. in terms of church attendance (though not in terms of the proportion of folk who call themselves, at least in censuses, Christian). AllanHainey 13:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There are, by my quick unofficial count, 10 federal holidays (that is, holidays observed by employees of the US Government) in the US. Of those, only Christmas is religiously affiliated, most likely because it's one of two primary holidays for the US's most-observed religion (the other, Easter, never falls on a workday). Non-federal agencies may, of course, designate other days as well. Our article notes that states are not compelled to observe the same holidays, though most do.

The others are New Year's Day, MLK Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, and Thanksgiving Day. — Lomn Talk 14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

U.S.A. rules for dealing with aliens

A while ago I heard of a document drawn up by the U.S.A. federal government basically planning how they'd treat aliens if they landed somewhere in the U.S.A. I recall the aliens would be taken to some veterinary quarentine place but I can't remember anything else about it. Does anyone know the document I'm thinking of, & perhaps have a link to it? Thanks. AllanHainey 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• There was an article in Popular Mechanics magazine about that in February 2004. See here for the full article. The article says, "Instead of sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House, the alien will be whisked away to the Department of Agriculture's Animal Disease Center on Plum Island, off the coast of New York's Long Island." I don't know where the regulations that say that can be found, but Popular Mechanics is a reasonably reliable publication and the article appears to be written in a factual (as opposed to science-fictional) manner. --Metropolitan90 05:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, reading that article it's pretty clear they were using the "rife speculation" method of journalism there with the whole Plum Island thing. There is no government directive to take aliens there (no public one, anyway), but it's simply Popular Mechanic's "hypothesis" that it might happen. Not that it's that unreasonable a guess– I just want to dissuade the possibly over-eager from stowing aboard the ferry in hopes of meeting ET.--Pharos 07:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Such would largely depend on the nature of the alien! If it was the high ranking represenative of highly sophisticate race, it probably would be treated differently shipful of abuductors who, crash with humans in their ship, or from an unintelligent alien, such as a pet of intelligent life that somehow comes to earth!

In any case, if the aliens can achieve interstellar travel, they almost certainly have far, far superior technology to our own, and that probably includes military technology. Our ability to dictate to such aliens that they spend their time in Plum Island may be limited. Of course, this naturally assumes that the aliens would choose to land in the United States. That's plausible, but by no means certain. Who's to say that they might not choose to land in New Zealand? If you were an alien, who would you prefer to deal with? Dubya's minions, or Helen Clark? --Robert Merkel 00:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

U.S.A. Congress' church

The previous question on Christmas got me thinking. At uni I was taught that either the church officially used by U.S.A. Congressman/the church associated with Congress or possibly the nearest church to congress (It was some time ago) always by tradition had a Church of Scotland (or at least Presbyterian) trained Minister. I had a browse through the Capitol & Congress,HoR & Senate pages but couldn't see any info. Can anyone confirm this & provide a wee bit mor info? Thanks AllanHainey 13:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Marshall was a well-known preacher at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church. His story was told in the movie A Man Call Peter. JackofOz 13:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Some say that the Washington National Cathedral is the de facto U.S. national church building, though of course, the U.S. government doesn't and can't give it official recognition as such... AnonMoos 16:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See United States House of Representatives Chaplain and United States Senate Chaplain. These are the clergy actually appointed by Congress itself. As you will see from the lists, almost all of them have been Protestant but there has been no particular tradition of having a Presbyterian/Church of Scotland chaplain in either house. The Washington National Cathedral is an Episcopal cathedral, anyway. --Metropolitan90 05:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Death Penalty

Ive heard the argument that, and im paraphrasing, that the mere existance of the death penalty, and the knowledge that it exists, deters many would be crimes/murders, there for murder trials, and finally potential death penalties (and I believe a figure was involved, a pretty significant one at that, if i remember correctly). The argument then went on to say that any opposed to the death penalty, should there for be pro-capitol punishment because the death penalty prevents so many murders and therefore death penalty scenario's/convictions. I kind of liked the idea, by the way is there a name for that sort of logic? Anyways, whats the rebutle to that argument?

I'm not sure of the name of the argument, but a proper rebuttal would attempt to either (a) isolate the existence of capital punishment as a sole variable in crime statistics and then show that the assertion is invalid (unlikely to be achieved) or to (b) point out that, lacking specific evidence, this particular argument is not grounded in fact but in someone's wishful thinking.

For instance, the book Freakonomics makes an interesting case for abortion being responsible for the crime rate decline in the US during the 1990s. However, the authors also note that it's not a definitive argument because plenty of factors besides abortion are in play over a given time frame. — Lomn Talk 14:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like circular logic and possibly a strawman argument, if I've understood what you are saying correctly. I would say the rebuttal is partly

a) That there is no evidence that the existence of a death penalty decreases the murder rate (there are conflicting data from different countries at different times showing the murder rates going up or down with abolition or instatment of capital punishment). People who plan on killing are unlikely to be deterred if they think they can get away with it, and people who don't plan on murdering (crimes of passion) won't be affected by the potential punishment because they don't think it through that much.

b) That people opposed to the death penalty are not necessarily going to be swayed by 'keeping the death penalty leads to fewer people killed by the death penalty' as that is clearly rubbish.

c) That people may be opposed to the death penalty because of reasons such as 'the state shouldn't kill people', 'it is retribution, not rehabilitation', 'it doesn't allow the possibility of reform/change/'rebirth, 'it is wasteful of resources', 'it is inhumane', 'it leads to innocent people being killed, as no judgement system is perfect', 'it condones killing in certain circumstances', etc. The very existence of it in a justice system may be abhorent to them. They are unlikely to consider the argument you found to address these issues.

Hope this helps. Try capital punishment, it might have other information. Skittle 14:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on the rebuttal, capital punishment is not an effective deterrent because a) in most countries where it is used, most murderers are not executed- the penalty is reserved for the worst murderers (in practice, often the blackest and/or poorest). And b) the prospect of a lifetime in prison is likely to deter just as effectively as the prospect of being killed. The real deterrent is the chance of getting caught, not the nature of the punishment. Alternatively, one could take the Catholic view of principles over pragmatics: that killing is a moral evil even if doing so might save lives. Henry^Flower 14:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Others have probably found different results in their research, but my own experience researching this topic for my criminal justice major was that deterrence is probably the weakest argument one can make in favor of the death penalty. It was a lengthy research project, and the results of the research actually ended up changing my opinion on the issue. --DavidGC 14:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A crime is minor, in which case a person stays in society and compensates victims by his work or income or whatever. Or a crime is major, and there is no longer a place in society for such a person. If he/she cannot get away from the society, then kill the person. Not penalty, not punishment, not retribution, simply getting rid of a useless piece of the structure. No prisons. Much more efficient society. What would be the problems with such a system? --Seejyb 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of other 'useless' people: the elderly, the handicapped, the insane. Are they on your little list too? Henry^Flower 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Errors, among others. I recognize this is not what you're doing, but to argue that the system would be free from problems would be setting oneself up for defeat. If a solution existed that was free from problems, moral or otherwise, the issue would have been resolved by now. --DavidGC 10:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

that it is hoped that would-be murderers will be deterred is of course the whole point of having capital, or any, punishment (apart from brute animal revenge). To test the hypothesis is another matter, you have to look at countries that introduced or abolished the death penalty and see how capital crime numbers changed. As Skittle says above, no correlation was found between abolishing capital punishment and the number of perpetrations of capital crimes. dab (ᛏ) 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Use the death penalty if you want to make a hero out of a criminal or a martyr out of a terrorist. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr GB Shaw. The idea is that prison is a major waste of resources. For US citizens this is pertinent, since there are more persons in US prisons than in Europe combined. For what to an outsider sometimes seems rather puerile reasons, very much revenge driven. If a Person really cannot remain safely in society, then he/she should be executed. The expectation is that this would be quite rare. Incidentally, what is the crime in being aged, infirm or emotionally disturbed, that I should add it to a list? Even if it were a crime, then surely it would be of the non-prison, non-murder type, meaning the person stays in society, not in prison. Capital punishment has never been shown to reduce murder, and in the stated sense it is not a punishment, but some murderers or serial rapists are not worth keeping in society, and that is where the "get rid of" class could be applied. And as I said, it's not about revenge, but about cost to society of keeping such a person around. --Seejyb 07:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

At the time I researched this issue, all sources I could find indicated that due to the checks and balances in place to reduce the potential for error, it is actually cheaper for the state to keep a person in prison for life than to pursue the death penalty against them, under the current system in the United States. This may have changed since I researched it, but that's the way it was at the time. --DavidGC 10:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

indeed, pro-death penalty people should perhaps consider what the criminal would prefer - life in prison or the easy way out?

I think we've strayed from the questioner's request. Even if it's taken as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent to capital crimes, s/he asked for a rebuttle to the proposition that the existence of the death penalty would actually reduce the amount of executions being carried out. With all due respect, you're all overanalyzing the issue. The rebuttle is simple. With no death penalty, no one would be executed, and therefore it's an absurd twist of logic that having a death penalty would reduce the number of executions carried out.

In any case, I tend to be against the death penalty for two main reasons. One is the possibility of an innocent person being executed, which to me is one of the saddest of all possible tragedies. Second, as the previous writer pointed out, many criminals would actually prefer to die than face life in prison. Doesn't anyone else feel as cheated as I do that Adolph Hitler, or the 19 highjackers on 9/11, rather than face justice, took the easy way out and died at their own hands at a time and place of their own choosing? If given the choice, would it feel satisfactory to simply execute them, a fate they wished for anyway? A much crueler and more fitting punishment for crimes such as these would be to simply lock them them up in solitary confinement in pitch darkness 24/7 until they would simply go insane. Loomis51 12:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Divorce, Alimony and General Partnership

I am getting divorced. My wife is a general partner in my business. Would I still have to pay spousal support seeing that she is entitled to 50% of the profits from the business. I have been married over 10 years.

Thanks

John

Please see the note at the top of this page indicating that you should contact an attorney for legal advice. --LarryMac 15:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Spousal support states that alimony is affected by

1. length of the marriage - for this the alimony amount should depend on your jurisdiction
2. time separated while still married
3. age of the parties at the time of the divorce
4. relative income of the parties - probably same in your situation
5. future financial prospects of the parties
6. health of the parties
7. fault in marital breakdown - see your state laws.Patchouli 02:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Such is now less likely since spousal support is often rehabilitative, done say till she finishes a degree or can be set up as economicaly independent!

Can a Sikh be a pacifist?

Can a Sikh be a pacifist? I read about Guruh Gobind Singh transforming Sikhism to a military community, and it sounds almost as though the Quakers became a military group. Were there any groups of Sikhs who resisted this change and wanted to remain pacifists? -- 88.105.84.95 16:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See the article Sikhism. The common tale that Guru Gobind Singh converted the peaceful Sikhs to a military force is oversimplified. They were a military force before that, but didn't have a full-out war against neighboring Islamic sects yet. I do admit that simplified version of the story is great. I'm amazed that Hollywood hasn't made a movie about a group of peace-loving religious people who are harrassed by an outside group, but the leader keeps saying to stay peaceful and pray for the bad people. Then, the religious leader is killed and his son takes over, turning the group into an elite fighting force. Heavy rock music, fast cars, big guns, and plenty of explosions ensue. Of course, it would have to star Will Smith. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, after re-reading I see that it was more of a gradual process than I had at first thought. I am still interested in whether a modern-day Sikh could be a pacifist, or whether pacifist views would be generally at odds with Sikh beliefs. -- 88.105.84.95 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If all the Muslims were killed, the Sikhs would be pacifists. The religious war is not with all non-Sikhs. It is strictly with the religion that, according to the Sikhs, drew first blood by killing the Sikh Gurus. Now, do you actually believe that a group that has gone generation after generation hating another group of people could ever live as a pacifist? I don't. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Europeans and Jews? White Southerners and Blacks? The English and French? Swedes and Danes? Koreans and Japanese? Greeks and their neighbors? Yes, I do believe that is possible. --BluePlatypus 21:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Such would be possible, but unlikely. Sikhs are stalwart military men! They served every ruler, from the muhgals, to local mahrdas, to the British Raj, to the Republic of India!

How was the congress of Vienne both successful and unsuccessful?

How was the > Congress of Vienna both successful and unsuccessful?

DYOH dab (ᛏ) 16:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Poland got screwed, for one thing... AnonMoos 17:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

'unsuccessful' would mean 'failing to acheive its desired result', so unless it was their stated puropose to keep Poland in one piece, that was a success. Other articles you may want to read to answer your question are Revolutions of 1848, Bourbon Restoration and France in the nineteenth century. dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just taking a wild drunken stab in the dark here...through the "Concert of Europe" diplomatic process that came out of it, the Congress kept Europe at peace for 99 years. So in that way it was pretty successful. On the other hand, Belgium, nice rolling battle country that that nasty Mr. Bonaparte liked to invade central Europe by, became an area whose independence was guaranteed, leading to the major reason England got into WW I when the Germans came the other way. Perhaps you could also make the argument that as it was a case of the 'old bosses' reasserting their authority, the Congress didn't deal with rising nationalist feelings that at least in part lead to the major conflict starting in 1914.--Shandon 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

*Falls, bleeding, out of the shadows.* Knew I shouldn't be standing so close to drunk people on the reference desk. Skittle 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism

What are the primary beliefs of Hinduism?

Please do your own homework. Hinduism might be a good place to start. - ulayiti (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We are having a for fun trivia contest at work. Can you help me. What was the first Star Trek series without "Star Trek" in its name.

Have you tried looking in the Star Trek article? I think it is most probably Enterprise. Colonel 18:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Which womens sport get the highest TV rankings?

In any specific country, or internationally? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What group made it into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame despite having just one Billboard top ten single??

It's not fun if you don't find the answers yourself. Henry^Flower 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if it's not fun to find the answers myself, i need help with finals.

Well, good luck with that, then. --DavidGC 10:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Which religion was founded first?

This is a subject I am certain has been discussed around here before... I myself is rather curious; I know it's either Judaism or Hinduism, I've heard people saying that Judaism was founded 4000 years ago and Hinduism 3500 years ago when the Rig-Veda were written, but I've also heard people say that Hinduism is considered to be the oldest religion still in practice and Judaism "only" _one_ of the oldest? Do we have a theologian here who dare shine some light on this subject? It would be most appreciated.

Someone asked this recently, and the answer he got was the obvious one: there is no answer. These religions weren't 'founded', they evolved. For more on how they evolved, see Judaism and Hinduism. Henry^Flower 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

looking only at revealed religions, the race is between Judaism and Zoroastrianism; realistic dates are Judaism: 700-500 BC, Zoroastrianism: 1000-600 BC, but note Akhenaten. dab (ᛏ) 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A big problem is defining Judaism and Hinduism. Judaism went through two huge changes: When Jerusalem was settled and the temple was built, the religion centered itself on the temple. Many scholars claim that the strict monotheism belief of Judaism formed at that time. Then, after losing the temple (twice) and being enslaved by the Babylonians, the religion became a written one, or a Religion of the Book. Another change in structure happened after the Roman invasion, but it is rare that people claim that Judaism changed. In modern times, there are many sects of Judaism. Some are very new (such as Judaism with the belief that there is no God) and some are a little older, but not pure Judaism (such as Judaism with the belief that Jesus was the messiah).

Hinduism is worse. It is a blanket term for all the religions that popped up around the Indus valley (Hindu = Indus). They have many things in common, but also have distinct differences. So, by definition, Hinduism started when the first person sitting around the Indus valley started talking about gods and life/reincarnation after death. Of course, we don't consider the shamanistic traditions to be religions, so we stick with the ones that recorded their history in the Vedas. Unlike Judaism, which changed drastically when they started writing what would eventually become the Bible, Hinduism documented their religion in the Vedas, they did not change it (to our knowledge). --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

that, in a nutshell, is what I meant. Shrauta Hinduism (the most conservative form) preserves ritual of maybe 1000 BC. Anything earlier is continuous evolution without a clear beginning. The Rigveda does quite well at describing religious/ritual practice, but that changed drastically over time. Of course old elements survive, every religion at all directly continues elements of Paleolithic ritual, no exceptions. dab (ᛏ) 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Animism is founded first.

Road-question

My English currently lacks the word that describes those bumps in the asphalt that are contstructed to slow down vehicles. It has to be called something more advanced than "speed bump"?

Nope. They're speed bumps. It's a perfectly good phrase, there's no need for anything more "advanced". —Zero Gravitas 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, judder bar is the term one often hears used in Australia. Joe 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In Britain, aren't they called sleeping policemen? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember that from when I was a kid, but I haven't heard it recently (speaking as a Brit). --Hughcharlesparker 23:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sleeping policeman" is pretty rare. As for judder bars, they're a little different to speed bunps/speed humps - a speed bump (at least here in NZ) is a wide raised section of road - often a metre or so - that the car has to travel over. Judder bars are much much narrower (usually only a few centimetres) and usually come in groups of two or three. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadian usage is definitely "speed bump" for a hump with a rounded top, half a meter to a meter or two in length. I don't think we have judder bars here, unless they're cousins to the rumble strips?. For broader bumps with an elevated flat section we also have the term "speed table" [33]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Although this is almost entirely unrelated to the question, "sleeping policeman" sounds freakishly similar to the Spanish phrase "policia muerto," which is the colloquial form I grew up with. --Impaciente 07:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have photographs from a trip to Jamaica showing signs that read "Sleeping Policeman Ahead." However, that trip was taken in 1979, so perhaps things have changed. --LarryMac 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You can also say "traffic calming device," although that can refer to other anti-speed things as well. -- Mwalcoff 07:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I happen to have known a girl from the southern united states (i live in the north!) who says there are speed "Bumps", "Lumps", and "tables". I Don't know how well this holds true down there but i hope it helps.

Could the questioner be referring to Botts Dots?

Want to add link to image of NC's first flag on NC flag page

I am trying to add a link to an image of North Carolina's first flag on Wikipedia's page for North Carolina's flag. I think it would be helpful to those who are interested in North Carolina's flag and how it changed. I did it once but I believe the editor got rid of it for some unknown reason. (Doesn't he want others to know??) How can I make it permanent?

Thanks!

Rebeleye

The external link you added previously was incorrectly formatted; I assume that's the reason for which its insertion was reverted. In any event, I've cleaned up the link, which I think is likely useful, so all should be well.  :) (Flag of North Carolina is the article, btw; feel free to expand it.) Joe 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

old music

Hi, Am looking for a song from the seventies for my father, searches through file sharing and search engines have turned up nothing. The only info i have are some lyrics SIXTEEN BROTHERS ON THE RUN FAILING TO REACH THE SUN. Any help greatly appreciated.

Cheers.

It could be "16 Brothers" by Joe Dolan. —Fleminra (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did Louis Armstrong sweat so much?

You can call me sloppy but can you please show me where in your biography does it explain ,"Why did Louis Armstrong sweat so much?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Armstrong

A lot of professional musicians do, especially those playing brass instruments. Hot lights, smoky atmosphere, and a LOT of physical exertion. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That isn't sweat. That's jazz nectar. - BanyanTree 20:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Miracle in the fire in catapult room on carrier USS Lake Champlain (CV-39) 7th Aug 1953

I met the man Franklin Hall whose book is referenced here, 'Because of Your Unbelief'. I also own a copy with the story of Ken Cantrell on the inside cover. There was also another book with another story, but must find it to post here. The story of Ken Cantrell and the fire in the catapult room is true. I would like to see an English translation of the site below referencing the story. I have experienced some of what the book teaches, and seen good results in my life. It is a story of miracle deliverances.

http://www.evigliv.com/Vitnesbyrd/13_Alene_Med_Jesus.htm

March 11, 2007 by Larry Rice

Hi Reference Desk,

I hope you can help me. I have read your article on USS Lake Champlain and its history. But I am missing some information an was hoping that you could confirm it is some way.

On Aug 7th 1953 there was a fire in the catapult room and 15 of 16 crew died. Apparently there were/are articles in German and Norweigan but I cannot find anything in English to comfirm that this event ever really took place.

To give you some more information. The aircraft carrier was in the Mediteranean Sea on the way to Italy.

Some names of those who died are Joe Carnes (Louisville Kentucky) Don Hatcher (Kansas City) Elbert Schaeffer (Washington State) and Thomas Moore (unknown). The sole survivor was Ken Cantrell ( 6/15/1932 Huntsville Alabama).

Hope this helps. I need as much information as soon as possible. But mostly to confirm that the event took place.

• According to the US Navy, [34], she would still have been off Korea in August 1953 - she was in the Med that year, but only at the end of April and in November. (This is where the bulk of our article on her came from). I can't see anything about a fire - perhaps it was another carrier? You would probably be better off contacting the US Navy's history department; a query under the Freedom of Information Act should tell you if such a fire ever took place, either on the Lake Champlain or on any other carrier in the area. Shimgray | talk | 23:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a fire on the Lake Champlain - [35] [36] - 3rd July 1957, and she was in port in Marseilles; three crewmen were killed. Our article on USS Leyte (CV-32) mentions a fire in her catapault room, killing 37 in total, in 1953 (at Boston?). Shimgray | talk | 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Help finding the title of this Sci-fi short story

There is an sci-fi short story I read in a collection (it could have been the Sci-fi hall of fame series; nebula winners) written between 1950-65 I read that involved rocket-ship building and time travel. The two characters meet eachother in British university; one is a hard-working but awkward engineer and the other is a brilliant yet lazy aristocratic mathematician. Eventually with the help of the mathemtician the engineer becomes a wealthy industrialist. The mathematician creates the plans for a rocket ship and the engineer sets out to build it and succeeds with a piloted mission. Can anyone with a knowledge of science fiction help me pin down the story?

There may be somebody who knows over in Usenet's rec.arts.sci-fi.written . AnonMoos 14:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

May 17

search warrant

does anyone know if a search warrant has a wrong date on it ,if it is not legal to be used,even if the warrant was notorized,but the date is outdated by almost 1 year,can anything be used in the courts from that day?

This is not legal advice. From your question, I'm unable to determine whether you mean to suggest that a warrant, otherwise properly issued and acted upon, was incorrectly dated (we might understand this to be a clerical error) or whether law enforcement sought to search based upon a warrant issued several months thither (we would likely understand this to be a volitional attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, or, in any case, as unreasonable). In the case of the former, it's possible that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule might apply; clerical errors are generally seen as ministerial mistakes, such that a search warrant should be invalidated only where prejudice can be shown. Whether one might nevertheless pursue a civil action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 is unclear, but I tend to think such an action would be barred. In any event, if this is not a hypothetical question, you would do well to consult an attorney; if you are an attorney asking here on behalf of a client, you would do well to send us half your fee. Joe 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

First, which country are you in? For great justice. 04:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the inquirer is in the United States, but if he were in most of the Middle Eastern countries, then it wouldn't have a chance to talk about any sort of warrant.Patchouli 04:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the ISP is Georgia-based Peachtree, I assumed the user to be in the United States. I ought to have stated such assumption, though, and also replied more generally. Our article search warrant is certainly US-centric, and I think we'd do well to expand it; unfortunately, I've but a paucity of info on search warrant procedures in other nations, but I'm sure we've plenty of people at the RD who might add to the article. Joe 05:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am lawyer, the answer might depend on why the wrong date was on the search warrant! If it was merely a typo, most courts would probably allow it. However, it would not be exceptable to use a year old warrant!

Hmm... Maybe the lawyer will come back and explain what "exceptable" means. Must be one of those weird legal terms. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Exceptable (adjective): How a public defender spells acceptable. (Yes, I know that exceptable is in fact a word [though it's not properly used by our lawyer friend; in fact, its meaning is diametrically opposite to that which he imputes to it]. Further, I simply kid; I interned with the Wisconsin Public Defender's Office during the summer after my senior year in high school, and most of the staff attorneys were relatively competent.) Joe 19:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

KFA

Why does the Korean friendship association so antiwoman, is it because they are predominatly homosexual!

Business practice in Korea (and in much of East and Southeast Asia) may be very different from what you are accustomed to in your own country. Check out this page, particularly the information below "Status Barriers" and the "Gender Barrier." It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. The link you are attempting to make between gay people and misogyny is tenuous at best, and probably offensive to both Koreans and gay people. --DavidGC 10:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholars

I'm interested in Cory Booker, the mayor-elect of Newark, New Jersey, who was a Rhodes scholar. The documentary "Street Fight" is the story of his unsuccessful run for mayor of Newark in 2002. It's an excellent documentary that has introduced Cory to people everywhere.

Booker won on his second try for mayor a few weeks ago.

So I've read everything about him that I could find. He has an impressive college record and also was a Rhodes scholar. But I can't find what he studied during his scholarship. Is there a website that lists topics studied by various Rhodes scholars?

According to the Stanford press release, he was to study for a PPE (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics [37]) degree. The official RS website only provides biographical details and proposed courses of study for those having been elected in 1996 or later. Joe 06:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

MASTURBATION

does mastubation (the ejaculation of semen )will cause any health problem?

You could refer to the masturbation article. It's easier to run a search before asking a question, as you might get an answer sooner. --Impaciente 06:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• The method makes a difference. I think men who rub their genitals against a soft cotton are safest.Patchouli 09:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, you will go blind, possibly grow hair on your hands, and possibly go insane!

• Many men and women straddle their pillows.Patchouli 11:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: does mastubation (the ejaculation of semen )will cause any health problem?

Answer: You lose weight, about 5 grams each time.

Ah ha! at last, the answer to the world-wide obesity crisis. JackofOz 12:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I won't be answering any ref desk questions for awhile, I'll be busy, ummm, "working out."  :-) --LarryMac 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are esoteric/spiritual ideas that you lose psychic energy (chi or whatever) from the practice, and that it is better to have a "psychic exchange" through sex, though I guess this could depend on whom you're exchanging with... There is some research that not releasing semen through masturbation or sex can increase the chances of cancer in that region of the body. Orgasm through masturbation or sex releases a chemical that aids sleep, so do it last thing at night, not first thing in the morning. If you do it too vigorously you can damage a blood vessel (moderation in all things). If you really go to town and split the small strip of skin under the foreskin, you will spray blood all over room. This is true: there was a TV documentary of couples which this had happened to during sex. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm feeling a bit queasy. Tyrenius 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• No. As long as you masturbate in moderation, it's unlikely to cause any health problems. Myths like that you could go blind from masturbating were created by parents who didn't want their children to be sexually active and by people who consider masturbation a sin. http://www.jackinworld.com is pretty good and ripping apart such myths (warning: that link has quite explicit content that's not suitable for some. No pictures) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

prestige

In the UK what is more presitious to be an MP, or MEP? In the U.S. What is more presigious, to be a senator, a govenor, or Cabinet member?

Prestige depends on the criteria you use to define it. Senators are usually viewed as a bit more stately than Representatives, as the requirements for their position are a bit more stringent, there are less of them, and they serve for longer terms. In addition, the Senate confirms many presidential appointments, such as for Supreme Court justices. Representatives, on the other hand, could be viewed as representing the will of the people to a greater degree than senators, as they are up for election every two years, increasing accountability. As for cabinet members, they are almost always highly qualified but ultimately serve at the will of the president, and as such can be dismissed easily. And as soon as the president they serve under is gone, they usually are as well. --Impaciente 06:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, very few MPs or MEPs can command much prestige these days. It's a rather outmoded concept, especially in politics. --Shantavira 07:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

While agreeing with Shantivira I'd say MPs have the greater prestige or respect, this is reflected in the relative numbers who bother to vote in European & general elections. AllanHainey 07:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Second AllanHainey, also that no one's got a clue who their MEP is or even if they have one, whereas MPs are at least featured in the local paper following a sleaze scandal or visiting the local primary school. Tyrenius 16:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In the US, I think it would depend on what cabinet post you're talking about. I think secretary of state is secretary of state might be one of the five or six most-prestigious positions in the US government, behind president, VP, House speaker, chief justice and maybe Senate majority leader. On the other hand, something like secretary of veterans affairs would rank way down the list. It's very prestigious to be a senator; perhaps even more than to be a governor. You sometimes see governors running for Senate when their terms as governors expire. -- Mwalcoff 07:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And sometimes the reverse: Pete Wilson, Ernest McFarland, Dirk Kempthorne, Frank Murkowski, Lowell Weicker... —Zero Gravitas 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

For the United States, this is tricky. More prestigious in the eyes of whom? For the average citizen, the state they are from may make a difference as to whom they view as more prestigious. For government officials, members of the military, etc., the answer may depend on where within the government they work. --DavidGC 10:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Also in the US, individual senators and governors have different levels of prestige, depending on their own individual political experience as well as their activities. For instance, Senator Patrick Leahy, the minority leader on the Senate Judiciary committee, has a fairly prestigious position, particularly since the committee has had two Supreme Court justices to confirm recently. He's probably more prestigious than, say Governor Brian Schweitzer, the current governor of Montana. On the other hand, Governor George Pataki of New York is probably more prestigious than Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. For what it's worth, I looked at the list of senators, governors and cabinet secretaries (I'm a Canadian, with a passing interest in US politics) and recognised the names of about 35 of 100 senators, 11 of 50 governors and 5 of the 15 cabinet members, which indicates that cabinet and senate are probably more prestigious than governors, at least from an international perspective. And as my final point, four of the last five presidents were governors. So I don't know that there's one general rule. --ByeByeBaby 06:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

THE DEAD SEA SCOLLS - ISAIAH TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH

I have been trying to establish what is the correct and truthful translation of certain passages of the Essene Dea Scroll of Isaiah, which as you probably know was written in Aramaic. The passages I refer to are:- Is 7 v 14 which I believe the true and factual translation is:- THEREFORE THE LORD HIMSELF SHALL GIVE YOU A SIGN, BEHOLD A YOUNG WOMAN SHALL CONCEIVE AND BARE A SON AND SHALL CALL HIM IMMANUEL. This translation is confirmed by the Hebrew Bible as well as certain so called Christian Bibles. Now when I was looking at a supposed translation of the Isaiah scroll recently on the net I found that the Christian translator had used the word "virgin" the same as it is found written in the Auth King James, which is the nearest translation from the early Greek to English that all true CALLED by GRACE Christians have but woe even the AKJ Bible has descrepencies therein. Which leads me to the other querie in translation which does NOT read as being correct or true, which is chapter 9 of Isaiah v 7 which the TRUTH is:- FOR A CHILD HAS BEEN BORN TO US, A SON GIVEN TO US, AND THE AUTHORITY UPON HIS SHOULDER, AND THE WONDEROUS ADVISER, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, CALLED HIS NAME, "THE PRINCE OF PEACE" But in EVERY Christian whether it be a modern corruption or even the Authorised King James they ALL publish the same wording, which is:- "FOR UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN, UNTO US A SON IS GIVEN; AND THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE UPON HIS SHOULDER; AND HIS NAME SHALL BE CALLED WONDERFUL CONSELLOR, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE OF PEACE."?

Would it therefore PLEASE be possible for your Organisation, without prejudice arrange for the correct and truthful translation be done taken from the Essenes Dea Sea Isaiah scroll in respect of these two very important passages of Scripture, which in TRUTH have with other perversions and secularism been the root of present day so called Christianity, who ALL deny that the LORD JESUS MESSIAH was a man of the FLESH born of Joseph and Mary for they, especially the Roman Catholics in the 3rd cent under Constantine and the antichrist bishops did change Holy eternal Scriptures to please the Roman people, who were worshipping the Satanic Godess Isis and her son Horus (Who's birthday was revered as the 25th December the winter solcis, the 25th December is NOT the birthday of the LORD JESUS MESSIAH! Amen)and they did merely change the names from Isis and Horus to Mary and Jesus and then call and worship their Mary as the mother of God precisely as Isis was and also call her the queen of Heaven, even as described in Revelation 18 AKJ Bible and also Jeremiah 44 AKJ & Hebrew Bibles!

These are ONLY a few TRUTHS of the Gospel of GOD unto Salvation that has and still is increasingly being corrupted and deceiving unsuspecting souls to worship Satan through his many counterfeit disguises, some that appear good and pleasant until one is drawn into the trap of deceit and LIES and turmoil and torment, which in most cases it is too late for this fiend tells you its alright you can escape you can do it and you can have better things, power, money, pleasure, health, be popular etc for he tells you also he does NOT exist and most of all he tells you that the LORD JESUS MESSIAH is a myth, precisely as these people like Dan Brown et al are publishing today; hence why true CHRISTIANITY has been over run down the centuries and more so today as the end draws closer, whatch the Middle East in particular Isreal the land of the Almighty GOD'S chosen, first Covenant people! Amen

Your assistance would be much appreciated. Thank you. I have inserted my e mail address for this pilgrim is ready, in wearing the FULL armour, to STAND and do ALL to stand for the times are perilious and evil, as proclaimed by Paul in 2 Timothy 3 AKJ Bible and, the days of Noah as prophesied and warned of by the ONE true Shepherd of the flock JESUS MESSIAH THE LORD as it is written in Matthew 24 AKJ Bible, are almost upon us! Amen IN WRATH O GOD ALMIGHTY AND FATHER, REMEMBER MERCY - THROUGH JESUS MESSIAH OUR REDEEMER AND SAVIOUR! Amen John Harper (Contact details removed by Skittle 10:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) to protect you from spam. We do not email you, we answer here.)

You might find our article on The Two Babylons interesting. I'm not sure if you're chicking, but I strongly suspect you misunderstand many people's positions on a number of topics covered in your message. It is unlikely that the editors of Wikipedia will translate the whole of the Dead Sea Scrolls for you, but they may have comments on individual passages and the strength that can be placed on any one translation. Skittle 10:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The urge to edit this question is very strong in me, Luke. ;) --DavidGC 11:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... is there a question in here? Oh, yeah. Almah in the Great Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea. I'll check a little later. The short answer is the word can mean both young woman AND Virgin. In ancient times, a young woman was married at or near puberty. So, to be a young woman meant to be a virgin. (they were called something else if they were not virgins by our definition. One of those things was wife! 8-) ) The debate, and it is fierce, is over how to translate it. Following Matthew and for the sake of the doctrines of the Virgin Birth and the Inspiration of Scripture, Most christian scholars go with virgin. Others translate it differently. Since the Great Isaiah Scroll is supposed to be identical to the Hebrew text of Isaiah we had before the discovery, the translation problem should be the same. --CTSWyneken 11:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Truthful translation? What the hell is a truthful translation? The only truthful translation is what God really meant. And no one knows that! Ohanian 12:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well... there are a lot of POVs on that! 8-) From mine, a conservative Lutheran view, we do know what God intended. He inspired Matthew to translate הָעַלְמָ֗ה (almah: young woman, virgin) as παρθένος (parthenos: virgin). Since I believe God spoke through Matthew, that seals it for me. Needless to say, you are free to disagree. All viewpoints are welcome in Wikipedia.--CTSWyneken 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't know. You only believe you know. Just like I believe I know the answer to a math question in my exam but later the lecturer marked me WRONG. Except for you, you will have to wait until after you had died before you know for sure. Ohanian 13:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

...assuming you'll be capable of knowing anything at that point. --DavidGC 13:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything. I only believe that I do know. Ohanian 13:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it's really off topic, I'll end by saying that that's your view. You're welcome to it -- if you really exist. For me, "I think therefore I am." I don't know if you're there, or just last night's hamberger pizza -- at least by your philosophy. 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect there are more things. I believe that Ohanian does in fact know that he is Ohanian, but has been operated on by religious fanatic aliens to think that he only believes he knows things. Prove me wrong :-) Skittle 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Voter Turnout

Please could you tell me what would happen in England if a polling station did not get anyone to turn up to vote at all. Would the previous councillers still be seated or would there be another polling date? What might happen if the vote was for a general election? Would all the parties be in chaos with no MP for that district. Thnakyou, Lyn

If no one voted then there are no winners. If even one person voted then there is a winner. If an even number of people voted then you may have a draw/stalemate. Ohanian 12:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case would there be noone in that seat or parliment if the entire country did't vote. Thanks for answering so promptly, Lyn

Looking back at the way you worded your original question, I assume that those manning the polling stations also vote. Therefore, if they were present to man the station, they would probably vote as well, regardless of whether or not they had anyone turn up to vote at the station they were manning. If they were unable to man the polling station, then that would probably present a different sort of problem. --DavidGC 13:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so what if no one voted at all, including polling station staff. Ie if people were so sick of all the goverment parties and wanted to make an impact and encouraged no one to vote so as to show their displeasure. What do you think that would do to the goverment? Would there be no one in power if it was a local election? Thanks for your replies, Lyn

Reminds me of the movie "Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came".

Each constituency has more than one polling station, so even if nobody voted at one polling station, there'd still be voters at the others. There's a theoretical possibility that nobody voted in a given constituency; not even the candidates voted for themselves. But given the nature of political candidates, that is so incredibly unlikely that I doubt any serious consideration has ever been given to special rules for such a circumstance. I would assume the election would be declared inconclusive or null, and a new election for that seat would be held (and cross your fingers that someone bothers to turn up this time). If nobody in the entire country voted, they'd just nullify the whole General Election and hold it again.

It is marginally more likely that the only voters were the candidates, all of whom voted for themselves, resulting in a tie. Where there's a tie in a UK constituency, I think the Returning Officer draws a name out a hat and declares the winner that way. Or does he have a casting vote? Nope, don't really know, sorry. JackofOz 14:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, Thank you. What about if no one was allowed to vote ie picket lines? Could you really elect a prime minister if only candidates voted? Cheers, Lyn

I believe if there is a draw they ask if anyone wants to concede. Doubtful if anyone does and hold it again. Of course for it to get to this stage there would have been about 5 different recounts (including arguments over the applicability of spoiled ballots) and it is extremely unlikely that it would still be a draw. If it is though I think, though am not certain, they run the election again.

Lyn, in the UK we don't elect a Prime Minister (or at least noone outside his constituency does & they're only voting for him as their MP). It is illegal to picket a polling station or to try to stop people from voting(or for candidates/supporters to try to persuade people inside the grounds of the polling place) in any event so the situation you suggest would never arise as you wouldn't get a circumstance in which only candidates vote as all political parties rely on very committed supporters and party workers to get out their vote in the constituancies & council wards. Many of these people whom I know (& myself of course) would fight their way through crowds of rioting lions & bears in 5 feet of snow to get out to vote (and so would at least some stubborn ordinary folk). (This was user:AllanHainey who forgot to sign)

Yes you could, and it would be the damn fault of the people who encouraged abstention as a form of political protest. It seems to follow from the rather dubious idea that you can only vote for 'government' candidates. Surely far more effective than stopping everyone from voting (and thus ensuring that only the candidates supported by party members/ 'Them' get voted for) would be encouraging everyone to vote for your own candidate. After all, anyone with the deposit and a minimum number of signatures can stand as a candidate in a constituency. Also, I suspect that picketing a polling booth to stop people voting is an offence of some kind. Interfering with people's right to vote? Skittle 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Going back to one of the original questions "Would all the parties be in chaos with no MP for that district." - No this infact happened in 2005, not no candidate being returned but no election being held in one of the constituencies. I can't remember where it was but one of the candidates died between his name going on the ballot and the election being held so, in accordance with the law, the general election there was postponed for a certain period of time to allow a new ballot to be prepared. I think the general election in that constituancy was actually held a month or so later than the rest of the country. It didn't make a blind bit of difference to the national political scene or the composition of Parliament. AllanHainey 14:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is a tie, the election is decided by lot: [38] It's happened at council elections, but never in a parliamentary one. Henry^Flower 15:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this happened in the Elections earlier this month. Keith Stammers, the Tory former mayor of St Albans, the incumbent, and Judith Shardlow, the Liberal Democrat candidate both got 1131 votes after three recounts. They drew pencils, and the Lib Dems won. I assume this tie rule would still apply if it was tied on zero. The delayed election last year that AllanHainey mentions was in South Staffordshire, where the Lib Dem candidate, Josephine Harrison died about a week before the election. --Hughcharlesparker 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC you have to have ten signatures on your nomination paper to be accepted as a candidate so presumably some of them will end up voting for you. Jameswilson 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You'd think so, but see Catherine Taylor-Dawson who stood for the Vote For Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket party in last year's general election and polled just one vote. -- AJR | Talk 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Woman

Please tell who that woman is on the left i`m tryin to finish my art project atm.

http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=72aj.jpg

Appreciated.

Wikipedia even has a copy of the painting, it's here: Image:Waterhouse Echo and Narcissus.jpg. Dr Zak 14:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As the bloke looking into the pond is obviously Narcissus I'd assume the woman is Echo. AllanHainey 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

philosophy is i know not what

i was reading a philosophy text book which said that the statement (philosophy is i know not what) was made by wittgenstein .pls can anybody explain what it means.thank you.

Ludwig Wittgenstein purposely used phrases that seemed odd because it was his opinion (from what I can tell) that philosophy was an artificial science created by fundamental problems in language. Therefore, a phrase like "I know not what philosophy is" would be arranged in a Yoda-like manner as "Philosophy is I know not what". --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

logic and truth

how can logic help in the attainment of truth.

It can block the way to truth. See Zeno of Elea's paradoxes. One of these is the situation of wanting to cross a room. First you must get to a halfway point. Logical, yes? Then you have half the room left to cross, and first you must get to the halfway point of that remaining half. Again very logical. Of course, you can keep on applying this logic, so there is always half of the remaining space left to cross ad infinitum, so logically you can never reach the other end of the room. (Actually I think I've given an interpretation of the original, but the principle applies.)

Jung postulated four modes of consciousness, based on the medieval humours, with the correspondences of earth (senses), air (thinking), fire (intuition) and water (feeling), and that truth is the unity of these, putting it crudely. Logic belongs to air (thought) and so is only a part of the total picture. As such it has a role to play and can eliminate certain falsehoods, but still needs to be integrated with the other aspects. In fact, most of the time we do this to a greater or lesser extent without even realising it. Much so called rational or logical thinking is really a rationalisation of something we observe, feel or know intuitively beforehand.

Tyrenius 00:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

One could read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance as a primer on dichotomies in thought process and the use of logic as a problem solving tool. The main issue with logic is it is the process of dividing or separating things. The more you divide things, though, the more things there are to divide into. You get all these hierarchical trees. It never ends. Therefore, logic will fail you in finding truth, because everything is infinitely divisible, and you will never reach an end...which would be truth. (Someone will point out that I am using logic to set up this proof that logic is no good to find truth...<groan>) But what do you define as truth? On a day-to-day level, logic can be quite useful in steadily ruling out potential sources of a problem until you eventually encounter the correct one.--Shandon 15:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But surely if I place a dry pea under a cup, put it next to another empty cup, and shuffle them I can use logic to tell me which cup the pea is under (if I shuffled them), by reasoning that the pea must be under the same cup it was under previously. If I have forgotten which that is, I can determine which cup the pea is under by lifting only one cup, not both, no matter which it is under. So I can use logic to determine 'The Truth' of the pea's location :-) Skittle 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That would be an example of a day-to-day level problem, which logic is quite good at helping out with. However, try to figure out what the underlying nature of reality is (What is light? A wave or a particle? Neither!), or matter, and logic can't give you an answer. Molecules are divided into atoms which are divided into atomic particles which are divided into (hey!) subatomic particles which are...um...embarassingly...made up of mostly empty space. The more you look the more there is to see. Brings up an interesting question though: logic can help you 'see', but can it help you experience? And can one know truth by only seeing it, or do you have to experience it? Look upon Alethiology, ye mighty, and despair!--Shandon 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Offering two quotes. William Blake:

"Truth can never be told so as to be understood, still less believed."

And David Bohm:

"Reality, or what we regard as 'truth', is derived from the Latin generic roots res, prescribing an item of some kind, and revi, referring to the process of thinking. Thus we surmise it means everything we can think about. That is not that-which-is. No idea can capture truth in the sense of that-which-is, still less pure reason." Luthinya 11:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

name of the the thief which was cruxified at the side of Jesus

Hi, I am searching for the name of the thief which was cruxiefied at the side of Jesus and repented. I allready searched in various articles but was unable to find his name. If there is an article about him (I pretty much doubt it, but perhaps an article about such "minor" christian caracters) would you please tell me? Thanks Flamarande 17:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They are not named in the Bible. The passages you are looking for are: Mark 15, Matthew 27, Luke 23, and John 19. In all four, they are simply referred to as two criminals. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, but they have apocryphical (non cannon) names, don´t they? Flamarande 17:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Barabbas, perhaps? --LarryMac 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell :), no. That dude was liberated by Pilate on wish of the crowd (historicaly highly dubious). Flamarande 17:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There's something ironic about using the term "bloody" while discussing crucifixion stories.  :-) --LarryMac 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-biblically, they are Dismas and Gestas. --Cam 17:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how User:Dismas thinks about that... - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As a total aside, Lenny Bruce had a hilarious bit about Dismas. :) --BluePlatypus 20:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

List of names for the Biblical nameless is one of our more poetically titled lists. Henry^Flower 13:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

bible/scripture quotes

Good Afternoon....I would like to know the origin of the often referred quote "an eye for an eye" came from. Jim

You could have found this quite easily. look in An eye for an eye and read the article, its quite interresting. Flamarande 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC) PS: sign your msgs with 4 " ~ ".

Googlin is useful, the whole bible is not in WP. I tried "an eye for an eye bible" and found - to be checked - Exodus 21: 23-25. --DLL 19:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole Bible is in Wikisource though. Rmhermen 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Opposite of a patent?

Recently I've been interested in the JMRI/KAM dispute over a patent infringement. (which in short consists of KAM saying JMRI is infringing on KAM's patents, while JMRI claims that what KAM's patents are invalid, because what's patented has been in use for a long time before the patent was issued.) So, I wonder... if I invent something new and clever, but would like to do the opposite of patenting it... that is, would want it to be publicly available and impossible to patent... what do I do? My jurisdiction is Norway... but that's not really very important. I'm not sure how these things work internationally anyway. Just answer my question generally. Thank you in advance. --DarkPhoenix 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would think you'd get a patent on it and then declare it free for use. It's sort of antithetical to an "antipatent", but that would seem to be the most logical way of preventing someone else from patenting the same. — Lomn Talk 17:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, but surely in order to patent something the applicant must be able to show that it is his or her invention. As long as you can show that it has been in use (though I'm not sure for how long) nobody else can patent it. Nobody can patent the wheel (though this has been tried - see wheel). --Shantavira 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

IANAPL, but I would have thought that getting a patent yourself is unnecessary. Publishing the details of the invention makes it prior art, and (although our article doesn't make this clear) I think it's then no longer novel and so no longer patentable. (Incidentally, the wheel article seems to say that yer man did get his patent.) Henry^Flower 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The technical term for what you describe is a "disclosure". --Robert Merkel 00:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the wheel (in Australia), it was registered, but Commissioner of Patents Vivienne Thom said: "To obtain the patent the applicant must make a declaration that they are the inventor. Obtaining a patent for the wheel would require a false claim, which would certainly invalidate the patent." From BBC report.

Conjoined Twins/Legal Status

In the United States are conjoined twins viewed as one or two individuals? For example, are they each given a social security number or do they share one? 70.159.43.66 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Blake70.159.43.66 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In Jewish law, DICEPHALUS conjoined twins (twins with two heads on one body) are considered to be ONE individual.

Yes they are viewed as to seperate people!

Would the person who mentioned dicephalus and Jewish law please sign his/her comment and cite a source, as the comment appears to me to be very odd considering the general tenets of Jewish law. Loomis51 11:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Loomis51: The source is the Gemara, Menachot 37a: "Pelemo inquired of Rebbi [Yehudah Hanasi] 'If a man has two heads, on which one must he place the Tephillin?'" The language of the Gemara clearly shows that such a dicephalus "twin" is regarded as one person. Furthermore if this dicephalus "twin" was regarded as two people, the question would be superfluous - Tephillin would have to be placed on BOTH heads. I have just finished a detailed research paper (in Hebrew) on this question and I intend putting a copy of it online. Rabbi Chaim

To Rabbi Chaim: First I should apologize for taking the liberty of removing your full name and address from your comment. It's just Wikipedia policy that in order to be safe from harrassment or worse, it's a much better idea to create an account with Wikipedia, and then put whatever info you deem appropriate. Again, I apologize for this and if you choose to put up your full name, by all means, it's your right. Slicha!

Second, your interpretation is fascinating. I'm not a Rabbi and obviously not nearly as familiar with the Gemara as you are, so ultimately I would defer to your authority. However, I am somewhat familiar with the "Torah Be'al-peh" and in particular its inherently dialectal nature. What I'm saying is that this may be a matter of quite a great deal of debate. The conclusion that dicephalus twins are in fact one person just seems to fly in the face of both modern science (for which talmudic interpretation tends to have the uncanny ability to mirror, or even, dare I say, anticipate), as well as a basic, humane recognition of the uniqueness of each human neshama. Is it your position that a dicephalus twin has only one neshama? In that case, what of the vast majority of twins who were fortunate to have been born with completely separate bodies? Do they as well share a soul? (That would seem extremely unlikely, as, after all, Jacob and Esau were twins. As I'm sure you'd agree, it's hard to think of two more disparate souls than those two!) If not, why the seemingly arbitrary distinction between those twins born conjoined and those not?

Is it possible that Palemo's question was a loaded one? You say he said: "If a man has two heads...". This might refer to those possible situations where there indeed is only one person, with some sort of mutated, yet fully dead second head. Had Palemo phrased the question: "If two men are physically joined...", would Rebbi Yehuda's answer perhaps be different?

I realize that a focussed debate on Talmudic law is somewhat innapropriate on Wikipedia's Reference Desk. Also my Hebrew comprehension is minimal, and so even if you were to put your research paper online, I'd have great difficulty reading it. However, if you're interested, and I emphasize that "if you're interested", it would be interesting to discuss this topic further. Just click on my username and send me whatever response you have the time or inclination for. LeHitraot! Loomis51 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish or Hebrew Religion

Based on the material I've read from your excellent encyclopedia, I have a general perspective, but I would like verification from your knowledge.

The week that Christ was crucified, the gospels mention that there were two sabbaths in one week. One is Saturday. The other I have concluded was The Feast of Unleavened Bread. I never realized that there could be two sabbaths in one week. Do you agree? Also, do you have any idea which day of this week was for Christ? My thinking is that it would be the day before His crucifixion; perhaps Wednesday. Thank you for your assistance.

As I understand it (see Passover), the first night of Passover is always celebrated as a Sabbath, no matter where it falls in the week. Perhaps a Jewish editor will comment if this is correct. Every week, the weekly Sabbath is celebrated from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. So, almost every Passover there are two Sabbaths in the week. According to Matthew, Mark and John, the Passover Seder was eaten on Thursday. The evening on Friday began the weekly Sabbath. That is why the relatives were in a hurry to get the bodies off the crosses by sundown. Does this help? --CTSWyneken 21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Jewish religion, while the first night of Passover (the night on which the Passover Seder feast in celbrated) may carry with it many prohibitions that would make it appear like a Sabbath, such as the prohibitions against doing work or lighting a fire, it is certainly not a true Sabbath as Judaism would define the term. Incidentally, in the Jewish Diaspora (i.e. outside of Israel), Jews celebrate two Seders on the first two nights of Passover, which would lead to the possibility of having three Sabbaths in one week, if one were to consider the Seder feast as a Sabbath. But this is not the case. There is only one Sabbath each week, and it is observed as CTS points out, from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. Loomis51 01:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

May 18

Smoking on Airplanes

Are there any airlines left that permit smoking on flights? I realized that US airlines and EU airlines expressly forbid it, per law. But past those, are there any left that do?

--Paul

You might be interested in this website. However, please note that it was last updated in 2003. --DavidGC 02:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Da vinci Code

I do not see what the big fuss about the claim that Jesus is married is about. in the Bible it often refers to marriage as the sanctified and correct thing to do. They said in Genesis that "a man will leave his own father and mother. He marries a woman, and the two of them become like one person. Gen 2.24" i thought that Jesus becoming married might show other Christians about the sanctity and the value of marriage. or I might be completely on the wrong track.

Is there a question here? --CTSWyneken 03:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

the "big fuss" seems to be about the book's questioning of the divinity of jesus. does jesus, being 100% god as well as 100% man condescend himself to marrying an earthly woman? i think the argument put forth in the book is that jesus was not really divine, and so marrying mary would not be out of the question. i've heard the theory that jesus, being a young and pious jewish man, was seriously out of bounds in not marrying. but really, was jesus in the habit of following the strict jewish laws of the time? seems to me that he was in the habit of doing pretty much the opposite. also seems to me that they pinned him up to a tree for that very reason. 71.31.102.60 04:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The main concern I've seen about the 'code does not have to do so much about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married, but it's claim to be based on research when, in fact, many scholars have pointed out it is entirely fiction. If time permits later, I'll post more links, but here is something to get you started. Cracking The Da Vinci Code. --CTSWyneken 10:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem any contradiction in saying a novel is based on research, most are. It seems to be some section of the readership who can't tell fact from fiction, confused perhaps by the use of real-world props. Notinasnaid 11:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, though, it goes beyond that. The author said that the story is fictional, but that it is based on certain facts, but the facts in question were not actually true (see Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code). Whether you call that lying, creative licence or poor research is up to you. Henry^Flower 13:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing! it seems alot of people arent able to see that it could be fiction, or they are so tight in their beliefs that they have to shoot down EVERY possible thing that doesnt agree with their system. (I know people like this.) Maybe its both too! Either way, i havent read the book, but i might check out the movie, even though some christian leaders are in a fury to prevent people from "watching a movie which insults their religion" !

Hmm, was he citing as facts only things that other people had cited as facts (such as the people who tried to sue him recently)? If so, that seems reasonable, Wikipedia would do the same. That lawsuit seemed very odd, since if the other book were factual, then copying its "facts" is entirely legitimate, since facts cannot be copyrighted. Only if the authors of the other book were saying it was fiction could copying their stuff be plagiarism, or so it seems to me. I observe in Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code the phrase Although Brown's website makes use of words such as "alleged," "rumored," and "seem to be," some critics consider the qualifiers misleading which suggests that the critics are out to get him no matter what. (Perhaps if I'd read the book I'd feel the same). Notinasnaid 20:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, what is the big deal about a married Jesus? Well, by itself that would be absolutely unimportant theologically. It would make the Magdalene a greater saint, as it would suggest that Jesus chose her over Peter, that Peter was the foundation of the church but that Magdalene was more important still. Since the anagogical readings of history always suggest that the church is the body of Christ, the idea that Christ was married would challenge that language (not a very, very big deal). The challenge would be to the primacy of the Pope. Since all popes derive their position through apostolic succession from Peter and Peter's chosen status, if Magdalene were chosen above Peter, it would eliminate bans on women bishops and lower the power of the Pope as an interpreter of doctrine. For most Christians, that would still not be a big deal today.
• The other part of it comes in the late middle ages, when there was a cult of virginity. I'm not sure why this cult developed, but it's quite important. Using reception aesthetics, we can argue that it was an age more obsessed with virginity and purity of body than perhaps any other, as the numbers of hagiographies of virgin martyrs explodes. For thinkers at that time, a married Christ would be a polluted Christ, and a married Christ would be less divine. N.b. this thinking was not all that common before or after the 1100-1400.
• Finally, the thing that the Holy Blood, Holy Grail folks were taken in by (other than a huge hoax) was the idea of the last scion. They believed that there was an issue of the marriage, that there was a semi-divine blood line running about. To believe in this, you have to believe a ton of extreme things (divinity being transmitted by conception, awareness of divinity transmitted the same way, essence coming from blood...all that divine right of kings nonsense). For protestants, none of this should be terribly more challenging than the run of the mill heresy. For Roman Catholics today, the question of papal primacy would be under attack (again).
• Make your own choice of how offended you'd like to be. Geogre 13:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not a married Jesus. So much work has been done to prove that Jesus never ever touched (or even saw) a vagina. Some have even worked out ways he could have been born without touching Mother Mary's vagina. If he was married, all that work is wasted. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the evidence outside the scriptures that Jesus even existed is pretty small. That's not much evidence one way or the other, as most of the contemporary writers of the time whose works have survived weren't working in the area and would have had little interest in Jewish preachers; see Historicity of Jesus. --Robert Merkel 23:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I would argue against Robert Merkel's point that there is very little evidence that Jesus existed outside of scriptures. All the major religions recognize that Jesus existed, and most scholars do to, its just there is little support for his divinity amongst those. There are many engaging books on this topic. As well, as for the Da Vinci Code, it is fiction, and the author's research is definitively faulty, so that story of Jesus is obviously a fabrication. Anyone Christian who feels that this challenges or threatens there faith, obviously does not know enough about the roots of their faith, and any non-Christian who comes to believe that Christianity is false just because (and i italicize because) of this movie, obviously does not know anything about the subject. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make much sense. Robert Merkel claimed that there is very little evidence that Jesus existed outside the scriptures. You claim that most people recognize that Jesus existed. That is not an argument against Robert's claim. An argument against his claim would be that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed outside of the scriptures - which is not true. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned Steroids in Major League Sports

anabolic steroids, and similar performance enhancing substances are banned in major league sports. Are they only banned by the leagues involved or are they in fact illegal to all citizens? For example, Barry Bonds may be prohibited from using steroids, but is this because of MLB policy or is it actually a state crime? Is an ordinary Joe who isn't a professional athlete prohibited by the state from using these substances? (I realize that different jurisdictions may have different laws. I'm not even American myself, but an answer that concerns the US only is acceptable.)Loomis51 02:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the US, but in the UK (and I'd imagine many other countries) steriods are a controlled substance, in just the same way medicine for heart conditions or gout is. As such, it's illegal to possess them without a prescription from a doctor or vet (unless one has a licence, as pharmacists and drug makers have). Like other drugs with medical uses, it is of course legal to possess them with a prescription. Unfortunately I can't find a decent reference which says in which category steroids are categorised. Other performance enhancing substances might not be, or certainly aren't, banned. Testosterone, pseudoeffedrine, even caffeine and ginseng are prohibited by sporting bodies, but are available over the counter in medicines, herbs, drinks, and foodstuffs. Petty the poor distance runner who runs 10 miles every morning in the rain, frequently catches a cold, and can't take effective over the counter remedies lest they be randomly drug tested the following day (a sudafed you took yesterday tests the same as a big syringe full of pseudoeffedrine you took a couple of weeks ago). Middenface 13:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, possession of steriods without a prescription is illegal because they're a potentially harmful pharmaceutical, and not because of their capacity for sporting abuse. That said, clearly a court is going to take intention into account when sentencing, and having steriods to give to your cancerous granny will likely be mitigatory, while having them to sell to athletes so they can cheat at sports likely won't. Middenface 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I hear that right? Caffeine is a banned substance in professional sports? Should I take that to mean that a footballer who had a cup of tea/coffee with breakfast runs the risk of being banned from his/her sport for such an ordinary everyday practice that the rest of us do with hardly a thought? Wow, I'm glad I'm not a professional athlete! (You can keep the money, I need my morning cup of tea!) Loomis51 11:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I belive you have to drink like 20 cups of coffee to go over the limit set by World Anti-Doping Agency. So an athlete can enjoy a cup of coffee if s/he wants to, it just to prevent athletes taking those caffeine pills students love. --Eivind^t@c 06:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

a medieval musical instrument-- what is it's name?

This instrument looks like a block of wood (about 8 inches high and chunky) with the mouthpiece on a protruding tube. I believe that inside is a very long coiled tube for the air column. (sorry my description is not more technical but except for having seen and heard it I know nothing.) Could you tell me its name, construction and materials, and if it is the ancestor of any modern instrument. Thank you. ----

Do you mean the ocarina by any chance? —Zero Gravitas 08:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you mean the Rackett. But other thoughts: Serpent? Shwam? Anything here? = Nunh-huh 09:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Further rackett info with pictures: [39] [40]. Also, delightfully, called the Wurstfagott (sausage bassoon). - Nunh-huh 09:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Shwam" is Shawm, BTW. Grutness...wha? 11:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a rackett, yeah. Can't imagine what else it might be. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

South Carolina and Oregon similarities

I typed in the name of the town I live in to see how many others were out there. At least 20 were listed but there was only one state that had the name listed as a county and city, which is the same story here. I got curious and started looking at all the cities and counties in Oregon and came to a startling conclusion: South Carolina and Oregon amazingly share the same names of towns and counties. We also have the same state drink (milk).

here is a list of names of cities that we have in common:

Florence-county in south carolina; city in oregon

Pendleton-city in SC; city in OR

Charleston-city and county in SC; city in OR

Lexington-city and county in OR; city in OR

Manning-city in SC; city in OR

Seneca-city in SC; city in OR (*both towns named for same reasons--apples)

Summerville-city in SC; city in OR

Richland-county in SC; city in OR

Gervais-name of major road in columbia, the SC capital; city in OR

Union-city and county in SC; city and county in OR

Columbia-city and capital in SC; city and county in OR

Goshen-infamous home of the hound of goshen, a white dog that haunts newberry county in SC; city in OR

Marion-county in SC; county in OR

Valley Falls-city in SC; city in OR

now that I have shown you the evidence, let me ask these questions:

Do you think this is a mere coincidence that these two states are alot alike? I dont. What I want to know is the correlation between the two. I have tried to see if anything is mentioned about the origins or founding fathers of the two states. Ive hardly had any luck.

Were they the same people? Did the people who had started South Carolina venture out west and plant southeastern roots in Oregon? I am finding this discovery to be quite intruiging. Anything to lead me in the right direction is welcome. One could almost say its sort of a parallel universe. I wouldnt mind packing up my camper and taking a road trip to visit the area. Taking pictures of the towns' welcome signs and comparing with the ones around here would be wild. Margaret

Perhaps its a secret sign of your forefathers that the ppl of South Carolina and the ppl of Oregon are part of the 13th tribe of Israel? Perhaps they were members of a secret religious conspiracy? Perhaps the names of these cities are indications for the aliens to land here? Perhaps these names are supposed to help in the reincarnation of Jesus or perhaps... even Elvis?

Sorry about that, I am cynical by choice and possses a strange sort of humour. Now seriously, what are you looking for? An explanation why these names are all the same?

Easy answer: because they knew and liked them (the same reason we always give our babies the same names). We like to repeat things, like names. You can say that we as a species don´t have a lot of imagination. Everybody copies everything frome everybody, but mostly we like to repeat names from our own cultural past because we simply like them, they are familiar and fashionable. It is hard to be original, because many times being original means being diffrent. Many times being diffrent is not considered "proper".

I will give you even a few good examples: Why are the names of almost everything in the USA the same as in the Old World? You have "New York" and we have "York", you have several cities called "Carthage" and we have a city with the same name (ok, it was part of the old Roman world, so what?), etc. Your personal names are many times the same as ours (John, William, Bill, Jack, Alice, Brown, it goes on and on), many times they are from the bible (Seth, Christian(son), Mary, Sara, Stephen, Moses, David, Peter, Eve) or are ppl from our past (Alexander, Julian). We are repeating names more than 2000 years now, and perhaps even longer than that.

South Carolina came first, and so probably the founders of Oregon copied the names because they simply knew and liked them. Likely they even came from that area or passed by it. Flamarande 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that the west coast was settled largely by people who crossed the country from the east, it's not impossible that a large number of people from South Carolina were among those who settled Oregon. Grutness...wha? 11:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I saw a trivia thing once that Lexington is the only city in all 50 states. I went to look for Lexington Hawaii and couldn't find it. So, I think the trivia thing was wrong - but Lexington is a very popular name. All other names you mentioned are popular too. If you want to find true similarities, what percentage of ALL county names in both states are the same? What percentage of ALL city names in both states are the same? This is, in all reality, about the same as noting that City A and City B both have Main St., Oak St., 1st St... --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the USGS name server doesn't have a Lexington, Hawaii. Seneca, South Carolina seems to have been named after the Seneca tribe of Indians not after an apple. Many of the mentioned towns occur in a number of states, not unique to SC or OR. Rmhermen 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

City Name	# of States
Clinton	29
Franklin	29
Fairview	27
Marion	25
Milford	24
Greenville	24
Oxford	24
Salem	24
Springfield	24
Arlington	22
Kingston	22
Cleveland	22
Madison	22
Princeton	22
Centerville	21
Newport	21
Auburn	21
Troy	21
Georgetown	21
Washington	21

According to some data which I have, the "top 20 city names by number of states they appear in at least once" are as shown in the table at right.

I also did some queries to elicit the states which had the greatest similarity in naming of populated places... the tops are Ohio and Illinois (233 names in common), Texas and Illinois (211), Ohio and Pennsylvania (211) and Missouri and Illinois. Oregon and South Carolina are far down the list at 22 similarities, these being:

Charleston Elgin Florence Gaston Gresham Hampton Jefferson Lexington Norway Oak Grove Oakland

Pendleton Princeton Salem Seneca Springfield Summerville Summit Troy Union Valley Falls Waterloo

Note that these statistics only consider "populated place" entities (towns and cities) and not counties as the original questioner included. KWH 06:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral "Raven"

I am looking for a "cathedral Raven" I bought a button with this stamped on the bottom. It also has a picture of the church. Looking for the exact place.

The raven is a symbol of several cathedrals, notably the Giralda in Seville, Spain. A quick google search of raven+cathedral may turn up something. Grutness...wha? 11:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the cathedral in Ravenna. AllanHainey 07:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

What is the difference between "noumenal reality" and "ontic reality" ? Thank you. - Willie

You might find some help at the articles Noumenon and Ontology, andeven the one on Reality. --Halcatalyst 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. - Willie

the Holy Trinity as symbol for components of atom

Is there any analysis that has been done on God being a symbol for the atom, ie: (electron + proton + neutron) = (Father + Son + Holy Spirit), and if this has been evaluated, which of the 3 corresponds to which of the other 3? Thanks for info. and/or useful links (sorry if in wrong area, didn´t know whether to post under religion or science). --JoelAbend

People are always putting ideas like this together. For example, "Trinitarian traces abound everywhere in creation. The atom is proton, neutron, and electron. Our experience of time is triune – past, present, and future. The family too is a reflection of Trinitarian love – the love of husband and wife, distinct and very different persons, generates the child who is from them but is nonetheless distinct from them, indeed absolutely unique" [41]. But I would say this is not theological consideration but rather imaginative analogical thinking, and certainly not analysis. --Halcatalyst 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've seen this used as a metaphor for the Trinity before, but I can't remember where. Theologians will typically respond by saying: "that's fine as far as it goes, but it isn't perfect." Which, of course, they would say about all metaphors that try to get at the nature of God. 8-) --CTSWyneken 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The human mind is exceedingly good at seeing patterns - even when there are none. The root of your theory is "all things which come in threes are related to the Christian Trinity". Without further evidence, all you have is coincidence, and coincidence does not imply causality. You could say "but lots of things come in threes!". Yes, but lots of other things don't come in threes. There are four seasons. Two illumination states (light and dark). Two sexes. Six types of quarks. Ninety-three natually occurring elements. Ten, eleven or twenty-six dimensions. You can say that God is a metaphor for the atom, but the idea of a deity is far older than the proton-neutron-electron decomposition of the atom. So it sounds to me like someone is trying to inject meaning where there is none.

My €0.02... :) — QuantumEleven 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to offend anyone, but as was implied above, three is a common number in nature (just as two or four are, for example.) Just as an example, has anyone looked into the symbolism of the three leaves distinctive of poison ivy and attempted to look for its symbolic relevance to the Holy Trinity? I wonder what that would imply! Again, that wasn't meant to offend, just to point out that looking for notable "threes" in nature can lead to extremely varied results and is probably best left to theologians (if that). Loomis51 11:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

what do these people say about quarks, is go made of string? Philc _T^E_C^I 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the official name of this religion

The followers worship a god called Janus. This religion is now extinct.

See Janus (mythology). Henry^Flower 11:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

history

I am trying to find out the name of the person who was last publicly whipped in the state of Delaware. I have been able to find out that it was in the year of 1952 but I need to know the name.

Thanks

Carrie

Google hasn't been of any help with a name...you may have to go through public records (say of either a courthouse or municipality)...which town was the sentence handed down and carried out in? BTW thanks to you, "red hannah" has now been added to my vocabulary--Shandon 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Hmmm...changed 'whipping' to 'flogging' and came up with this site [42] that gives the date of punishment as June 16, 1952 and says it was a burglar who got 20 lashes. This site [43] gives the instructions & form for accessing Delaware court records.

Homosexuality in Mexico

I'm having trouble finding information on the wiki about homosexuality in Mexico. What are the social attitudes towards homosexuality? Is it really conservative because of the catholicism? Will my boyfriend and I get beat up if we're holding hands on a public street? -- LazerTruck666 13:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have heard at least two instances from my friends who said to have met pre-operative transsexuals or transvestites in Tijuana.Patchouli 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Were they aware of this before they paid? :) -- Mwalcoff 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but homosexuality and transexualism are completely different things. --Richardrj 14:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just like most countries it depends on where you are. Larger cities or tourist spots like Mexico city, Guadalajara, Cancun etc. have a decent size homosexual population and culture. In the rural areas things are more conservative. As always, use common sense and err on the side of safety. Here is a report from glbtq giving a history of homosexuality in Mexico. [44]Nowimnthing 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is purely anecdotal because I can't remember the documentary I was watching when I heard it, but I do distinctly remember that Mexico DOES have quite a problem with tolerance of homosexuality. I'd do some more research if I were you. And just to add, it probably has nothing to do with the fact that Mexico is a predominantly Catholic country. In fact you'd probably find quite a bit less trouble in most Catholic countries/provinces (eg. France, Spain, Quebec) than if you were to find yourself holding hands with your boyfriend in, say, Alabama or Mississippi! Good luck and be safe. Loomis51 11:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

World religions and belief systems: similarities?

im doing some independant research to try and prove that there are similarities between religions..... basically im trying to find as many similarities as i can to prove that maybe there is one universal truth and that we see it in different ways, since we are human and imperfect. my problem is, i only know small parts of christian belief, and the american indian beliefs system as a result of my studies. ive found that both native and christian religions have a flood story. Natives also have ties to the sauna which was used in mythological times in europe (they call it the sweat lodge). The question i have is: are there any other connections between native religion and other religions/belief systems? trust me ive googled and searched all over for a long time, but it seems there are almost no sources that compare native religion in this way. any help would be appreciated. thank you!

Surely you can do the comparison yourself? That's what independent research is. Find out what native American believed (hint- probably different things in different places). Find out what Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc. believe. Compare them. You might also be interested in the comparative religion article. Henry^Flower 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, its just that i am under the impression that there is not alot of comparison dealing directly with native spirituality. (im guessing i misworded things above, so i am clarifying) I thought that there would have been more info, but it seems that because of the actions of the white man, Native things have really gone underground. i mean its supposedly re-emerging, but i really cant find alot about comparisons specifically having one side be native american spirituality. Not even your link has this, although it seems to show alot of good information on other religions. Does anyone know where i can get some good comparitive information dealing with natives?

Artists / Artworks that can be or need to be touched

For a part of my thesis, I need information about art that can or need to be touched. Almost all art is only meant to be looked at (paintings, most sculptures,... etc), not to be touched or felt.

There are some artists who make art which can be touched, and should be touched to get the full "idea" the creator had when creating the artwork.

Note, there is a whole class of artworks and exhibitions, specially aimed at blind people. These are not the works I'm looking for. Also, a lot of art workshops exists for children, with the possibility to touch and feel the art.

I've been searching a lot already, but can't find any good leads. 'Haptic art' or 'tactile art' are closely related to what I'm searching for, but don't give the expected results.

Anyone who can help or give me some leads? I've been googling and searching for about a week now, and only have a handfull of names and links, most of them not even exactly what I'm looking for.

Rgds, -bg

Interesting subject. Sorry I don't have any examples from real life, but I do have two fictional examples: In the movie Harold and Maude, Maude has a sculpture in her house which she says Harold needs to touch to fully appreciate, and in Larry Niven's Known Space series, the Kdatlyno are an alien species who have no sense of vision and they're famous for their tactile works of art. —Keenan Pepper 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sort of the opposite - the Detroit Institute of Arts has a bronze donkey at its entrance that you are encouraged to touch - so that you can appreciate the damage done by visitors touching the artworks. Rmhermen 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Found it, Artie the Donkey. The only image I can find is somewhat small... Anyone knows another links to an image? -bg

The Canadian sculptor Katie Ohe has produced a number of kinetic art pieces which are designed to be touched -- her most famous is Zipper, which is a campus landmark at the University of Calgary. It was designed to be spun, and is -- hundreds of times a day. (Except the day the engineering students stole it.) There's a picture here; the two spiral vertical pieces each spin on their axis, and then the whole thing spins on its' base. For more information about this sculptor, read, of all things, this column by pro wrestler Bret "The Hitman" Hart. --ByeByeBaby 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There's an Anish Kapoor piece on exhibition at Tate Modern at the moment which you can/have to walk into to experience it. I would try emailing them for more info on your question. They are quite helpful. Tyrenius 22:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

More mundane, but equally valid are the works of those bona fide artists who design and make articles for daily use - a walking stick, a steering wheel, a spoon. I'm thinking not of a design for mass production, but of items that are individually made and have a look and feel about them that says something to the user. Would this be a separate field of art study? --Seejyb 13:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lotion

Where did lotion originate and when please?

Probably not really a good answer for this. Invention books list the first recorded use of cosmetics and other personal hygiene products in Ancient Egypt. The use of various plants (like aloe)to help with skin problems goes back into prehistory. In other words thousands of years ago, know one can ever know for sure since there was no writing and no physical evidence could have been left from such a transitory activity. If you were looking for a specific brand of lotion, you could get into company histories, but just lotion in general, no real answer. Nowimnthing 18:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy: God

Just a question id like to see responses to: if god is all knowing, and all loving, why would he create a person whos actions would send him to hell? surely god would know this person would have sinful intent, so why create a population that you love, but that has to suffer eternal damnation? Just an interesting idea to think about.

This is waaaaay too close to a deterministic view of the universe for me. Have you seen any evidence of this eternal damnation? I think it's a state of mind rather than an end state (well, one of us is in for a big surprise)--24.80.70.174 18:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is not a soapbox; however, you might be interested in our articles like free will, determinism, and the problem of evil. — Lomn Talk 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Referencing the 'one of us is in for a big surprise' you might like to look at Pascal's wager. DJ Clayworth 20:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You might find The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis interesting reading... AnonMoos 05:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your question looks like Jean Meslier's (read his text). Also, did you try Pascal's wader ? --DLL 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to know a decent rebuttal to that argument, you can drop a line on my talk page here because its a lil too long for the reference desk. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The response is of course that the omniescent God gives us the ability to make the choice of righteousness or sin, however the conundrum of predestination or choice becomes more cumbersome as debate continues until the idea of an omniescent anthropological god breaks down at which point many take refuge in the concept of faith versus reason. you are on a stream of learning which can go along way, enjoy the intellectual debate, Hatch

In personal opinion, god created the earth, and all its contents as a project, like we ourselves may create a piece of art (weather it be a painting, sculpture etc). I think the reason why god created man on earth was due to loneliness. Mabye the animals were intended to cure this ill, but where as the repetitive actions of animals may put things in perspective for humans provide respite or companionship, god is obiously different. This may be why humans have their own free will to live, unlike any animal. The sin you talked about only came into question after god disrespected satan. I shouldnt continue with my opinions at this shouldnt turn into a discussion, (sic)98

Ancient near east....

Were Babylon and Akkad the same city with different names? I'm trying to settle a dispute, so some nice little sources would good :P Oskar 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Akkadians called Babylon "Babilu". While the location of Akkad is unknown, it is unlikely that they called the same city two different names. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Puzzled

Doing a quiz here and having trouble with the last question about a church in which a famous Saint was buried...

http://img104.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bonus8kv.jpg

Think we would need more info here, do you have the name of the church or even what country it is in? Nowimnthing 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks Scottish? Jameswilson 01:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I have to go on is that a legendary Saints tomb resides within it Also it is a Cathedral

St. Mungo's Cathedral, Glasgow. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

X-Men: The Last Stand Cast

I have been trying to find out what the salaries were for the cast of X-Men The Last Stand. It's my understanding that they were able to re-negotiate new contracts this time around. The only salary I can find of anyone in that movie is Brett Ratner.

This might be hard, as salaries of actors are not required to be disclosed to the public. The ones that we know about are usually leaked to the press. Nowimnthing 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If www.aintitcoolnews.com doesn't know about it, I'm not sure where you'd look. It's probably the closest thing to a Hollywood Smokinggun.com. Geogre 11:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The History of COPLEY TOWNSHIP in OHIO

Hello Everyone,I'm writing to from ENGLAND, I want to know how COPLEY came about in Ohio, as my maiden name is Copley, and I'm interested in the history of this. All the Best, Mrs Joy Taylor, (nee Copley)

There is a short history on their offical webpage: [45] Nowimnthing 23:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

May 19

Quotes found on Desk Calender

I enjoy reading quotes on the desk calender at work however I keep coming across quotes that are attributed to P.K. Shaw and W.G.P. I have searched high and low to find out who they are and there is no reference in any search engine I have tried.

Would someone be able to give me information on who these people/organisations are?

Thanks for the help.

Pelican.

Juse because something is quotable doesn't mean it was said by anyone well known. And the initials W.G.P. are quite common. Have you tried doing a search for the quotes themselves?--Shantavira 07:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

According to this (which includes a list of some of his best ones), "W.G.P. is a gentleman by the name of Willam George Plunkett who worked for the Collins company for nearly 40 years. He worked in the print room and oversaw the production of the refills. Over the years he wrote his own quotes and they started appearing in the product. He died in 1975 and Collins have continued the tradition of including some of his quotes on a Wednesday". JackofOz 08:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Light in August (Faulkner)

As you might know, Light in August has a lot of Biblical allusions, including Joe Christmas representing a Jesus figure. What I don't understand is why Faulkner linked Christmas to Jesus if Christmas is such a violent and troubled character, while Jesus is the ultimate pacifist? Any thoughts? Thank you. --Oobra 04:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Violence : fought with daemons, with temple merchants, with diseases and death. :Trouble : discussed with priests, with dead Moses & Elias, said he was a stranger king, put the revolution in Jerusalem and so on. Jeez was not only Mary's little baby. --DLL 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sparta and wheels

Did the ancient Spartans have wheels?

Certainly, in the ancient Olympic games there were chariot races (same time period). Wheels are know in Europe and Asia since the ancient Egyptians at the very least and probably before any written records. Only in North and South America was the wheel intruduced relativly later (with the arrival of spanish collonists and conquistadors). Flamarande 07:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's "only in North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific islands", thanks very much. And that might be missing out places like Mauritius, too... Grutness...wha? 05:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course! Spartan on Wheels! 07:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Made in Germany U.S. Zone

The label above was used for goods manufactured in the U.S occupied areas of postwar Germany, but when was this practice abolished? --Agamemnon2 06:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the occupation!

That is wrong , after a while the label was changed into: "made in West Germany", but I don´t know precisly when. Flamarande 16:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Extreme eating habit

As an extension to vegetarianism, i have been told that there are people that recon that killing plants is immoral as well, and so they will only eat other people's leftovers, they will only eat the food killed for the purpose of being eating by another human.I have been trying to find information about this for the past half an hour on wikipedia and google but have been astoundingly unsuccessful, does anyone know anything about the subject or able to put a name to it or even if its true--mexaguil 06:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is a specific term for this practice, which is certainly economical and ecological, but since they rely on the generosity of others the word vagrant comes to mind. You might also be interested in the even more extreme practice of breatharianism.--Shantavira 07:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Freegans? There are also fruitarians. Henry^Flower 10:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Many plants have parts which are "designed" to be eaten as a way to disperse seeds, and the plant does not die when you eat it's berries. I can't see how anyone could object to eating such plant parts. StuRat 12:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is highly likely that there are bacteria on the plant that you will kill if you eat it. Some take the "thou shall not kill" to such an extreme that they believe the only proper thing to do is sit still and avoid harming anything at all until you waste away. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

But your immune system is killing millions or organisms as you sit there. Perhaps they should kill themselves immediately, and thus only kill a single organism ? StuRat 20:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally - that took forever to find. Fasting until you die is called santhara. And, the human immune system is discussed at great detail by those who take this seriously. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also recommend our overview article on Jainism, who are the largest religious body to practice at their high levels of nonviolence and asceticism, not eating root vegetables (which kill the plant), for instance. In particular, the Digambar sect, whose ascetic monks only possess two things -- a water gourd for drinking and a feather broom for sweeping the ground they walk on (so they don't accidentally step on insects). Note this list doesn't include clothes. --ByeByeBaby 01:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they could wear the gourd in a strategic location, LOL. StuRat 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Naive realism

I'm looking for arguments and counter-arguments concerning naive realism, the examples given in wikipedia being rather poor.

Thanks

Check out google results. There are 61,600 of them. Tyrenius 09:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

But if you choose "refutation of naive realism" in google you only come to 7 results. So, could somebody give examples of that?

If naive realism argues that a red apple tree must exist because you perceive it to be there, then what happens if you were only hallucinating? --DavidGC 15:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. What else?

Erm, red apples don't exist, because everything is made of atoms so they must be an illusion, based on the incredibly limited range of our senses.

If you trust what you see, then a bus in the distance is the same size as a red apple close to you.

Tyrenius 14:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Rousseau

Was Jean Jacques Rousseau a revolutionary?

No, he was a philosopher, you can find out more by going to Jean Jacques Rousseau. AllanHainey 11:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Not a bomb-throwing revolutionary, but a revolutionary in his field. To oversimplify very slightly, he invented socialism and romanticism. Henry^Flower 11:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense! Jean Jacques Rousseau is a french chick in the TV series LOST. Next you will be telling me that John Locke is a philosopher. Yeah right! Ohanian 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If he was a revolutionary at all, he would have been a bourgeois revolutionary. He was not a revolutionary in the sense that you're proobably think, though. He was definitely a philospher, and once again, a bourgeois philosopher. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, 1845

Pckeffer

Dan Brown controversy

How historically correct is Dan Brown's suggestions that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, and that Mary moved to France and gave birth to Jesus' baby?

None at all. The number of violations of Occam's razor necessary for it is staggering. It fails common sense, violates history, and is just plain absurd. It requires hyper-effecient and effective conspirators who would exceed the abilities of any known secret agency in history, overnight execution, and international cooperation that has never been seen otherwise. However, there are hundreds of debunking sites out there that can explain this. Geogre 13:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous. Everyone knows Jesus moved to India. - Nunh-huh 13:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That is also another ludricous theory whithout any real proof, like the story that Jesus in his childhood was studing with the Druids. Look: if you accept that Jesus was a man with sexual needs and that Mary Magdalene was very devoted to him, you can imagine all sorts of things. Now to prove them is impossible. There are some gnostic (not church approved) texts that say that Mary was his favourite disciple, but there isn´t any text anywhere (gnostic or cannon) that says that they were married. Apparently there is a single parchement which says that Jesus kissed Mary on the..." and then a hole appears in the text. Dan Brown is the single person in the entire planet which can read: "on the mouth", everybody else can only see a hole in the text, go figure. Flamarande 16:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that many other things that are believed about Jesus violate Occam's razor and fail common sense in more ways than the idea that Mary moved to France. Who doesn't want to move to France? Great food, the Louvre, lots of cinemas and bookshops. David Sneek 16:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You must have missed the Anti-French memos, and anyway Jesus moved to Afghanistan - India was only a short layover during his trip[46]. Rmhermen 17:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You should probably look at the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail which is the 'non-fiction' book on which Brown based his novel. I personally, and the vast majority of historians, think it's complete rubbish but at least you'll get the theories there without getting them mixed up with a piece of crime fiction. DJ Clayworth 17:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the recent lawsuit by the authors of HBHG against Brown for "stealing their ideas" kind of ruined the illusion that it was supposed to be a history book...Adam Bishop 02:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we have an article on the Priory of Sion that explains the hoax that the Holy Blood, Holy Grail idiots authors fell for. Add that foolishness with the single 12th scribal error of "sang real" for "san grael," and out pops a book and a novel. Geogre 20:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

its perhaps worth noting that there isnt a lot of historical evidence for a lot of what happened in Jesus' life - resurrection being the obvious one. some people believe the Da Vinci Code, some people believe the bible - chacun à son goût, as the french would say (maybe to jesus himself) 87.194.20.253 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

They're hardly equivalent. Choose between four sources all saying the same thing that are then followed by fifteen or so sources that say different things but agree that Jesus wasn't married followed by hundreds of people working out a theology who never mention this fact and a group of four authors who, 2,000 years distant from the events they purport to know, say that something entirely otherwise was the truth and that there was a complete erasure of this truth (except for them) that was so complete, so fast, and so unanimous that it left not even a scar in the original tales. There is no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus, the words of Jesus in the Gospels, or the narrative of the life of Jesus in the Gospels, not for anyone, as none of it violates common sense, historical setting, or historical narrative. Naive empiricists doubt the miracles and the central mystery of Christianity, which is their right, but compare even that to the miracles Dan Brown and Holy Blood, Holy Grail require (miracles of silence, miracles of intercontinental efficiency, miracles of speed, miracles of precision) and the alternative narrative they offer, which violates historical narrative, historical setting, and common sense. No, they're no way equivalent, even from an atheistic point of view. Geogre 00:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We have to assume of course that Jesus was married for the simple reason that no one says he wasn't, something which would have certainly been pointed out by the Gospel writers to indicate yet another extraordinary facet of the man, going against the grain, when it would have been expected that a man of his age (and a teacher to boot) would certainly have a spouse. Have you ever read in a report of George Bush's public appearances that he was wearing trousers? Obviously not, because we take it for granted, as it is the custom. Same for marriage in that society and at that time.Tyrenius 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You're being ridiculously argumentative. In fact, married men have their wives mentioned in the New Testament and the Old Testament. Furthermore, it was not "expected" that religious leaders and prophets marry. John the Baptist was not married. Finally, the burden of proof is on the assertion of presence, not on proving a negative -- which is impossible (as Iraq found out when Bush demanded it prove that it had no WMD). Geogre 17:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Something that a scholar of the period told me anyhow, using the ridiculous arguments as above. I wouldn't know myself. However, you do make the point that we know John the Baptist wasn't married. Tyrenius 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Remeber.... Its a novel... Philc _T^E_C^I 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Foucault's Pendulum, but Dan Brown dropped his own "it's a novel" defense by saying, on Oprah, that the history, facts, ceremonies, and secret societies in the book were "100% true." It is, therefore, fair to accuse him of supreme gullibility or stupidity or cupidity. Geogre 18:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Or extremeley calculated publicity stunt, since surrounding recent court cases etc. the sales have risen sharply. 172.215.72.55 21:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes to those who believe in Him. The signs of the appearence of the Messiah that are in the Hebrew Bible don't mention anything about marital status. -LambaJan 23:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Senators against Guantanamo

Which senators, if any, have publicly spoken out or voted against holding prisoners in Guantanamo? Or how could I find this out for myself? Thanks! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 13:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have an example for you, but I would be pretty surprised if Russ Feingold hasn't spoken out against Guantanamo. --Chapuisat 14:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Found one [47] --Chapuisat 14:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You can to go thomas.loc.gov and search for bills with "Guamtanamo" in them. What you want to look for is who voted to pay for the detainment camp, who voted to pay for running the detainment camp, and who has not voted to close the detainment camp. Of note, in a quick glance at the results, I saw a bill about "irresponsible" media for reporting on bad conditions in Guantanamo. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The only really relevent bill I could find was the Guantanamo Detainees Procedures Act, which doesn't seem to have been voted upon yet. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to look at the appropriations bills. Quick trip to fantasy land (aka - how I view government)... The President can talk all he wants, but he needs money. Congress gives him money. He wanted to build the detension center in Guantanamo Bay. Congress had to pay for it. They knew what it was for. So, by saying "we'll pay for that", they were saying "we agree that you should do that". But, after the fact, they all point their fingers at the President. Back to reality... there are appropriations bills with notes about "special category residents" in Guantanamo. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jo Swingson

What are the likelihood the 26 year old female MP Jo Swingson would have sexual intercourse with me?

Well, you could start by getting her name right. --Richardrj 14:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

She's probably the best person to answer that. Her email addresses are given here. TheMadBaron 21:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

However, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that if you have to ask this question on Wikipedia, the likelihood of such is probably very low.--203.214.51.22 23:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

sworn officer

What does it mean to be a "sworn officer"?

It would normally mean that they have sworn some kind of oath, like an Oath of office. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It means to be a ful law enforcement officerment officer. They are called a sworn officer because they have to swear a special oath.

Police employees are often divided between sworn officers with full police powers (for arrest, weapons, etc.) and other police employees who may be dispatch, crime scene technicians, secretaries, etc. There are also other types of sworn officers: "officers of the court" include not only some police but also lawyers, bailiffs, etc. Rmhermen 17:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How much does it cost the U.S. Government to manufacture a penny?

I heard recently on the radio that since the price of copper has nearly doubled worldwide within only the past several years it now costs more than ever to manufacture penny coins. I assume the other manufacturing costs have remained the same. I can't recall the exact price, but the radio broadcast seemed to imply that it cost over $1 to manufacture each U.S. penny. Can this be true?

I have heard the price of copper has risen so drastically mostly due to speculative trading of copper futures.

No it's not that bad. But a penny does cost more than a penny: [48], [49]. David Sneek 16:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shoot, David beat me to the punch. Anyway, [50]. As David said, it seems one penny costs 1.23 cents to make. --Chapuisat 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If the questioner is bringing up the argument to stop producing the penny, look into the Norwegian debate about removing the Øre. It was a rather large debate when I was in Norway in 1993. I am rather certain that they did stop production of it before 2000. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, New Zealand is about to change some of its coinage and is phasing out the 5c piece (the 1c and 2c went about a decade ago). Given that that means the smallest denomination will be the 10c, a case could easily be made for lopping off a zero and starting from scratch. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Phasing out 5c coins? I can't believe they're considering that. It'll just make retailers round off the price up and make things more expensive (again). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the resonses...I must have mistaken 1.23 cents for $1.23.

You might want to check out the Wikipedia articles on Cent, Nickel, Dime, etc. Note that of all the coins, the penny (cent) contains the smallest percentage of copper. --LarryMac 17:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some decades ago, the copper in a penny was worth more than 1 cent. People would indeed melt down batches of pennies and sell the copper for a profit. However, starting in the early 1980s, pennies are made of zinc with a thin copper skin. And zinc is cheap. -- 12.5.49.27 20:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you're asking about the US but this is related, in the UK last week a newspaper article showed how they took coppers to France (it's illegal to deface UK coins in the UK), melted them down and sold them for a profit --iamajpeg 23:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Right now a U.K. 2 pence piece minted before the 1960's (when they reduced the copper content) is worth 3 pence going by the weight & price of copper. AllanHainey 08:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, finding a pre 1960 two pence piece would be a fairly major problem :) it was before decimalisation, and no 2d coins had been issued for a long long time before that! Grutness...wha? 03:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case its later than 1960's I heard it on the radio but didn't hear the date right. I know its coins of an issue which is still in circulation. AllanHainey 12:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

People's Republic of China GDP vs. U.S.A.

The GDP of the U.S.A. is quoted as in the billions and sited at #1 in the world. On the People's Republic of China page the GDP is quoted in trillions and is sited as #2. One of these is incorrect and needs to be fixed, but which one?

The PRC figure was off. I fixed it; thanks for the tip. List of countries by GDP (PPP) is fascinating, if you're into this sort of thing, in having three different lists and numbers from the IMF, World Bank and CIA so you can see where they disagree. - BanyanTree 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

More GDP questions

I think a lot of GDPs are off. The Russian Federation's GDP is off, it now stands higher than USA and China and other countries may also be off. I don't know which ones are right to fix them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.181.97 (talk • contribs)

Russia is not off. Note that that is a period (.) after the 1 and not a comma, like is used at USA and was at PRC, so it's roughly right. It's quite possible that people are updating figures on country figures without updating the List, in which case moving them all to the most recent numbers would be most appreciated. - BanyanTree 21:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Entering politics

I have always been intrested in the poltical happenings around me and have always been able to give a fairly accurate forcast of tommarows politics based on a analysis of the facts and a good intuition. the problem is i am only 21 and as such am finding it hard to break into the political arena. what do you suggest?

The obvious first question to ask is, in what country, state/province, city do you live in?

Second, I'm curious to know of what "accurate forcasts of tommarows [sic] politics" you've been able to predict. It would be helpful in understanding what you mean by that, in order to give you further advice. Loomis51 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well...as a politician meeself, I can say: Do Not Enter unless you are willing to be called vicious names by people who you haven't ever met, and apply yourself unfailingly to bureaucratic processes that take years to convert action into meaningful results. Dive in and see what happens, but don't expect any fireworks or a parade because you did. Um, as far as your thoughts about your age, the best time to get in is now, because experience counts and everyone overlooks mistakes made by young people. So you just trudge away and keep at it. But it is long work and commitment that most people don't understand or know about, and it is in many ways unrewarding. You have to have the reason why you are involved worked out for yourself, or it'll be a miserable experience. Anyway, stand up, go for it!--Shandon 09:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What Shandon said. But, anyway, the basic process is to go and join an existing political party, or form one of your own. Discounting the "form your own" for a minute, if you join a party the next step is to learn the mechanics of politics, by participating in internal party discussions, volunteering to help out during elections, even working on the staff of a politician. This is hard work; a lot of it isn't much fun, and as Shandon says it can be pretty unrewarding as the work piles up and the ideals you got involved for can sometimes seem to get further and further off the horizon. But anyway, ultimately you put yourself up as a candidate for some elected position (this is easier in the United States, as there are many, many elected positions which elsewhere are held by appointed bureaucrats, or outside the domain of party politics) and the party will use its internal processes to decide whether to endorse you or somebody else. If you pass that hurdle, then you have the joy of campaigning for office. --203.214.51.22 23:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I still don't know where you live and what area of politics you aspire to, it's still hard to offer any advice. However, if you truly are politically astute in the sense that you have the uncanny ability to gauge the politics of the day (again, sorry for the vague response, I can't do any better without more information,) and given Shandon's very accurate appraisal of what life is like being a politician, my suggestion would be to go into the "non-elective" area of politics. I don't know what level of politics Shandon is involved in, but it would seem that the higher up you go, the more "back-up" staff a politician has at his/her disposal. What I mean by that is that the "spotlight" of being the actual elected official (i.e. the "politician") is probably not nearly as satisfying as you might imagine. Shandon is right. You need a thick skin, and you need to be able to withstand the inevitable contant criticism from the public, no matter how good a job you're doing. So again, if you truly are as politically astute as you believe yourself to be, in my opinion, it would make a lot more sense to become a "back-room-wiz-kid." That is, choose whatever party it is that you believe in, and let your talents shine as a political strategist, a campaign manager, a speech writer, a press secretary, an expert aide in a given area, a "spin-doctor", a spokesperson etc...These are the people who truly pull the strings in high-end politics. Just as an example, ever heard of Karl Rove? Maybe, but probably not. That's because he prefers to be out of the spotlight, (although he's found himself in a bit of a scandal now,) yet as involved in politics as he possibly can. He's the genius who, due to his amazing grasp of American electoral politics, got George W. Bush elected as governor of Texas, then twice as president. Anyway, that's just a suggestion, what I would do. Much less aggravation than being in the political spotlight! Loomis51 20:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends a lot on what kind of politics you're talking about. Personally, I would never get involved at any degree with parliamentary politics. Johann Most is someone to read about if interested in taking an alternative root in politics. I suggest getting involved in your community (community service, feeding the homeless, Food Not Bombs, etc.) and going from there. Try to contact grassroots organizations that fit your personal politics in your area. Pckeffer

World Population

The wiki article on world population only provides estimates for the world's historical human population for at the earliest, 950 AD, at 250 million. Would anyone know of any reliable data by anthropologists or any other experts in the field for earlier than that? I'd be interested in estimates for around the year 1 AD, 1000 BC, 2000 BC, 3000 BC etc... Thanks! Loomis51 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you poke around the graph on that page showing data back to 10,000 BC, you find this link to somewhere in the US Census' web site. It goes back to 10,000 BC although I'd personally say that a best guess for the world's population any time during the Mesolithic is 5 million. --ByeByeBaby 01:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Poetry that references New Jersey towns

Bold textWho is the poet that references New Brunswick, Hanover, and Flemington (all in New Jersey) in their poetry?

Sounds like a homework/exam question. Modernist, American, long poem about the town of Patterson, New Jersey...three names..."Carlos" is the middle name.... Geogre 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

May 20

multiple view points or multiple station points

I am looking for any information on multiple view points or multiple station points used in painting during the renaissance.

Life expectancy in Nepal

While reading the Nepal article, I noticed that the average life expectancy is 59.8 years. This didn't surprise me. What surprised me was the internal breakdown: 60.9 for males and 59.5 for females. Isn't it strange that males should live longer, particularly in a war-torn developing country? Does anyone have an explanation for this? Bhumiya (said/done) 01:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This trend is the same almost everywhere, and in fact many times more accented. A major fact is exactly war (who is normally the soldier - the man, guess who dies more often?). As for reasons there are so many reasons as there are POV's. I personaly think that (as a rule) men simply have the "harder" jobs (construction, law enforcement, military, etc) which reflects itself in the average life expectancy. Flamarande 09:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nepal Civil War says that 11,000 people have died in five years. This is nothing compared to a population of 27 million. Tintin (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Forget what I wrote above, in Nepal its the other way around? Men live longer than women? Well that is strange, as in the wide majority of the countries, men usually die sooner than the women. Flamarande 09:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The WHO says it's the other way round: its 2003 figures are "Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 60.0/61.0" [51]. Factual inaccuracy on Wikipedia!? If we really are right, I'd suspect childbirth is to blame. Henry^Flower 09:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook for 2006 gives: male: 60.43 years, female: 59.91 years (2006 est.) Rmhermen 14:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a guess but in some countries a higher value is placed on male babies than female babies. There is a lot of pressure to have male babies and there is historical evidence of female babies even being left outside to die. I'm not saying this is still happening today, but a cultural legacy can still assert itself in more subtle ways, for example giving better healthcare to male babies. A higher mortality rate among female babies could very easily bring their total average life expectancy down a few points. Nowimnthing 14:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Name for shaky-camera style

I've been racking my brain, but I just can't remember the term I've heard for the shooting style that uses a handheld film or TV camera to provide the you-are-there feel that some modern films and TV shows are using. I've searched Wikipedia and Google for combinations of words like "handheld", "shaky", "camera", and "effect", but haven't found the phrase I'm looking for. (Most of the hits are about how to introduce the effect digitally or how to avoid it. Nothing I looked at used the term I'm trying to remember.) Can anyone help? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrectly, people call it cinema verite. Cinema verite didn't want to get a shaky camera; it wanted to get the truth and was forced to shake. When multi-billion dollar corporations intentionally turn off all the stability on their handicams to get shakes, it's cinema faux verite. Geogre 03:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it referred to as "hot camera".--Fuhghettaboutit 04:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something like steadicam or helmet-cam, on the order of "hand-cam" (but it isn't that). I'm pretty sure I heard it more than once when TV marketers were playing up the cool new way of shooting that grabs the attention of an ADD-ridden young audience (although I doubt they put it that way). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Documentary style? -- EdC 06:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Coen brothers use a device they call the shakycam: "It's a device borrowed from Sam Raimi (who learned it from cinematographer/director, Caleb Deschanel) that consists of a twelve foot-long pole (or piece of wood) with a camera mounted in the middle and two people on either end running as fast as they can." [52] David Sneek 13:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sam Raimi also pioneered a camera mount on a motorcycle front wheel, which is used pretty extensively in the Evil Dead films. I'm not 100% sure but I think he referred to that as a "shakycam" too. --BluePlatypus 22:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading

Do people really read less today than in the past? How much did people read in the past? Is the average amount read per person constantly decreasing? Why do people not read as much anymore? Would people read more if they were encouraged to at an early age?

From a personal feeling, I would say that we read more, but it is different reading (like, on computer screens). When it comes to reading books, I think we are becoming lazy, and choose the easier entertainment of television. --82.146.104.90 06:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)I

• "Why" and "would they" is impossible to answer. There are more readers today than ever. This is a function of population and literacy. Is the percentage of readers among the general population higher or lower than in the past? In the US, the percentage is higher -- again, thank general education and the specializing of publishers to produce things called books for people who "don't read" (sports compendiums, celebrity profiles, "Miracle on Sand" national events books, Jumble Word Search books, etc.). However, belle lettres are having a smaller readership. Partially because of trade publishers developing all kinds of niche product, there is less and less audience for good books. Geogre 11:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• It sounds like you mean the reading of books, and yes due to television the number of book readers has declined. I can't give you a definitive source, but I remember being told about studies that show that people who are encouraged to read at an early age are more likely to keep reading later on. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

One good source to verify this would be membership & use of public libraries & the type/number of books borrowed. I'd expect these statistics to be available somewhere, depending on the country your in. Certainly they're collected in the U.K. where use of libraries hass declined (but so has the number & range of books available). AllanHainey 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• There was a time when only the very wealthy could afford books. There was also a time before books even existed. The literacy rate has also fluctuated from time to time and place to place. -- noosphere 18:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

counts and castles

How many castles were owned by the counts in Europe during the old times? Please, give me the list of castles or counts that existed during the old times.

Counts owned 42 castles in the old times (although this figure was reduced to 32 in the late old times period). Unfortunately, the names are still secret. Henry^Flower 10:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The "old times" is a bit vague to say the least, don´t you think? Flamarande 10:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pay no attention to them! Really there were thousands. Heres an incomplete list of counts. For centuries they would pretty much all have had castles, though later on some of their homes were really palaces that were just called castles. Jameswilson 03:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course some might be owned by Dukes, Earls, Barons, Baronets, Marquises, Margraves or Viscounts. AllanHainey 08:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also try List of castles and its various subpages. Adam Bishop 02:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

ancient history

Hi Most Helpful Person, I am interested in Roman Corinth 40BC to 100AD Could any one tell me where I can find information concerning every-day life, customs and cultural practices? Things such as litigation, marriage rites and practices, celibacy, women’s hair styles and coverings, farming practises, women's role in the society, slaves role, meals, feasts, markets, houses and buildings, trades, rhetoric, schools, the human body, charity and beliefs on the after life.

Do Plutarch, Pliny and Juvenal, or are there others, who wrote about these things?

Thanks, Doug

Are you familiar with the Corinth Computer Project? They are, in their own words, "making a computerized architectural and topographical survey of the Roman colony of Corinth". If they don't have the specific information you're looking for, they could probably point you to some good books or other references on the subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Any free on-line Portuguese speaking service?

The thing is that I want to do some Portuguese listenings to improve my ear. What do you suggest I can do? Thanks.

Why not tune into one of the Internet radio stations based in Lisbon or any local Portuguese television station. If you can't get something there, you absolutely can from Brazil. Geogre 11:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

http://multimedia.rtp.pt/ --Nelson Ricardo 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This site allows you to enter Portuguese words and sentences (as well as many other languages) and have them read to you: [53]

(It only gives you a few tries, then close the page and go back in.)

StuRat 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Art History

Between 1952 and 1954 I did my postgraduate studies at the world famous Institute of Fine Arts (a branch of NYU) where I leaned from famous art historians such as Francis Offner and Karl Lehman Hartleben, among several others.

Francis Offner opened up the glories of the Italian Renassaince for me in a manner which I had never understood before. Originally a confrere of Bernard Berenson; the two parted ways over a quarrel whether the painting "Ginevra da Benci" was by Leonardo. Offner was convinced that the beutiful painting was indeed by Leonardo; and he spent two lectures on the subject, by the end of which I was convinced as well.

Karl Lehman Hartleben was both an art historian and an archeologist, and I took a two semester course named "Pagan Origins of Early Christian Art". During this course I learned about Mithraism and other pagan cults in the far flung Roman Empire. Prof. Hartleben showed us a large variety of images, such as halos over heads of people engraved on pagan tombstones, to show at least one precurser of early Christian Art. Prof. Hartleben also introduced me to two books by the Belgian historian, Franz Cumont; "Pagan Religions in Ancient Rome", and "Mithraism"; both of which have had a lasting impression on me.

The Institute of Fine Arts was created by a grant by, and a home of, a branch of the New York Lehman family to house the influx of mainly German Jewish art historians who had fled Nazi Germany, aided by a State Department official whose name I have forgotten.

I am writing this on May 20, 2006; some 50 years later, and I would like someone knowlegeable in Wikipedia to expand more fully on everything which I have written above. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Menahem (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. You've reached the Reference Desk here. This is all interesting biographical information, but what is your question exactly? --DavidGC 11:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

These are all three good article possibilities. I think the author is attempting to request an article. If only our Request for Articles worked at all. (That's not sarcastic; no one uses RA, which makes for some horrid stubs getting written by people who probably don't even want to write them.) We have an art portal project. If anyone is familiar with those folks, it would be a big mitzveh to pass the user's note to them. Geogre 11:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that you have an account, Menahem, you could easily start these three articles yourself with the information you have written here. It is likely that more information will be added to them by other editors - especially if you add either a stub template or an {{expansion}} template to each one. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Population of China

Does the population figure on the Demographics of China Wikipedia Page include Taiwan?

Ta

Demographics of China doesn't give a figure- it directs you to separate figures for the different entities. Henry^Flower 11:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The figure at People's Republic of China is from the CIA World Factbook, which takes its population data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau's figures for China do not include Taiwan, Hong Kong or Macao. --Cam 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Man Songs of Doveglion

Does anybody have the copy of Man Songs by Jose Garcia Villa? Thanks. Carlrichard 12:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked for these and have had no luck finding them. Sorry. --CTSWyneken 12:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

US income statistics.

Hello,

I was wondering if, along with median income in the US, I could get the statndard deviation of income.

The article on per capita income might be a good place to start your research, though this would be the mean income, not the median. Maybe some of the links on the page could lead you where you need to go, though. --DavidGC 15:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The importance of taking towns during WW2?

I've been reading and watching Band of Brothers. In it, the regiment's experience of war seems to mostly involve taking towns held by the enemy. While I think the book explains that Carentan was important logistically because it had a couple of roads in and out, I've mostly had to guess for myself why a regiment would want to take a small place like Foy if it's constantly changing hands through counterattacks, or hold onto a larger town like Bastogne if they're completely surrounded - so here's my theory: (1) you can fortify a town better than a random point in the woods or along a road. (2) towns provide shelter for HQ companies, and things like water, fuel and electricity (???) (3) roads mostly connect one town to another, so towns are the vertices you hold onto to stop an army advancing into your own territory. Are these the correct reasons, in roughly the right order? It probably sounds really stupid, but I had to think a bit before I came up with these reasons why regiments don't just treat towns like another blip on the landscape. --86.143.171.239 14:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some other possible reasons:

• Towns could hide significant enemy forces, leaving any army which bypasses them vulnerable to sabotage and/or rear attacks.

• A captured town might contain enemy HQ personnel and documents, which could provide needed intelligence info.

• For humanitarian reasons, the advancing army might want to rescue the townspeople from the enemy. Also, the rescued townspeople might join your force to defeat the enemy.

• Psychological reasons: both the plus to your army's morale and the damage to the enemy's morale every time a town is taken.

I do agree, however, that it usually makes little sense to take a town you won't be able to hold. StuRat 17:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The airborne landings on D-Day had two roles; one was to protect the flanks of the landing infantry, and the other was to grab strategic positions which could be used to move inland. In the east, the British airdrops took Pegasus Bridge, which allowed the invading troops to move across the river east of Caen; in the west, the American drops secured the routes through the marshes to the east of Utah Beach, and the bridge over the river to the south. This bridge was by Carentan; if you controlled the town, you controlled the bridge behind it. Image:Battle for Carentan - Map.jpg and Image:Cotentin Peninsula.jpg may help you visualise it.

If in doubt, think about supplies. 3 is pretty good in this regard - it's a lot easier to advance along roads than across them, so you're going to need to capture the towns at the vertices to keep moving.

Bastogne was a major point in the transport network of the Ardennes (Image:P08-09(map).jpg makes it pretty clear). There really aren't many roads through the Ardennes - it's mostly dense forest - so you need to control major junctions in order to be able to supply armies through it. During the Battle of the Bulge, the German offensive relied on trying to supply an armoured spearhead through these few roads... so control of Bastogne was essential. Looking at Image:Battle of the Bulge 5th.jpg, you can see that Foy also holds a significant position - it's blocking the road coming into Bastogne from the north, so if you can hold this village you can prevent a thrust down this road into the town. Shimgray | talk | 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks very much for the replies and specific examples with the 506th. Interesting stuff :-) --86.143.171.239 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's always helpful to find the maps and have a look at them - a lot of quite odd things become clear when you can see the geography and the positions of the forces in retrospect, on a larger scale... glad it cleared it up. Shimgray | talk | 02:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

When was Julius Caesar born?

We think that he was born in July 100 BC. However, if you could go back in time and ask him "when were you born?" what would he say?

If you're wondering what date was Julius Caesar was born, according to the calendar system in use at the time of his birth, I'll take a stab at it: Quintilis in the year of the consulship of Lucius Valerius Flaccus and Gaius Marius VI. See Roman calendar and List of Republican Roman Consuls. --DavidGC 16:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are you and what are you wearing? What tongue is that? :-) But seriously, according to Roman Calendar:

In the Roman Republic, the years were not counted. Instead they were named after the consuls who were in power at the beginning of the year (see List of Republican Roman Consuls). For example, 205 BC was The year of the consulship of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Publius Licinius Crassus. Lists of consuls were maintained in the fasti.

However, in the later Republic, historians and scholars began to count years from the founding of the city of Rome. Different scholars used different dates for this event. The date most widely used today is that calculated by Varro, 753 BC, but other systems varied by up to several decades. Dates given by this method are numbered ab urbe condita (meaning after the founding of the city, and abbreviated AUC). When reading ancient works using AUC dates, care must be taken to determine the epoch used by the author before translating the date into a Julian year.

It might be worth looking at both Roman Calendar and Julian Calendar, since he set that last one up. Of course, it would depend what year you visited him in, whether he'd set up the Julian Calendar yet. Skittle 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And in fact, looking at those articles, it is indeed Quintilis as David GC said because it was later named Julius after him, because it was his birth month. However, the year would most likely be 654 AUC, since 45 BC was 709 AUC. It would really depend on when you asked him though, as the articles show there was a great deal of change and reform. Skittle 17:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton - Rhodes Scholar?

William Jefferson Clinton was given a Rhodes Scholarship to study in England. Did he ever complete the course work and submit a thesis and thus become a true "Rhodes Scholar?"

Googling shows multiple sites claiming he did not complete the program. None claim that he did complete it. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rhodes Trust refers to those merely awarded with a scholarship as "Rhodes Scholars," so it appears that as far as the Rhodes Trust is concerned Bill Clinton was a "true" Rhodes Scholar. --Cam 03:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If it works the same way as other Oxbridge scholarships, you dont have to "do" anything to be considered a "proper scholar". As soon as you are awarded the scholarship you are a scholar. Even if you drop out after one day you are still entitled to call yourself a scholar for the rest of your life, if you want to. Jameswilson 03:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite true - the scholarship is an award of funding rather than a qualification. It's not that you would be entitled to call yourself a scholar for the rest of your life, it's just that it would remain accurate to say that you had been a scholar. --Hughcharlesparker 10:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

doesnt matter if its Oxbridge or the US, "Scholarship" and "Scholar" does not imply that you have to finish a program or gain a particular qualification e.g. Fulbright Scholarships Bwithh 05:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The greatest selling movie soundtrack of all time

I've been trying to find it, but it's near impossible. I'm interested in a list of the greatest selling movie film score cd (soundtrack) of all time.

I think I saw a page that said Star Wars had sold over 114 million copies, but I can't find it anymore. It would be awesome if you can include that in here.

There might be even a article about this issue. Flamarande 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your answers are going to breakdown depending upon whether you're looking for film composing and soundtrack. For example, Star Wars by John Williams and Rocky by Bill Conti would have huge numbers, but how would they compare to Saturday Night Fever or American Graffiti, both of which were "top selling soundtrack albums." The latter had no film music and were the background songs played during the film. This, too, is also going to breakdown once you begin taking in non-English and non-Anglophone charts, as Bollywood would through a wrench in the works. Geogre 00:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The soundtrack to The Sound of Music was one of the biggest-selling albums of all time. Others to add to the list as possibles include Tubular Bells (though this depends on whether you mean music specifically composed for a film) and Chariots of Fire. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wedding traditions

Today I was watching You've Been Framed which is a show on TV in the UK in which are presented humourous home videos of unfortunate members of the public / the animal kingdom meeting misadventure in one form or another.

Amongst the clips today was a scene from a wedding. The bride and groom and family were lined up to shake hands with the guests. When the male guests passed down the line, each one kissed the bride and then the groom but then slapped the groom around the face. It seemed as if it was a tradition or custom rather than just an extremely odd bunch of people. I've heard of back-slapping at weddings but not full facial slaps. Does anyone know what country or culture this may have been from?

Unfortunately the guys at You've Been Framed didn't explain and cut away immediately to a clip of a toddler punching his dad in the nuts - got to give the public what they want etc etc. But if anyone out there knows the answer, that would be great! Thanks. --The Gold Miner 20:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

According to this source, it's a tradition at Greek weddings. --Halcatalyst 21:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance of Responsibility Letter

Would you happen to have a copy of an acceptance of responsibility letter. This letter is to be written and handed to a probation officer after they do a presentencing investigation report on anyone being accused of a crime. I have been looking online to see what the letter is suppose to say and I have found nothing. If anyone can help me I would really appreciate it.

Googling "Acceptance of Responsibility Letter" turned up a few references you might like to follow up on. --Halcatalyst 21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

bill of rights USA

hi, i know this is technically a legal question but as i'm not about to sue anyone anytime soon, i figure i can ask joe public. Basically, the US constitution guarantees a number of universal freedoms, however, i have recently discovered (through wikipedia) that not all of these things apply to everyone. specifically, to be guaranteed equality before the law (aritcle 14?) you have to belong to something called a "special status" group (or something similar). i.e. seperate but equal is wrong because blacks are special status so the law has to be rigorously equal.- if you don't belong to said group, then the government need only provide a "rational basis" for discrimination. why is this so? what is the point of a bill of rights if it doesn't apply to everyone equally? (i'm asking this question in reference to the numerous anti-gay pieces of legislation the US seems to have which, as a brit, i'm baffled by). any thoughts? 87.194.20.253 22:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly did you find this? Assuming you're talking about the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it says "nor shall any State... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" - apparently without further qualification. Was the specific term "special status" used in your source? I can't find anything about that on Google. Henry^Flower 23:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the limitation you're referring to is one that separates a class of citizen from an attribute of a group. For example, can you randomly stop people on a highway, thus detaining drivers? If the state offers the rationale that they're looking for drunk drivers and have a probable cause that this class of person is specially and uniquely probable to fit that crime, they can get away with it (so far). Can you go grab everyone on the street and search for weapons? No. Can you do it because they're Black? No. Can you do it because they are near a place where a gun was illegally discharged? Yes. The distinction is between discrimination based upon a transient and inherent quality, I think. Transiently, you are standing near the fired gun. Permanently, you are Arabic in your ethnicity. Geogre 01:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but I believe what the questioner is referring to is the concept of "protected classes" under the 14th Amendment. Obviously, laws treat people differently all the time. It's OK to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor people, for example, because income groups are not protected classes. On the other hand, the 14th Amendment presumably would prohibit governments from imposing a "black tax" on a racial group. -- Mwalcoff 15:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mwalcoff's explanation is, to be sure, correct. See also suspect classification, whence you may explore strict scrutiny (a standard of judicial review generally employed, for example, in evaluating legislation/administrative action that involves (or tends to involve) racial classification) and intermediate scrutiny (the standard of review, for example, for gender-based classification). Joe 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. What is the distinction that I was babbling about called, then? (Obviously, I have a beef with it, as the 4th and 14th are getting smaller and smaller in their scopes as the years go by, it seems to me. (I don't think "everyone with a phone" is exactly probable cause for "people calling Al Qaeda," and I don't think the people doing the tapping think so, either, else they would have used a court.)) Geogre 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, is the Constitution still in force? From what I've been seeing on the news, I thought Bush abolished it and named himself the Decider. Please excuse my confusion. --Nelson Ricardo 22:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He's not the dictator (lit. "the speaker"). He's The Decider. (I promise, I won't be political again.) Geogre 02:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the news, Bush is not only the Decider, he is now Congress and the Supreme Court. Every morning, the news talks about Bush creating laws and redefining the Constitution. According to School House Rocks, Congress made laws and the Supreme Court judged the Constitutionality of those laws. But, now, it is just Bush. Everyone else in Washington is simply too busy with other things. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They're busy with money or re-election or fantasies -- with the exception of the latter, bidness as usual. --Halcatalyst 21:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

May 21

risk: the board game

i would appreciate someone helping me out with a good strategy for RISK the boardgame, i cant beat my friend, and ive tried all i could think of. any help would, well, help.--69.140.210.163 00:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Start in Australia in slowly (I mean slowly), move out... The great thing about Australia is that it creates a bottleneck because it only has one entrance to defend... South America is also good to start with. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read our article about RISK? It's got a few strategic pointers, plus a few good links at the bottom. Personally, I've found that if you are playing only one or two other people, then holding continents is the most important strategy, whereas if you are playing a large number of opponents, then wiping out opponents (and getting their cards) is more important. --ByeByeBaby 07:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As both suggestions pointed out - in a game with 1-2 opponents, initially put all efforts in taking Australia. Then, take Russia. Once you have have the continent bonus for both Australia and Russia, it is just a matter of being lucky with the dice. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no continent of Russia in Risk, there's Asia isn't there? Skittle 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I just always called it Russia - or green. Whatever mood I was in at the time. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who you're playing with, but going after Asia has got to be the worst possible strategy. I've never played a game where anyone who has gone after Asia early in the game has actually won. If I were playing, and someone were to go after Asia (and thereby spreading their armies extremely thin), I would definitely block it by taking at least one Asian territory, which would be quite easy, the way I place my armies. The Australia strategy is definitely a good one, but the next continent to go after would have to be South America, then Africa etc... all the while blocking all the other players from gaining any continents. Loomis51 00:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're playing with 3+ players, the best way to win is to convince another player that you are his ally. Then, hang out in Australia or South America and let the others fight it out, then kill off the weakest guy just before someone else does, take his cards, and dominate. Then try to console your "ally" that you did the best you could for him. If he buys it, then he may help you win another game. If not, you're toast, since once another player has it in for you, you won't win, and neither will he. -K

I'm a member of the Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne online Clan R1sk (US West). We have multiple strategies and although it is a computer game, the board and gameplay is extremely similar. My reccomendations are to empire as fast as possible, or have an adjacent north-south hemisphere continents like North and South America, Europe and Africa, or Asia and Australia. You should try to convince other players that you are on their side, while building up armies. If they are in danger, tell them you will try to help, but don't put very much effort into their defense as it might sacrifice your own. Also, you should try to secure continents that are easily defendible, like Australia, Africa, and South America. They are almost always harder to conquer. More advanced players can easily defend a larger continent like Europe or Asia, and be on the offensive at the same time. Hope that helps.Pckeffer

IF you love risk, then you might love to try Cold War Risk. During the Cold War there was always a fear of nuclear and atomic bomb attacks. Well now you can take control of an empire and devastate the world with your own Risk board. If you want the instructions for free you can e-mail me at cgtrajan@gmail.com for them!

Ex-Representative, Mr. Ron Dellums- I need to get in contact with him

Hi,

How can I get in touch with Ex-Representative Mr. Ron Dellums? I've just seen the movie based on his daughter Piper's story, read your bio on him, and frankly admire his work. He is the type of representative I would've voten for if I had been an adult when he was a politician, even if I'm caucasian. Can you help me? I'm very interested.

Thank you!

Mary Hill

He is currently running for mayor of Oakland, Calif. Here is the contact info for his campaign office. --Cam 03:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Italian dramatists

Who are the great italian dramatists, comparable with Shakespeare, Racine, Goethe etc?

There are none. Come on, the list of the world's dramatists that are "comparable with Shakespeare" is a pretty short list. I think you'd have a heck of a time putting any Italian playwrights in the same league as the three you mentioned; this is particularly difficult because it's hard to compare across eras, and the best dramatists from Italy aren't from the 1560-1830 range of your three models. For modern times, look at the list of Italian dramatists and playwrights; the ones with the best reputation are Ugo Betti, Luigi Pirandello and, to a lesser extent (depending on your politics, really) Dario Fo. But, of course, there's also the Ancient Roman dramatists and playwrights, where I'd note especially Seneca the Younger. --ByeByeBaby 06:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Plautus is pretty cool. <shrug> T. S. Eliot famously said of poetry (not drama), "Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them. There is no third." Geogre 18:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

18th. century Atlantic Voyages

Please help me to locate articles containing description of Atlantic crossings circa 18th. century--Ken73 09:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What sort of Atlantic crossings? If you are refering to the slave ship crossings try the articles on Slave ship or the Atlantic slave trade Colonel 11:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information but slave ships are not what I am after. I need personal accounts of any voyager sailing from England to the Americas ( or reverse) and depicting their observations of the voyage. I have seen such an account in the past but cannot remember the who and cannot find a reference on my usual reference sites.

leonard davinci painting of the last supper of Chrsit

please help me The record shows Davinci was born in 1452 but the last supper was when?

where did he get the information about who sat where at the last supper?

what was his religious background?

how many years after the death of Christ to the life of Davinci?

Thank you. Charles Ola

Yes, davinci was born in 1452. The last supper took place around 30 AD. He based it on conjecture, and guess work. Perhaps putting appostles and associates of Jesus who where in, Davincis opinion most important closest to Jesus, and or important to that part of the story. Mary madalines inclusion at all is entirely an educated guess, since I do not believe the bible specifically mentions Mary Magdelin attending the last supper. As Davinci painted mileniu after jesuses life Their is no reason to believe davinci had any special incite, or historical knowledge on the life of jesus that does not exist today. Da Vinci was a main stream Roman Catholic Christian. Their is not evidence that he held hetrorthodox beliefs, relating to the story of jesus. He also had no involvement in proto reformation religious groups. His arts focus on religion is fairly attipical of art of the the time.

There was approximatly 1420 years beteen Davincis birth and Jseus' death.

Minor correction: "Mary Magdalene's inclusion at all is an uneducated guess by Dan Brown who doesn't understand the contemporary traditions of St John the Evangelist and his depiction." It is a rather odd interpretation of the painting, not the painter's interpretation of the Bible. Skittle 15:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

More corrections. I don't think Leonardo based his painting on "conjecture, and guess work", or that he even tried to accurately portray the table setting of the _real_ last supper. He made his decisions on artistic grounds: on the one hand he created a strict symmetrical composition by arranging the apostles in four groups of three, on the other hand he heightened the drama by having each one respond in a different way to Christ's announcement that someone would soon betray him. Also, there is some evidence in Leonardo's notebooks that he was not a very strong believer. David Sneek 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with David Sneek: His composition is based on 500 years of art history and tradition of how the Last Supper should be treated. Although a renaissance painter with a fantastic control of perspective, it was theologically and artistically necessary that the middle point of the painting, and the center of focus, be the most important figure, Jesus, and that the eye move in a line. The painting is a masterpiece because every element of the viewer's experience is carefully controlled by the artist. As for the Magdalene being there: she isn't. Was she at the real Last Supper? She's not mentioned as being so in the Synoptic Gospels, and unmarried men and women would probably not eat at the same table in strictly conforming Jewish houses. Dan Brown's claim is poppycock, historically. Geogre 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

First, the painting obviously contains a great degree of artistic license. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, it's just quite odd when you think about it, of all those people sitting at a dinner table facing the same way (forward...toward the perspective of the viewer). At Jesus' actual "Last Supper" (if indeed this event occurred at all) you'd almost inevitably see the backs of about half the attendees, which wouldn't make for nearly as aesthecially pleasing a work of art, which is likely why DaVinci took the artistic license to have them positioned the way they were. Second, the attendees in the painting are all much "whiter" and "European looking" than those depicted almost certainly were. Finally, unmarried men and women do indeed sit together in strictly conforming Jewish houses, but then again, who ever said that Jesus was a "strictly conforming" Jew? The New Testament is filled with statements made by Jesus as to how the "old way" was no longer appropriate. On the contrary, an entire religion was started based on his "non-conformity" with traditional Jewish precepts, one of which, could very well have been, that there's nothing wrong with unmarried men and women sitting together for supper. Loomis51 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, and Jesus specifically criticized the dietary codes of some of his contemporaries. However, there really aren't any indicates of Jesus dining with women, although there are examples of Jesus being in a house with unmarried women (the Mary and Martha parable, e.g.). At the same time, Jesus definitely was a rabbi and conforming on many points of the old levitical law. Whether this particular one is one of those or not, I don't know. I think, though, the accounts of the last supper in the Gospels make a point of its being a cloistered moment, when Jesus went with "the twelve" alone. I'll re-read Mark's and Luke's account and report back. Geogre 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to pre-empt, Geogre, as I'm SURE you're aware, Jesus lived at the time of the existence of the second temple. At that point in time, the religious leaders were the priests, or kohanim. The term "rabbi," at that time, had a vastly different meaning than it does today. A "rabbi" is simply derived from the Hebrew "teacher", and certainly during the time of the temple, a "rabbi" at that time carried with it no special religious status, with absolutely no "ordination" process similar to priests and ministers in Christianity. Of course today there is no temple and "rabbis" have been forced to take on a more central role in Judaism.

In any case, my point is that the fact that Jesus is often referred to as a "rabbi" would have meant quite little at the time to the Jewish establishment, and should not be confused at all with the "rabbis" of today. I believe it is rather uncontroversial, be it to Jews or to Christians, to point out that most of Jesus' teachings, in particular the ones repeated in the gospels, were specifically meant as arguments against the traditional Judaism of the time. The examples are endless. Loomis51 22:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "rabbi" was "teacher," and it wasn't an ordination process, but it was still a social and religious designation. Thus, Jesus not marrying would be much less unusual in a rabbi and a prophet than in a temple priest. As for the teachings being against Judaism of the day, that's... Well, yes... and no. Certainly the contemporary Jews and Christians regarded them all as Jews, and Jesus argues against an overly literal levitical teaching, but so did the Pharasees. He preached the coming of the kingdom, as did the Pharasees, but he taught that the kingdom had come, that the kingdom was faith, which the Pharasees absolutely wouldn't hear of. It's ... complicated. As a Christian, I can see the New Testament as strictly an unfolding and unbroken line from Moses, but, of course, it was radical (and should still be, IMO). Geogre 02:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you said about rabbis marrying. What I do know is that rabbis (at least the rabbis of today) are not only not required to be celibate, but on the contrary, they are required all the more so to comply with the commandment "be fruitful and multiply". In fact today an unmarried rabbi would not be as highly regarded as a married one with many, many children. I can't see how things would be much different in Jesus' time. I therefore don't quite get what you mean when you say "Jesus not marrying would be much less unusual in a rabbi and a prophet than in a temple priest". As for the "coming of the kingdom", that has been and continues to be a central tenet of Judaism to this day (of course it wouldn't be the coming of Jesus!) In any case, your views are interesting and much appreciated. Loomis51 11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So there's no truth to the legend that Jesus said, "If you want to be in the picture, sit on my side of the table"? -K

Reference to Scott Wilson

The reference to Scott Wilson (legislator) under Richard Hickock is wrong. It should be linked to Scott Wilson (actor), which doesn't exist yet. Who should I be sending this to in the future?

Thanks and keep up the great work! I love Wikipedia!

Andrew

Well, if it's just a matter of changing the link, you can do that yourself right now! If you're want someone else to do it, usually the article's talk page would be the place. If you want an article on Scott Wilson (actor) to exist, the best plan is to get an account (all you need to give is a name to be known by, no other details, no email confirmation) and create the article yourself. Then other people can add to it if need be. There are places to request articles, but it's quicker to do it yourself if you know anything about the subject. Good luck! Skittle 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is the artist?

I am trying to find the name of the artist for the following painting. I know that it's an early work of this artist, but not the name of the artist or the period in which the artist lived. Would anyone be able to help? Please?

File:Who is the Artist.jpg

--Jim^{Collaborator «talk»} 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I guessed Picasso and the early 20th century, but quite a bit of browsing didn't confirm the speculation. --Halcatalyst 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely early 20th century, but I'm not convinced by Picasso. it's closing in on the borders of the Expressionist movement, but that could be anyone from Chagall to de Kooning (though I doubt it's either of those two). It looks like some Die Brücke art - possibly someone like Emil Nolde? Grutness...wha? 03:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Grutness! Emil Nolde was the guy I first thought of when I saw the picture, but I couldn't for the life of me remember his name. (Just the fact that he'd been a Nazi supporter.) From searching, it doesn't seem like it's an actual Nolde painting though. --BluePlatypus 06:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been given a hint: this work was painted in 1938 and was painted by someone at least fairly well known. I'm searching, too.

--Jim^{Collaborator «talk»} 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the entire painting? It looks more like a detail from something bigger. --vibo56 19:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It does look like a close-up of a larger image. It also looks kind of Cubist to me. Zepheus 01:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a close up. I've seen it before in a random coffee table book. It's not Nolde, the edges are too clean and the idea too...not straightforward, but you know what I mean if you're considering him. It's the same style, just not quite there. If I don't figure this out I hope someone does, this is gonna bug me. Teke 03:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean a hint? How did you find the date? Does someone know more details and is not telling you or something? This is not recognisable as the typical style of a major painter. If you say it's an early work and it's 1938, that rules out the German Expressionists. Jackson Pollock's early work was kind of in this manner and he would have been 26 at the time. I'm not saying it's him though! Tyrenius 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

BINGO! It's Orange Head by Jackson Pollock. well done, Tyrenius! see here. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, a result, or what! Tyrenius 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That was awesome, Tyrenius and Grutness! Truly collaborative synergy! I'm working on figuring out a Geocaching puzzle, and this is the first part of the puzzle. Thanks, everyone!! --Jim^{Collaborator «talk»} 18:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This one could possibly be given "star question" status, or whatever the system is. Good question that required teamworrk to get the answer... but we did it :) Grutness...wha? 06:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, not an obvious one and deceptively in (sub) Expressionist style. The star system is only being trialled at the moment with Science questions though... Tyrenius 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Mount Soledad cross

Was the cross erected by the City or by a private group, under a conditional use permit, or what?70.95.234.119 16:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mount Soledad is a fairly common name, so you'll have to give a more precise location (city and country, for example). Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 00:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume they are referring to the one in San Diego, based on my Google search for "Mount Soledad Cross." It appears that the cross was put up by the City of San Diego, because they are the ones being fined [54]. I see no mention of a second party's involvement, so based on that omittance, I would hazard a guess that it was erected by the city itself (i.e. people hired by the city). Zepheus 00:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation

Under the articles of Confederation, the National government was A.) less powerful than the State government. B.) could do little more than try to reconcile disagreements between the States. C.) was dependent on the States for financial support. D.) all of the answers are correct.

 Which answer is correct?

As much as I like the idea of a multiple choice reference desk, it's still important that you do your own homework. Have a look at Articles of Confederation. David Sneek 18:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I DDon't necessarily DDDisagree with DDDDaviDDDD, (but I just can't help answering). You shoulDDDDD really DDDDDDo as he says and check out the page on Articles of Confederation. The Reference DDDDDDDesk is really not for homework. Loomis51 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, you won't learn anything by not DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDoing your homework.

...and if you do expect us to answer, you should at least tell us whether you're referring to the United States, Australia, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, India... Grutness...wha? 03:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's A. Your teacher told me when I had the class last year.--Teutoberg 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a rule I often use on Multiple Choice questions. If there's an answer that's either All of the Above or None of the Above, that's usually the correct answer. Zepheus 16:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

handshakes

What is name for group/line handshake in which at the end everybody has shaken hands with all the other people in the line? People line up. First person shakes hand of second person, then third, and so on. Second person follows, shaking every person's hand in turn. When it's completed, every one has shaken hands with every one in the line

It's called the end of a baseball/softball/hockey/etc...game/series. Loomis51 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A specific name? Generally, it's a reception line, but a specific name for that kind of glad handing? If it has a name, it'll be interesting to hear. Geogre 20:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Players used to shake hands with their opponents after a game, but now, it seems, they only shake with their teammates. --Halcatalyst 22:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In Major League Baseball, at least, this is because fraternization between teams is expressly forbidden (rule 3.09) — Lomn Talk 14:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently what Lomn says is true, but apparently as well, the rule is not strictly enforced. I've been to many games where, for example, the first baseman and the opposing runner at first are frequently having a friendly chat or kidding around with each other. Loomis51 19:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right -- the casual stuff isn't enforced. However, there was a deal a few years back where schoolkids petitioned the New York Yankees and a rival (probably the Boston Red Sox, and probably after some significant on-field brawl) to have a concilatory team handshake as originally mentioned, and MLB quashed it under the above provision. — Lomn Talk 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Archbishop of York

Hi there,

Thanks for taking the time to read this email.

I know that in the beginning of Christianity in England that Augustine arrived in Kent and that he became the first Archbishop of Canterbury.

The then king of Northumbria - Edwin - took a Kentish/Frankish princess - Aethelburh as his bride, but she would only travel north to marry Edwin as long as she could take her priest - Paulinus.

Aethelburh persuaded Edwin to become a Christian and he was baptised in Eoferwic (York) by Paulinus who became the first Archbishop of York.

My question is quite simple, why do we have two Archbishops in England when Wales, Ireland and Scotland only have one

Thanks for any help you can provide

Ian Thomson

England was not a unified country - note your own reference to the Kingdom of Kent. There could have been a half-dozen or more if each kingdom in modern England needed its own. Rmhermen 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Until at least the time of Alfred the Great, England was several kingdoms, with the Mercians, Northumbrians, and Essex kingdoms all as powerful as Wessex. After the Norman conquest, there was a single state of Angelond, but Northumberland, Scotland, and Wales were all still resistant. All the way to the 19th century, "England" was something like two nations, with two centers of power -- York and London. The ethnicities were different, the organizations were different, and the governments were different, with England gradually unifying more and more. Therefore, it made sense to have two centers of ecclesiastical power. Wales, on the other hand, and Scotland, were both more unified and more coherent (or more uniformly non-unified), and so one archbishop apiece made sense, again. Ultimately, these decisions are administrative more than anything else. Can you administer all of the population with one bishop? Two? Three? Until Henry VIII, the decision came from Rome that all of the south of England could be administered by one guy, all of the north by another. The fact that the conquering kings came from London and were beholden to Canterbury wasn't part of the thinking (else London would have been the see). Geogre 21:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In a way its surprising we only have two. France, for example, has fifteen RC archbishops. Jameswilson 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say this, for fear of seeming anti-Gallic or a Little Englander (when I'm an American), but the low number for the UK is a testimony, really, to how historically peaceful the place has been. As an island, and as a notoriously tough place to invade and conquer, it has had the sorts of domestic peace that mean that there were four divisions, and only four, despite population increases. In France, the place was split among very powerful leaders (cf. split among much less powerful leaders in Germany), so each was rigorously independent. Italy, of course, was split 100 ways to Sunday, too, but the presence of the Vatican cut down on some of the ecclesiastical divisions there. Geogre 13:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Cross and Congressional medal of Honor

Why is it so few of these have been awarded in the War on Terror/ the war in Iraq?

Perhaps because there hasn't been that much combat? --Halcatalyst 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Victoria Cross is very rarely awarded anyway. You have to really do something amazingly brave/stupid under enemy fire to get it. I don't know about the Medal of Honor. Skittle 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes not much combat, but I wonder what answer the questioner was after? If you were thinking that the numbers might be a reflection of the relative unpopularity of the war then... I don't know really. Certainly in the UK, this sort of thing would not happen without intense scrutiny and consideration by the Government's PR people. BUT (I have some faith left) I think any influence the (PR faction of the) Government might have would only run as far as negotiating or deciding on the timing of any announcements. It's hard to imagine a situation in which a gallantry medal story didn't play positively anyway, whatever the bigger picture. But let's hear your conspiracy theory, questioner! --The Gold Miner 00:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)...........

It has to be a WAR for the Victoria cross.Georgie boy said the war in Iraq is over(ha ha ha) and the war on terror is just a verbal conceit hotclaws**==(81.136.163.210 10:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Both the U.S. and UK have awarded one of their highest award for service in Iraq. The most recent awards before that were 1982 for the UK (Falklands War) and 1993 (Somalia). These awards are just very rare recently. Rmhermen 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some info on Iraq and the Victoria Cross on BBC Online. Tyrenius 03:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

May 22

Kansas Territory

I'm making a particular map of the history of the USA, and I ran into a strange conundrum. According to all sources, Kansas Territory became a state on January 29 1861. And, again, according to all sources, Colorado Territory was created from, among others, part of Kansas Territory on February 28 1861.

So... What was that chunk of land between Jan 29 and Feb 28? Was it Kansas Territory, even though Kansas was a state? Was it part of Kansas, and that land was ceded to Colorado Territory after a month? (This seems like the most logical, except for the fact that all sources specifically say Colorado Territory included land frmo Kansas Territory, not the state of Kansas) Or was it unorganized, something I don't think is allowed once territory is organized?

It's strange how much this is annoying me, but I really would like an answer for my map. I'm trying to capture each step in the evolution of the USA's borders, so I need to know what to put for the "1/29/1861 - 2/28/1861" map. --Golbez 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I got the strong impression from reading this interesting article on "Big Kansas" vs. "Little Kansas" that from the start Kansas achieved statehood as "Little Kansas". It seems rather unlikely to me that land previously part of a state could revert to territory status, and I see no particular contradiction in the State of Kansas only being established in part of the Territory of Kansas.--Pharos 06:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, but that was not my problem. My problem is, the state of Kansas only took up the eastern half of the Territory of Kansas, in January. The western half only became part of Colorado Territory in February; what was the official name and status of that western half for those 29 days? --Golbez 09:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Pharos' interpretation of the article. Also note that Congress passed a law to organize Colorado Territory three days before Kansas became a state, although President Buchanan didn't sign it until February 28. So by Congress's intention, the area you are asking about was supposed to be Colorado Territory. De jure it may still have been Kansas Territory until Feb. 28, but de facto it was probably governed by Jefferson Territory. --Metropolitan90 08:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hm. I can see that, and certainly with the infrastructure of the day, such edicts may not have typically been announced the same day they occurred. Still, we have a de facto issue of what the western half was for 29 days. Only because I need to label it on my map! :P I'm tilting towards labelling it "Kansas Territory (deeded to Colorado Territory)" or something like that. As for Jefferson, I could try that as well, since they were essentially living in the area that became the part of Kansas Territory deeded to Colorado Territory. Huh, I might do that, say "de facto" and such. A nice power vacuum filled. Or maybe I should just condense it into one event - Kansas joined union, Colorado Territory formed, with a footnote explaining the difference? Sigh. Thanks :) --Golbez 09:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, was the split of the Kansas Territory due to the free state/slave state politics of the day? If memory serves, Kansas was introduced as a free state because Missouri was introduced as a slave state and they had to keep the numbers in balance. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think (note: entirely my opinion/guess) it had entirely to do with how undeveloped the western part of the territory was. It wasn't common to split a territory when statehood occurred, but it did happen - the Dakotas, for instance. However, I'm trying to think of an instance as far back as I've gone (1861) where only part of a territory became a state, and the other part didn't, and I'm not able to find any. It may have happened further back, though. Let me check... Yep, just as I thought - when Oregon became a state in 1859, the remaining part of Oregon Territory was made part of Washington Territory. So it has happened, and that's probably what I'm dealing with in the Colorado Territory situation - just delayed by 4 weeks.

I don't think Kansas Territory was split because of the slave/free state issue; the western portion, which became Colorado, didn't enter the union until 1876, long after the slave/free state issue was resolved. As for the Missouri Compromise, that had nothing to do with Kansas in specific - it said that, if Missouri is a slave state (And it was), then the entire remainder of Missouri Territory (hey, there's another example) must be free. This includes most of what we now call Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Wyoming, Montana, et.al. So the compromise wasn't specifically about Kansas, but it was a factor as to why Kansas was admitted as a free state (and was the third state from the Missouri Territory to be admitted, after Minnesota and Iowa).

And in fact, thank you for asking that question. I had previously thought that organized territories could never revert to being unorganized (see Palmyra Atoll). However, Missouri Territory states that when Missouri was carved from the territory, the rest of the territory reverted to unorganized status. Therefore, it is possible, and that's what I'll do for the Kansas situation. Maybe. :) --Golbez 21:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And then I see my issue was backwards the whole time - Palmyra is incorporated, but unorganized. I had it the other way around. :P --Golbez 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fire in Catauplt room USS Lake Champlian 7th Aug 1953

Thanks for your reply, and the links that you gave. I have tried to send an e-mail to **************** (email removed) but my message was returned twice. Authentication required and user unknown were the reasons given. www.historycentral.com/Navy/Cv39LakeChamplain.html was the website where I got the address. Do you have any suggestions of other addresses?

Thanks Liz

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shimgray"

What I wrote was, hmm... "[contact] the US Navy's history department; a query under the Freedom of Information Act should tell you if such a fire ever took place..."

historycentral.com is simply a site reusing US Navy material; they've nothing to do with the US Navy as such. history.navy.mil is probably the people you're after, but a paper letter might be more effective... Shimgray | talk | 23:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

i walk the Line

Was'nt the song written in response to the comment from June carter Casha bout Johnny and the rest of the band mates, when she told them "You can't walk no line?"

Nick Rayfield68.94.223.24 04:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're basing that comment on the film Walk the line, it isn't necessarily (or likely to be) accurate in terms of dialogue. AllanHainey 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Victims may decide fate of prisoners

The British government is considering allowing victims of crime to have a say on whether offenders should be freed [55]. What are the arguments against such a policy? --Richardrj 08:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It replaces the concept of justice with one of revenge?

It replaces society as an arbiter of justice by interested parties.

It would get rid of the long-standing principle that the ultimate victim in any crime is society, and that is who should deal with it.

The views of victims are likely in the vast majority of cases to be entirely predictable and based on a narrow & self-interested view of the case/circumstances.

It introduces an element of populist pandering into the judicial system.

Victims of crime are likely to know a lot less about the efficacy of rehabilitation, the balancing act between keeping certain criminals in jail & making room for new criminals, the relative merits of different offences, effectiveness of monitoring of criminals, prison service resources, whether a criminal has done his time, etc than professionals. AllanHainey 08:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, is this being considered? Sounds like canned stupidity to my ears. I hope this isn't as black and white as it is made to sound here. Henning 09:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to be clear about what this is. The question here is worded to imply that a victim can choose if the criminal will be jailed or freed. The actual legal discussion is about victim representation at a parole hearing. Currently, there is an argument that not allowing victims to speak at a parole hearing puts too much emphasis on the criminal. So, some people (John Reid, for example) want to discuss allowing victims to have the right to speak at a parole hearing if they want to. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is true. The article the questioner has linked actually discusses something very different from what the wording of the question (or the title of the linked article) implies. Shame on the BBC for their selection of language that sacrifices truth and accuracy in favor of attention-grabbing. They're slipping. --DavidGC 12:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't as bad as a CNN headline I saw a week or so ago: "Higher Cancer Risk in Non-Smoking Men". The article was about a study that found non-smoking men who get lung cancer have a higher mortality rate than non-smoking women who get lung cancer. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really poor. I understand the issue of space constraints, and the lead editors have probably placed limits on the number of words in an article's title, but there are certainly better ways to express these. --DavidGC 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait until in a murder trial the victim's brother walks up, saying "Yeah, he was a cunt. Good thing he got killed, he had it coming." Dr Zak 15:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

German tank silencer?

Is this for real or am I a total idiot?

http://www.collegehumor.com/pictures/6514/ --mboverload@ 08:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, it is real. It's a tank silencer used for testing ranges near residential neighbourhoods. It's produced by the Rheinmetall corporation. --Eivind^t@c 10:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am excessively amused at the camo paint. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See [56] for a different opinion (it might be some kind of measuring equipment). --212.202.184.238 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys! --mboverload@ 01:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of merged images

If I merge two images i.e the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper for example. Would the new image be entitled to a copyright? At first, I thought that as a new image it would be entitled to a copyright. However, the merger doctrine seems to suggest that ideas that can only be expressed in a limited number of ways is not copyrightable, would such a fusion face such difficulties? Any ideas?

Another way to look at it... If I print my own Bible, can I copyright it? Yes. I can copyright exactly how my version appears (where I placed the page numbers, what font I used, how I indented each chapter and verse...) If I printed my own map of the United States, can I copyright it? Yes. In fact, there is a big stink about map companies that purposely misspell the names of tiny towns so they can claim more of a copyright on their maps. When it comes down to it, you are asking if you can copyright something that already exists (like the Bible or maps). Yes, you can copyright your specific version of it - meaning that I cannot print and sell your specific version of it. But, you cannot extend your copyright to a different version of it. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, all of these examples are of things that are without copyright now. If you take Rand McNally's map and paste in Lorime's map of your town, the resulting work is kind of double copyright infringement. The amount of individuality the finished work has to have from the originals is something that copyright courts have to decide. Yes, the facts are always free, but the expression isn't. Geogre 15:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It works like this: If you use a copyrighted work to an extent which is significant, that is, beyond what is qualified by fair use. For instance, copying a chapter from a book as opposed to quoting a line. Then that makes your work what in copyright law is called a derivative work. Now, a derivative work is entitled to copyright in itself (provided that it has some creative input, be it the addition of original content or just the mixing of existing content). However, derivative works have derivative rights. You own copyright to the derivative work itself (whatever creative parts you added), but not to the components. So to distribute it and do anything else which requires license from the copyright holder still does. If I translate a book, I own the translation, but I can't publish and sell it without the permission of the original copyright holder, just the same as if I was publishing and selling the original. Now, in the case of works which are in the Public Domain and no longer covered by copyright, then you obviously do not need any license, since you wouldn't need it for the original either. And you will own the rights to your derivative work. So if you publish a translation of Shakespeare, for instance, then you will own the rights to that translation, and it will have full copyright protection. However, there is of course nothing stopping someone from doing their own translation, which would then not infringe on your copyright even though it may be very similar. If you contrast this to a new book, the amount of creative expression is higher, so if someone published another book which was just as similar as in the previous example, it would probably be deemed infringing. So in summary, you get less copyright protection with derivative works, because there is less creative input to protect. Don't take this as serious legal advice though. See also the disclaimer at the top of the page. --BluePlatypus 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Moussaoui Case Closing Statements

Does anybody know where to find either a transcript of the closing statements in the Moussaoui case or a comprehensive summary? I've seen it cited as a source in news articles, so it seems that it's available to the public, but I can't seem to find anything on google, findlaw, or the virginia court website. --65.205.197.85 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

grandma moses

hello, my name is sara i am 15 yrs old and i am writing a report for art class on different techniques used by artists i was assigned grandma moses. is it tru she used magazine and newspaper clippings in some of her artwork?

Hi Sara, we are not going to do your homework for you, but we can help you get to the right sources. The wikipedia article on Grandma Moses is short, but has some good links for more info. You should also check out the website of your local public library U.S. [57]. Most of them have access to subscription databases that you can biographical information and articles with your library card. Don't trust everything you read on the net and always double check sources. Nowimnthing 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, be sure to look at the articles on collage and primitivism, as both will help you understand the alledged incorporation of found objects into the art. Geogre 19:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, our primitivism article could use some help. It seems to go spinning off into tin foil hattery at a certain point. Geogre 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Gettysburg

Anybody notice the title has been changed to "Battle of Hoogerblager" on your main Gettyburg page?

Thanks- now fixed. Henry^Flower 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In case it isn't said enough... If you see a typo in Wikipedia, just click the friendly little "edit this page" tab and fix it. This isn't the Encyclopedia Brittanica (yes, I said it. I ain't 'fraid none them EB guys) --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Try Wikipedia:Revert. Look in the history to see who added that nonsense. Whoever did, may well have added something else that needs fixing. - 131.211.210.12 12:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination

Jay Skaggs took several color photos of President Kennedy at the corner of Main and Houston streets, and several photos after the shooting. Mr. Skaggs made these photos public only about ten years ago. Where on the Web, or elsewhere, is a complete collection of these photos? 66.213.33.2 18:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The collection seems to be at The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza. I do not believe that they are freely available on the web anywhere at this time. --LarryMac 20:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

underdiver in Winged Watchman

What is an 'underdiver' in the book, 'Winged Watchman'?

Is this a Sunday School question? Zepheus 00:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

COMPOSITION OF COMPOSER

Hi, what is the opus (KV) number of this piece . It is not the sonata known under kv. 570, infact it aint a sonata but instead it seems to be some kind of concerto including a flute and a piano. appreciate some help. -- Funper 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't post questions more than once. Henry^Flower 09:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart might give you some help. --Halcatalyst 14:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful music, and definately sounds like WA Mozart. The key is Bb major, if that is of any help. Did some googling for Mozart midi files for flute and piano in the key of Bb, but didn't find it. Could it have been written for another instrument originally (violin?), and transcribed? --vibo56 23:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I played the sound clip at work during lunch today, and one of my colleagues (who plays the clarinet and piano in his spare time) immediately recognised it, and knew that he had played it. He wanted to check out his sheet music at home, and has now sent me an email which reads as follows: "This is a sonata for the violin and piano by W.A. Mozart, K378 (also known as K317d in the Köchel revision 6/1994), the key is Bb major. It was probably arranged for the flute and piano by the great French flutist Marcel Joseph Moyse. The sonata has also been arranged for two clarinets by Wilhelm Sadowsky and Otto Büttner, as the first of six duets for two clarinets." My colleague recognised the music because he had played all six duets. As you probably have seen from the tagging within the .ogg file, it is a live recording by Albert Tipton (flute) and his wife Mary Norris (piano). --vibo56 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Funper 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note: the above file was formerly named "File:Mozart - KV 570.ogg". Graham87 06:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

what would have happend if george washington dies in the war before becoming presedent?

what would have happend if george washington died in the war before becoming presedent??? I was wondering because im doing a project on it and i need to know. Pretty me 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He wouldn't have become President. The world would be immeasurably different. The end. Do your own homework.
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Check George Washington. Anything he did after the war, he wouldn't have done. It is highly likely that John Adams would have become President instead. Since Adams did become President, it is not likely much of history would be different. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't the first President of the United States, anyway. His personality did have a big effect on the limitations of the powers, but fictional history isn't really a reference desk sort of question. (If the Babylonians had gunpowder, would Iraq be invading the US now? Woooooh.) Geogre 00:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course George Washington was the first president of the United States. That various nonsensical Internet pundits posit otherwise—merely, it seems, for the frisson of swimming against the current—doesn't make it so, and the reference desk isn't a place where misinformation should be dispensed, either. - Nunh-huh 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, what if he died during the war? would we have won? or would there have been enough siggies on the declaration?Pretty me 00:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it depends when he might have died. In our timeline, the United States Declaration of Independence had already been signed more than five years before the war's final battle at Yorktown. --Metropolitan90 02:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Grammar nitpick: "What would have happened if George Washington had died..." —Keenan Pepper 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Small spelling nitpick: that's not how you spell "presedent", let's start with the small stuff--64.12.116.72 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why no one has given you a serious answer, but serious historians do indeed play around with virtual history because, besides being a good way to sell books, asking "what if?" helps to gain a better understanding of what did happen and why. There are a lot of these type of books out there. I don't know if anyone has published their take on "What if Washington had died in the war?", but several points leap to mind:

1. As suggested above, the timing of his death would have been important, because his heir apparent as Commander in Chief varied. If Washington had died when Charles Lee was his second in command, things would have been very different. Lee disagreed with Washington's approach of building a conventional army; Lee wanted to go to full-scale guerilla war. This made sense from a practical viewpoint, since building a professional army was difficult and essentially meant playing to Great Britain's strength. However, as John Shy suggests in A People Numerous and Armed, popular guerilla wars tear up a society in a way conventional wars of the era did not, so it's a good thing (for the U.S.) that Lee's approach wasn't taken.
2. Britain probably could not have won an unconditional victory under almost any circumstances (geography and demography were against them), but the death of Washington might have undermined key support and prompted an earlier negotiated settlement. (Great Britain offered various peace terms during the war, which the Americans rejected, but might have accepted had Washington been killed.) Washington was not a great battlefield tactician, but most of his subordinates were not either, and some of them (like Charles Lee and Horatio Gates) were practically incompetent. None of them had the standing to keep the army together like Washington. Washington's best generals -- Nathanael Greene, Henry Knox, Lord Stirling, Daniel Morgan, Anthony Wayne, Lafayette -- were not directly in line to replace him.
3. Perhaps no other general had the prestige to keep the army from revolting at the end of the war, as the Newburgh Conspiracy demonstrated. If you wanted to write a "what if" novel, make Alexander Hamilton emerge Napoleon-like at the end of the war to lead a military dictatorship. Hamilton was always the smartest guy in the room and had ambition to burn; John and Abigail Adams destested him and thought he was looking for a chance to become dictator. Had Washington died...
4. Even had the war ended about the same way, it seems improbable that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 would have been pulled off as it was, since most delegates supported a new government with the implied understanding that Washington would be the first president.

That's just a few "what ifs" to get you started. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 07:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice response, Kevin. ¶ David McCullough's recent history 1776, a good read, reveals that Washington's hold on the Continental Army was fairly tenuous at the beginning. The British were far more numerous and better trained, and so they expected to win the war within months. If they had, US history might have been more like Canada's --Halcatalyst 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks a lot! this is really helpful!Pretty me 17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

May 23

poverty

Hi I have a question. Canada did something similar to Live Aid the following year or 2 years later. What was is called and when?

Do you mean Band Aid? Canada had a spin-off of that, Northern Lights. Adam Bishop 03:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Year of the Pig

What day did the Year of the Pig begin in 1899? Wiwaxia 05:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

According to this listing of Chinese New Years from 1645 to 1899, it was February 10. —Zero Gravitas 08:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A Friday.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this is an awesome site! 24.7.97.151 04:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Vibrations (title added)

I am trying to find a copy of the first release of the Beach Boys song Good Vibrationsn which Brian Wilson reworked in many locations and sections..... Mayone get a copy of that first version? thanks jeannie

We have an article on Good Vibrations. According to the article, Wilson did indeed record the single in many different locations with lots of musicians. There isn't any mention of any intermediate versions being commercially released. --Robert Merkel 23:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the audible documents of how Good Vibrations were put together are audible on the Smiley Smile/Wild Honey two-fer. Most notable is the first instrumental take after the words "take one, let's go". (Good Vibrations - Various Sessions).

As for the first version, the closest you're going to get to that is hearing the version with Tony Asher's original lyrics... for which I'd have to root further to attempt to salvage from my collection, but one of which is the following track from the two-fer, labelled "Good Vibrations (Early Take). Another useful version is on the fifth CD of the Good Vibrations Box Set, the second time The Beach Boys performed this song live, on October 22, 1966. (The version where Mike complains about having to play the "woo-woo machine"). Bobo. 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

peristeri laconia

i am very new at this i would like you tell me please the latest news of peristeri laconia in greece no politics thankyou

Interestingly, we have articles on both these localities: Peristeri, a suburb of Athens, and Laconia, the ancient name for the region of Greece inhabited by the Spartans. You might like to read these articles and perhaps you will find links to (non-political) news. --Halcatalyst 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

L'Éminent Méthodiste

At last I found him : Who is the "Jorge Luis Borges for the Space Age" ? --193.56.241.75 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He was. The Space Age began on October 4, 1957, Jorge Luis Borges died on June 14, 1986. David Sneek 09:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Talking about Lem, I can tell. --DLL 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Humanities + Culture + Tangratiu

ćHI there, in fron of my working place there is this this dragon.like sculpture standing around which is supposed tp protect the builind and the pople in it somehow. A former volunteer from Bulgaria built it and its name is : Tangratiću Can anybody tell my more about its meaning? Thanx 195.145.245.249 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither Yahoo nor Google search produced any hits for Tangratiću. What country are we talking about? --Halcatalyst 14:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some info that might be helpful under the entry for zmey here on wikipedia: zmey

Modern Druids - what do they believe?

Wikipedia has a section that talks a lot about the history of the Druids, but there is no discussion of what modern Druids believe. This is the best site that I've found thus far. http://www.druidry.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=1&page_id=30

Anybody have a "concise" view of the modern practice of Druidry?

Here is a shorter description of modern druidism [58]

Nowimnthing 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See also wicca. Shouldn't druids and wicca link, or are there people judging they have nothing in common ? --DLL 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Druids believe that they are like the old druids. Contemporary Wiccans believe that they are reviving a White Goddess cultus that is universal, or at least pan-European, and not specifically English. Both are modern theosophy-derived movements that involve a great deal of ... speculative history. After all, how do you revive the religion of a pre-literate people put down by the Romans? They didn't leave much. Even finding documentary evidence of Norse mythology's actual religious practice is difficult, and those nations were literate before conversion and didn't convert overnight and were studied by monks who kept notes. So, would the ancient Druids be related to Wicca? In no way. Would modern druids be related to Wicca? Yes, in origin. Geogre 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was neo-Druidism in the 18th century Iolo Morganwg era, long before anybody ever heard of Theosophy. Of course, Iolo Morganwg was a fraud... AnonMoos 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We're getting far afield, here, but what you mention is interesting. There was a proto-Nationalism developing in the late 18th c. in England. It would flower fully a hundred years later, but there was this emphasis on finding the "real Englishness." The vogue for Ossian, for the ballad, the increasing descriptions of how the climate and soil make an English character, etc., were all part of an effort at finding the national essence. Some of the freethinkers romanticized (before Romanticism) the "bard" and "scop" and "druid," so the druidic revival of that era was extremely naive...somewhat related to Deism and nationalism. It wasn't really a movement as much as a few individuals with idiosyncratic expressions. At least that's my impression. If they ever organized and did much, please let me know, as I find all of that quaintly interesting and mildly revolting. Geogre 03:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Name of Australia

I was told, by an Australian, the original name of Australia was something similar to: Vandeamon. However, I can find no reference to this name. Can you assist?

You are probably thinking of Van Diemen's Land. DJ Clayworth 17:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Australia" was a legendary name, as well, like Thule or Hyperborea or New High Brazil, so, in the end, "Australia" is as much a descriptor as a name for the early explorers. (It's tied in with the ancient belief in the Antipodes.) Geogre 23:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Hy-Brazil. Rmhermen 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. It goes by so many names that guessing which one we had for a link was bound to turn red. It's Brasil, Brazil, High Brasil, High Brazil, New High Brasil, etc. The only form I've never seen is "Hy-Brazil," but I'm sure it's well attested. Geogre 10:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Latin adjective "australis" (southern) goes back to antiquity, and the Dutch had their adjective "Australische". But the noun "Australia" in that exact spelling seems to first appear in 1693 (in a translation from French). Then there was a gap of 78 years before it was used again (1771). And it didn't really start to become popular until 1814. See Australia#Origin and history of the name. JackofOz 03:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Van Diemen's Land" was only the name of Tasmania - New Holland was the name used for the whole of Australia. Grutness...wha? 03:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

I am looking for a Civil War commander who ordered his troops to burn their boats after landing on an island on the Mississippi river. I think it was Island 10 but there is no mention of this in the text. He was a Union commander, rank is unknown to me.

I would like the commanders name and any reference to this story.

Thank you very much

So, just to be clear, you're asking about the American civil war? Skittle 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Mississippi sorta narrows it down a bit, don't you think? alteripse 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, didn't the martians fight some sort of civil war with the jupiterians? that was in mississippi wasn't it?--64.12.116.72 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I try not to assume anything on the reference desk; I've been surprised before. Skittle 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Island 10, too. Puts it with Grant's campaign. Sherman's campaign was more western than that. Shelby Foote's history does cover the Mississippi campaign with great detail, and there was an island where the Union forces had to send their boats back to pick up more troops, but I don't remember reading any accounts of burning their boats (to suggest, "we're staying here and not retreating"). For one thing, those island-taking missions weren't really long battles, so it wouldn't be as if they would plan to stay all that long to begin with. It might have happened, though, and my memory may be at fault or Foote might not have recorded it, believing it to be apocrypha. Geogre 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no memory of boat burning during the Civil War. The person that story is normally attributed to is Hernán Cortés - burning his boats when he arrived in the Americas because he refused to allow for retreat. However, the story of him burning his ships is completely false. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked a friend who knows more about the Civil War than I do. He said that John Hunt Morgan claimed to do the same thing (burn his boats so there could be no retreat). However, there is no evidence that he did so. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

John Hunt Morgan did indeed burn one of the two steamers (the Alice Dean) that he had commandeered to ferry his cavalry across the Ohio River during Morgan's Raid. However, it was not to prevent his men from using the ship to return to Kentucky, but rather that he discovered that the ship was under Federal service to carry troops. Fearing that it would likely be used to steam Union soldiers upriver in pursuit of his men, Morgan ordered it burned. A second ship that he had appropriated was not burned, as it did not double as a troop ship and the captain was an acquaintance of General Morgan. Scott Mingus 13:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

May 24

Finnish rock bands

Why do Finnish rock bands - and, I'm guessing, other Scandinavian groups - seem to record songs nearly exclusively in English? (I'm extrapolating from only three prominent examples I know of - Lordi, The Rasmus, HIM - so maybe this isn't entirely true.) English isn't an official language - does their primary audience really all speak English? Is just a bid for audiences in the UK/US? zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that true? English isn't an official language? schyler 01:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's also the Finnish guy who performs Elvis songs in Latin...  ;-) AnonMoos 02:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found European music tends to be in English much more often than one might expect—more than I expected, anyway. It's not just Finland. And it isn't even necessarily a bid for American or British audiences, but people outside the country in general. Lots of people speak English, but how many non-Finns speak Finnish?

(and as a footnote, to expand the list of Finnish bands recording in English: Nightwish, Sonata Arctica, Stratovarius...) —Zero Gravitas 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

While that is true, I just wanted to point out that in Europe there is a thriving pop music industry in many other languages - particularly German, French and Italian (that I can directly comment on - I'm sure there are others). — QuantumEleven 06:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• English is a pretty common second/third language in Finland (depending on how people rate their Swedish skills) and all of Scandinavia (it's mandatory in Swe/Nor/Den, but not, I believe, in Finland). Most Finns speak some English. Now, Finnish rock bands do not record exclusively in English- It's just that you don't hear the bands that sing in Finnish outside of Finland. So yes, the reason they sing in English is primarily to reach a foreign (although not necessarily English-speaking!) market. Although some also feel that English is more associated with Rock music. And some just like the language. However, bands that have emphasis on lyrical content usually sing in their native language. Of course, you can't really go by official languages for usage - Swedish is an official language in Finland, but not in Sweden. :) --BluePlatypus 04:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• It just looks like that. I'm pretty sure there's Scandinavian rock bands that don't record in English, but in those cases, people in foreign countries generally don't know about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Finnish rock bands do record songs in Finnish, but they only normally get released in Finland. Bands that record exclusively in Finnish are never normally released in other parts of the world, and so the bands aren't often well known. Sometimes Finnish bands do albums exclusively in Finnish, but they don't normally mix two languages on one album, to get a more specific target market. English is not an official language in Finland, but it's the de facto lingua franca so songs released in English will be more likely to do well internationally. Abbyemery 19:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pedometer lovers

(moved to the Language Desk) --DavidGC 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pants

I read what the Wikipedia website had on pants, but I still wonder who were the first culture to wear pants and where? And in the 15 or 16th century when pants may have been introduce to Europe or Western World, who introduce them to Europe or Western World?

Did you? It's given in the article on Trousers (assuming that's what you mean by 'pants'):

Nomadic Eurasian horsemen/women such as the Iranian Scythians, along with Achaemenid Persians were the first to

wear trousers, later introduced to modern Europe via either the Hungarians or Ottoman Turks. However, the Celts

also seem to have worn them in Ancient Europe.

In ancient China trousers were only worn by cavalry. According to tradition, they were first introduced by King Wu

of Zhao in 375 BC, who copied the custom from non-Chinese horsemen on his northern border.

So there's your answer. I guess it's fairly natural that they seem to have developed independently from riding cultures, since they're undoubtedly more practical if you're on horseback. As a bit of useless trivia, an Indian friend of mine said he considered the introduction of trousers to India to be the greatest accomplishemnt of the English, since it's more practical than traditional Indian garb for modern work. --BluePlatypus 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. The causality bothers me a little. The Anglosaxons and Scots and Norse rode, but they didn't wear dresses. The standard article of clothing, the "sark" in Old English, was a long tunic. It went down to the tops of the thighs, so, when a man got on a horse, his legs were free to straddle. In fact, interestingly, "shirt" and "skirt" are doublets. "Shirt" is the Old English derived term, while "skirt" is derived from Old Norse from the Danelaw, and the two words originally referred to the same garment. Both words were retained, the English term for the top part and the Norse term for the lower part. Geogre 10:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Money transactions...

Hi, how are you?

You will see, my question is very simple. I would like to know the amount of money wich is produced and used in transactions everyday worldwide.

So much thanks!

Try in the external links on Banknote, I think one of them should at least be able to direct you to the right place. Nowimnthing 16:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help... I tried but didn´t find anything... someone else knows where i can find that info?

When was John McCrea born?

I'm trying to figure out the birthdate of John McCrea, lead singer of the band Cake. So far I've struck out on Wikipedia, Google searches, newsgroups, and librarians. The best information I've seen is from Contemporary Musician, (vol. 27, 2000), and says: "McCrea, born around 1965 in Sacramento, California..."

Any suggestions? AEton 05:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you find out, please add it to the article. I tried a while back to find the same info for him but came up with even less than you have. Dismas|^(talk) 06:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You could hit the library and look at archives of the 1965 Sacramento Bee. I would be really impressed. Zepheus 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

English Premier League

Is that any player had ever won the English Premier League title with two other difference team? 60.48.92.221 08:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC) at its end.

I don't think so. (Only four sides have ever won it, after all). But Alan Shearer and Dwight York both came close having won with a team and placed second with another. --BluePlatypus 19:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

David May came second with Blackburn in 93/94. He then joined Man Utd for the 94/95 season, a season which Blackburn came first, but got a winners medal(s) in subsequent years at Man Utd. DPM

There is very little movement of players between top english domestic clubs, unlike other leagues in europe, most notably the Italian Serie A and Spain La Liga. However there is solid proof of Ashley Cole (Arsenal) being suited by London rivals and current back to back league champions Chelsea. He may be a good bet to become the first player to achieve this feat, (sic)98

At a slight stretch, you could have Juan Sebastian Veron. Played occasionally for United in the 2002-3 season, and was still on Chelsea's books in 2005 (albeit actually on loan to Inter). Henry^Flower 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Eric Cantona was in the Leeds squad that won the old Division One in 1991-2 - the last pre-premiership season - and then in Man U's premiership squad for at least one of their top-flight wins. Grutness...wha? 06:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

White Shirt With Black Things

http://www.1860.com/images/accessories_marcella_wing_shirt_big.jpg - why has this shirt got black button things, what are they, and is it necessary to wear a white bow tie with a shirt that has black button things? --Username132 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are called studs. You can pretend you are one when you wear it. The answer to your why question is of course, as in all things couturial, "custom". alteripse 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to wear a bow-tie because it's a wing-tip collar. Or alternatively, you need to wear a wing-tipped collar because you've got a bow-tie. In this case it's a bit strange (IMHO), because it's a white tie, which you would wear with tails. However, black studs like that would not look very good with tails. They would look pretty good with a white tuxedo though. But then you'd wear a black tie. (Or some other non-white color. Although I think that's a bit gauche). --BluePlatypus 12:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I like your use of the word couturial, which I wasn't even aware existed. Zepheus 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tele-evangelist

How would one go about getting into the audience of a tele-evangelist in the US? Which shows currently play and where? I'm not a fan of anybody in particular - I'm just going to the US and want to see something like this. Gardar Rurak 11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You could wear a plaster cast or neck brace, etc hang about outside & tell one of the staff that you're happy to be 'healed' during the show. AllanHainey 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a great idea :] However, I still need to know where and when to look for the place and the staff. Look, what networks show this stuff and where are they taping it? Gardar Rurak 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It might help if we knew where in the U.S. you will be. There are tons of small local tv station televangelists, sometimes they are the more colorful and interesting (or even outright wacky). Then there are the big names who tend to be a bit more mainstream (take that with a grain of salt.) Interesting, idea, televangelism as tourism, lol. Try these:

Jerry Falwell [59]

Billy and Franklin Graham [60]

Benny Hinn [61]

Jimmy Swaggart [62]

Nowimnthing 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good deal - thanks! Well, in fact I'm going to be all over this place from June to September - I'm starting off in Florida but will most likely end up on the west coast. I'm also visiting a UFO group in Nevada, the Michigan millitia, a prison rodeo in Texas and a civil war re-enactment in Ohio. As might be evident I'm looking for sub-cultures where the most interesting people might be found so the most "whacky" tele-evangelist would actually be preferable. I have never actually seen one so I'll take whatever advice you people have for me. ANd other suggestions as well of course :) Gardar Rurak 16:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, looks like you are getting the full American-stereotype trip together! Looks like fun. Try this directory for some of the smaller names [63]. Google any of their names to see 'real' descriptions of what they do. Out of the list above, Benny Hinn is proabbly the wackiest. He does a lot of the faith healing stuff on stage. Most of the others grub for money a lot more. Nowimnthing 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Try also the Crystal Cathedral. DJ Clayworth 18:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My favorite is Joel Osteen. You should avoid him if you like fire and brimstrone. --Nelson Ricardo 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Popoff and Reinhard Bonnke are two of the more exuberant, classic "be healed!"-style faith healers currently operating. (Benny Hinn also would be in this category.) Any of these three would provide the type of experience I think you're suggesting--healings performed before your very eyes, the crowd surging forward to recommit themselves to their faith, etc. The others mentioned are "tele-evangelists": watching Joel Osteen preach would be another American experience, but it would lack the kinetic energy and showmanship of a faith healer at work...essentially you'd just be attending a particularly well-funded, flashy worship service at a church larger than most football stadiums. If you have interest in the topic, I'd suggest The Faith Healers by James Randi. A book that focuses more (though not exclusively) on the calmer ends of the evangelical subculture in America would be Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory by an author whose name escapes me. Jwrosenzweig 05:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Transport Hub

http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=123ni.jpg

I`m stuck again on my quiz apparently this is a busy transport hub unfortunately I don`t have a clue where it is.

Chek everywhere. The answer might fall into your Lap. It will be like dawn, when the Kok crows. ---LarryMac 15:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Riddles... I understand.

Well if I don't get to win the quiz myself, I at least should get to have some fun. Just be thankful I went with the rooster meaning on that last word, it could have been so much worse ... --LarryMac 15:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody please spell this out? There are many people reading this, myself included, who either (a) are not native English speakers and don't understand the puns, or (b) are not smart enough to solve the riddles. --vibo56 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here it is, no puns involved... --vibo56 19:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Who was the first Roman Emperor, Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar?

I see conflicting answers to this question with most sources citing Augustus as the first Emperor. If so, why wouldn't Julius Caesar also have been considered an Emperor? What is the distinction between that and his title "Dictator for life"? 18:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)18:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)~~

See Roman Emperor. You'll see that nobody was Emperor. It is a title retroactively given by historians. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that. That doesn't answer the question though. Why wouldn't Caesar (retroactively) be considered an "Emperor"? What was the distinction about his position that set him apart?

I think the section on First Roman Emperor in Roman Emperor answers that question about as well as it can be answered. It seems the short of it is that Julius, while accumulating a great amount of power and setting up the conditions where there could be an emperor, did not quite make all the qualifications the majority of historians agree would make him an emperor (one of those qualifications being that he didn't inherit his rule). Nowimnthing 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

He assumed the powers of dictator and had not relinquished them when he was murdered. Consequently, he was the first "dictator that needed the Senate," which is kind of what the emperor was in Rome. His adopted son, Augustus, formalized and codified most of the apparatus necessary for making it a legitimate head of state, although a great deal more occurred during Tiberius. So, the first to do it was Julius. The first to have it as a legitimate and life-long appointment was Augustus. Take your pick. They're both the first one. Geogre 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for attempting to come up with an answer thus far. Hopefully somebody will help us get to the bottom of this.

If you read what people have answered so far, you'll see that you're already at the bottom. It's a semantic issue. Exactly what is your definition of emperor? -lethe ^{talk +} 19:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it's not "my" definition of Emperor. LOL! Historians have seemingly made a distinction that Julius Caesar was not an Emperor. "Because he didn't inherit the position" doesn't quite seem to wash. For instance, Qin Shi Huang is referred to as the first Emperor of China, yet he did not inherit the mantle.

How about this: Augustus was conferred the title of princeps, while Caesar was not. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this: Caesar was a dictator for life who disguised his power under a republican form (dictator was an office in the Roman republic) and before he could be crowned he was murdered. I grant you that the evidence for his planned coronation is rather flimsy, nevertheless that was the official reason of his assassins. Flamarande 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande - Thanks. That's a logical and reasonable explanation. I appreciate yours (and everyone else's) assistance in trying to understand this distinction).

Florida drivers license

How long does it take to get a drivers license issued in Florida from the point where you pass the test?

You have to have a learner's permit for a year and you have to get a specified amount of driving experience (with an adult with a full license in the front seat) in that time. Then after a year you take another test and if you pass it you can walk right out with your full license. —Keenan Pepper 18:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this one of those "terrorists everywhere" questions? If you present a valid license from a recognized agency, most states will allow you to take the written and road test and walk out with a license. Most European nations are recognized. My German friends showed their German licenses, took the tests, and left with licenses the same day in North Carolina. Stopping that would make a huge hassle. Geogre 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Keenan Pepper's answer describes how to get a license if you are still a student in a Florida high school and are seeking a driver's license for the first time -- in other words, how most natives of Florida receive their license in that state. The process has absolutely nothing to do with terrorists and everything to do with making sure that kids know what they're doing when they drive a car for the first time. --DavidGC 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe if you're over 18, you can take the permit test and the driver's test the same day and walk out with a license, although in practice that is probably not wise...especially if you haven't driven before. Mike H. That's hot 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And my answer is how long it takes if you already have a valid license from another state. :-) Why this could be a barbed question, though, is that various news accounts and shouting heads on talk radio like to talk about the fact that the 9/11 hijackers had gotten legitimate ID and that it's all too easy. This is usually a prelude for some poll-tax-like call to issue identity cards or forbid immigration or require specific ID before voting. I.e. it's not an innocent question, and the person who asked gave too little information to let us know whether the juvenile or adult form of the legal process were being asked about, much less why he or she wanted to know. Finally, of course, it has flip-all to do with Humanities, but, then, most questions are unrelated. Geogre 03:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here I thought it was just a simple (and, yes, innocent) question from someone wondering how long they were going to have to wait for their license. I guess I really need to learn to read between the lines better, in order to find that ever-elusive ulterior motive.  :-) --DavidGC 06:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Your best answer can probably be obtained by contacting the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles directly. This page lists some contact information that you might find helpful. --DavidGC 07:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Arrested Development

On the show "Arrested Development", during episode 2AJD18 (The Righteous Brothers), there is a song that plays during the first montage (Prison Sequence) and during the "On The Next" epilogue at the end. What is this song? Thank you.

Howdy stranger. Is there a clip of this available online somewhere? That would sure help. Zepheus 00:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. However, it is readily available on DVD. It is the last episode of the second season.

Have you checked The Righteous Brothers (Arrested Development episode)? That article makes mention of the Bryan Adams song "Everything I do". Is that it? -lethe ^{talk +} 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, "Everything I Do" is not the correct song. I did however, thanks to CC, find out the lyrics featured, if that helps. The part they play includes, "What could be better to hold things together? So good to come clean". Let's find this song!

I did a few google searches and it seems your lyrics are likely not accurate (given that lyrics for almost every song in existence are hanging around in googlespace, I feel semi-confident in making this statement). I'd humbly suggest you're mishearing one or more words...if you come up with different words or phrases, by all means share them, and perhaps we can find the song. Jwrosenzweig 05:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Give me some time to get a hold of season 2, I will listen to it myself. This is of course no promise that I will recognize anything, but I can do an audio capture and upload a sample. If you don't hear back from me on the reference desk in a couple days, please remind me on my talk page. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I've listened to the episode. I can say this: the lyrics you cite sound correct to me. Since Rosenzweig is correct, all lyrics are to be found on google (and I also found nothing through google), maybe this means that it is original music composed for the show? That is one option, but this music sounds like Electric Light Orchestra to me, though I don't recognize the song, so that's just a stab in the dark. Anyway, in case any one else would like to take a stab, here are the audio captures: clip 1 and clip 2. -lethe ^talk

I'm quite sure this song was composed specifically for the show by David Schwartz, titled "Come Clean With You". You may be able to find it on YouTube. Yes, I realize I'm three and a half years late and the likelihood of somebody reading this is slim. -Leo 09:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sausage Costumes

How does one go about making a sausage costume? --Username132 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• It depends, is it a costume that's supposed to look like a sausage, or an article of clothing made our of sausage--64.12.116.72 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And what type of sausage are we talking about? Blood sausage? Bockwurst? For the casual, everyday sausage clothing I recommend the Bratwurst which is an acceptable sausage in most cultures. Gardar Rurak 22:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I bet the questioner wants to do something like the Milwaukee Brewers' Sausage Races. -- Mwalcoff 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but oh so appetizing: sausage carpets. --212.202.184.238 17:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

looking for a philosophical term

What is the term given to the feeling that, at some fundamental level, one can't grasp anyone else's sentience but one's own? Is it solipsism? Is there a better term?

Check out the detailed article on Solipsism. --Halcatalyst 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oddest person I ever encountered was an evangelical solipsist. --Serie 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean someone who tries to convert other people to solipsism, or someone who tries to convince people that they are figments of his/her imagination? —Keenan Pepper 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

He tried to convert people. --Serie 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have heard this in philosophical contexts referred to as "the problem of other minds" (i.e., how do we know they are similar to ours), and in ethology as having a "theory of mind" if an animal seems to behave in such a way that they seem to be simulating the mental processes of another. alteripse 02:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

May 25

Kosher meals and drug treatment facilities

Is there any law that requires a drug treatment facility to provide Kosher meals to clients?

Is there a specific country/state/county/etc. that you're thinking about specifically? Dismas|^(talk) 04:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As practice, kosher meals at drug treatment facilities are probably standard in Israel, not so in other countries. However, I'm sure in a country with a decent-sized Jewish population you can find specialized facilities that will serve Kosher meals.--Pharos 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, if your question is because you or a loved one requires treatment for a drug addiction, according to Jewish law health comes first, meaning, if your health and/or well being are at serious risk (which is undoubtedly the case in situations like drug addiction), you are not only permitted, but actually required to break Jewish dietary laws if that's what it takes to get proper treatment. Loomis51 09:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Loomis, I didn't know that. --mboverload@ 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be an exception within the law? I mean, if it's a requirement, then how can it be contrary to the law? JackofOz 11:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

From a different angle, an institution that requires persons to perform actions that are in violation of their religious beliefs (or alternatively starve), would in my opinion be in gross breach of medical ethics, and a case of malpractice, irrespective of what a country's law requires. Eating non-kosher food can in no way contribute to recovery from drug problems, but providing good nourishment is essential. Providing only non-kosher food, knowing that your client is Jewish, is careless and negligent, to say the least. --Seejyb 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that perhaps I may have spoken too soon. The issue is a controversial one, and many rabbis would probably tell you to try your best to make sure there isn't a kosher rehab centre available, before resorting to a non-kosher one. Personally, having two brothers who've been stricken with drug addiction, my sole criterion would be simply which rehab centre is most effective in dealing with this terrible disease, regardless of whether it's kosher or not. But that's just my personal interpretation of Jewish law. (BTW, that's one of the defining features of Jewish law -- there is no central authority to set out the rules in black & white. In fact, Jewish law is meant to be discussed and debated and argued over and over and over again ad nauseum by rabbis, scholars etc...) So what I'm saying is use your best judgment. As I said my best judgment tends to lean strongly towards the "health comes first" line of thought.

The good news is that I somehow forgot that there are indeed quite a few kosher rehab facilities. I'm not sure what country you live in (as a matter of fact, I'm not even sure if the question was merely out of curiousity, or if you're actually in a real-life situation where you or someone close to you needs this type of help). In any case, Chabad is an organization of Hassidic Jews who devote much of their time towards works of a philanthropic nature. In fact, they actually have a drug rehab programme (which is obviously kosher!) called "Project Pride". In North America, Project Pride has two main "full-care" facilities: One in Los Angeles and the other in Montreal. Even if you don't live near one of these two cities, they'd surely do their best to find some kosher rehab centre, even if it's not affiliated with their particular organization. (For example there are certainly many in New York City, but apparently not affiliated with them). If you're interested, their website is www.chabad.org. These people are extremely generous and are extremely eager to help anyone in need. Money is not an issue. If you're dirt poor they'll help you all the same. However if you happen to be well off, a nice donation is always welcome! (Just in case you're wondering, although their main aim is to help out and bring spirituality to those in the Jewish community, at the same time they consider it a mitzvah to help out anyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. In fact there's a special term for the mitzvah of helping non-Jews, it's called Tikhun Olam (roughly translated as "helping the world"). For non-Jews, they certainly would not try to proselytize, as proselytation runs contrary to Jewish Law. As for non-observant secular Jews, they are extremely non-judgmental, and though they may mildly encourage you to participate in a few Jewish practices, they certainly would never insist on anything if it's uncomfortable to you.

I feel like I'm running an ad for Chabad here! In fact I'm not a very observant Jew at all, and I'm certainly not Hassidic. I just have a special place in my heart for Chabad because my father grew up very poor and they were the only ones willing and eager to give him a Jewish education and help out in whatever way they could. Hope this helps, and if you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to click on my name and ask me on my userpage, I'd be glad to help...good luck! Loomis51 00:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As for your question, Jack, I suppose I may have phrased the principle in a confusing manner when I essentially said "the law requires you to break the law". I realize that what I said sounds like a logical contradiction. In Jewish Law, (just like in ordinary state law), there is, for lack of a better term, a "hierarchy" of, in the case of state law, felonies, misdemeanors and regulatory infractions. So for example, while it's a regulatory infraction to go through a red traffic light, ambulances, firetrucks and police cars are required to "break" this "regulation" in the case of emergencies. Similarly, Jewish dietary laws, in the general scheme of Jewish Law, are of relatively low importance, somewhat akin to regulations, especially when compared with those laws concerning the sanctity and requiring the preservation of human life. (A perfect example is of a Jew starving to death in the wilderness, just when a pig happens to be strolling by. Under those circumstances, the Jew would not only be permitted, but required to "break the law" and eat the pig). But the "red light example may be a poor one, as allowing these vehicles to go through red lights may not be considered "breaking" the law, but rather, these vehicles can be said to be merely "exempted" from the law, in instances when the situation warrants it. As a better example, suppose, for example, the state passes a "good samaritan" law. Say the law requires that, for example, in a situation where a citizen witnesses an assault, the citizen is required to do his or her best to apprehend the perpetrator, with the use of physical force if necessary. Under normal circumstances, the "good samaritan" would have "broken the law" by using force to apprehend the perpetrator. S/he would be guilty of the crime of common assault. However, the "good Samaritan law" would apparently require the citizen to "break the law". In other words, when it comes to the greater good, "the (higher) law requires you to break the (lower) law". Loomis51 00:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oi vey! Thank you, Loomis. JackofOz 04:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Australian foreign policy post 1972

hey, i was wondering if anyone could help me on this, i was wondering what the foreign policy was during the Gough Whitlam era and also, did it change significantly after his dismissal? ZakkyPoos

The last sentence in History of Australia may be useful. The link in that sentence - to Gough Whitlam may be even more so, since it gives a comprehensive run-down of his government moves. The article on Malcolm Fraser should be equally useful. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First Contact

Officially or unnofficially, does the United States, or any other major world power, have any kind of protocol in place in the unlikely event of a First Contact with an extra-terrestrial civilization? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Outer Space Treaty might be of interest to you. Though I don't think the treaty states it explicitly, I recall reading an article in my international relations studies that indicated the commonly accepted protocol would be to alert the UN Secretary General, and a Special Session of the UN would likely follow immediately. However, this may differ significantly with what might actually happen in this unlikely event, as sometimes well-organized protocols simply vanish when an event actually happens. I can easily envision a scenario where whichever state is most powerful at the time would quickly gather a coalition of states best equipped to respond to the situation, and this group would take the lead in responding. --DavidGC 07:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... skimming the Treaty, it appears that that it only governs the interactions of countries in space or on cellestial bodies. Nothing that could be interpreted for use in a First Contact situation. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure lying in a dusty classified archive somewhere, somebody in the Pentagon wrote up a policy on this back in the 1950's. Heck, I'm sure the Soviet Union did too. I doubt they've been updated much, though. Ultimately, it would come down to circumstance and the personalities of the world leaders involved at the time. It you're feeling really interested, put in a FOI request on the matter and see what turns up :) --Robert Merkel 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

But what if the aliens are atheists?!?--Teutoberg 17:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

artist search

I hope this is an appropriate question to ask you. I have done an exhaustive search myself and turned up absolutely nothing. In 1993-1994 I lived in South Beach Fl..One day i walked into a young [early 20's ] artists studio.I read in different literature's that there had been comparison's to Michangelo and there was even talk of this young artist being the reincarnation of Michangelo and so on. This artists name is Louis More'.He was a master at the age of 22 or so .I saw a portrait Lorenzo de Medici,a sculpture of Jesus Christ on the Rock and a whole bunch of other artwork by this artist.I am now movced away from there and want to find out what has become of him and if he is still working etc.,but haven't been succesful.If I'm not mistaken he was commisioned to do the artwork for the logo for the Summit of the Americas around that time period.

Searching "louis moré" - st -saint -st. on Google turned up nothing useful. You might have the name wrong. --Halcatalyst 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You could try contacting the Art Renewal Center who promote this kind of work. Tyrenius 02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

titles

A dozen or so titles of hollywood films of the 1940s please

Have you looked at the articles 1940 in film to 1949 in film? Grutness...wha? 06:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Or History_of_film#The_1940s:_the_war_and_post-war_years for an overview.-gadfium 06:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible Quotes

Are there any quotes in the Bible regarding pre-marital sex? --Shadarian 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

a very closely related tangent is "Thou shalt not commit adultery", from the ten commandments, but the New Testament (particularly the letters of Paul) has several exhortations to avoid fornication (sourced from Strong's concordance, KJV) — Lomn Talk 15:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In one of the early law books (probably Leviticus, but I don't have time to find it) there are prescriptions of the punishements for sleeping with someone before marriage. They are considerably less severe than the punishment for adultery (which was death in most cases). If I recall, in the case of fully consenting pre-marital sex the punishment for the man was marriage to the woman, with no possibility of divorce. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In Exodus 22:16,17 it says "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall sureley endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." --WhiteDragon 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there was very little pre-marital in Biblical times in which to have sex. 8-) As a rule, parents contracted marriages in those days very early, sometimes at birth. As soon as the child reached puberity, they would be married off. There were celebates, like Jesus, in spite of this. From the arguments made against adultery and fornication (sexual immorality in general), though, it is clear that all sex outside of marriage is condemned. --CTSWyneken 17:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, polygamy was practiced regularly. So, if you wanted to have sex with someone, but you were already married, just marry the new person also. --Kainaw

^(talk) 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Practically speaking, only royalty and the rich could afford such. "Husband of one wife" was the rule.--CTSWyneken 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus marrying someone brought responsibilities, so it's not just a case of marrying, shagging and dumping as many people as you liked. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering how Wyneken concludes that in Biblical times "as a rule, parents contracted marriages...very early, sometimes at birth"? In fact, the Bible seems to indicate quite the opposite, that Biblical characters tended to marry, if anything, at unusually old ages. Abraham married Sarah rather late in life (by today's standards), same with his son Isaac's marriage to Rebecca, and their son Jacob's marriage to both both Leah and Rachel (according to his agreement with his father-in-law, Leah and Rachel's father Laban, he put in some 20 years of hard labour before finally getting to marry his true love, Rachel). As for Moses, he only met and married the daughter of Jethro long after he was banished by the Pharaoh from Egypt as an adult. So just what Biblical characters is Wyneken refering to? Loomis51 00:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are from the patriarchal period, not the Israelite period (the farther back in Genesis you go, the more ages are magnified). AnonMoos 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos is correct. Please note the "as a rule" part. Also, note that most of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus died during the forty years in the wilderness. Moses was, by that time, an exception to the rule. --CTSWyneken 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that Jesus Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount intensified the prohibitions on fornication, saying that fornication is adultery and that lusting after a woman is committing adultery in one's heart. The emphasis was not to say how evil the world is but that the Kingdom is in the heart, that being legal about sin was the wrong path. Geogre 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

American Idol results

In a high-profile event such as American Idol there must be a big scramble to be the individual who gets to edit the article each week to show the latest results. Is there an agreement among administrators to assign a particular user the task of updating the article? Does opening the article for editing lock out other users until changes are saved?

Articles might be locked if there is much debate and reverting going on - such as controversial topics as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (currently locked BTW). However, locking an article is a last-resort and with topics such as Idols rankings and results it will probably not be an issue - first come, first serve will be the rule - which really shouldn't cause too much of a problem. Agreeing to whom does what is next to impossible on high profile articles with many hits - there is simply too many people some of which might not read the talk page. Gardar Rurak 19:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• The few times I edited a particular current event article and feared others would cause edit collisions, I've put an {{inuse}} tag at the top asking them not to edit while I was busy. I case of Idol or Eurovision Song Contest results, that worked for me. When two people try to edit a page at the same time, the first edit is saved, the second is informed of the collision which is called a edit conflict. Articles aren't locked if they're opened for editing, sometimes people do this to see code without the intent to actually edit, meaning such a close could lokc up a lot of pages unneccesarily. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Lady of Shalott

in the lady of shalott, what is 'tirra lirra' from. it's what Lancelot sings as he goes past the tower Thanks--81.151.8.56 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You may find "Tire lire" in some old french rhymes. The sense is not obvious. --DLL 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just an example of rhyming redulplication, just like airy-fairy or mumbo-jumbo, or roly-poly, stuff like that. There's more in our reduplication article; we don't have a separate rhyming reduplication article, unfortunately (we do have an article on Shm-reduplication, however!). СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 02:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Saint John and golden eagles

Sirs, Please can you tell me WHY? the anglican St John is associated with golden eagles, as he is depicted with them in several medeavel tapistries and hence the golden eagle shaped lecterns in some Anglican churches. Many thanks, Greg

Four Evangelists, four very old symbols (lion, eagle, bull and man), I'd say arising from Ezechiel's vision or some Chaldean divinities (for now, let's say from the Book of Revelation). Who made the links, some father of the early church ? --DLL 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also a possible pagan connection with the four symbols and the zodiacal signs at the times of solstice and equinox - Taurus, Leo, Scorpo, Aquarius (the eagle was often used as an alternative symbol to the scorpion for Scorpius). Grutness...wha? 01:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the New Advent article on St. John the Evangelist: "Early Christian art usually represents St. John with an eagle, symbolizing the heights to which he rises in the first chapter of his Gospel." --Seejyb 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Connecticut Gore

The Connecticut Gore was a strip of land claimed by Connecticut as late as the beginning of the 19th century that extended along New York's southwest border with Pennsylvania. I came across this topic while writing New York v. Connecticut, a 1799 suit in the U.S. Supreme Court that arose from a private land dispute in the Connecticut Gore, the answer to which hinged on which state the land was actually in.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disposed of the case without answering that question. It's obviously now part of New York, but aside from very insubstantial references, I've been unable to find a history of this region or, what I'm chiefly interested in: when and how was New York's claim over the Connecticut Gore finally resolved? It might have been tied to the disposition of the Connecticut Western Reserve (which is now northeastern Ohio), but again, I can't find that anywhere.

As a possible lead, some rare bookdealers online are selling books that advocated Connecticut's side and reproduced 17th century documents; I've included these references under "further reading" in the New York v. Connecticut article. However, I think those would at most give background on the region, because they predate any resolution. I've also posted this question on Talk:History of Connecticut. Cheers, Postdlf 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a question? If so what is it? This is certainly an interesting topic but from what I understand the RD is for questions.

Since I can't find any question in the above text, I'll ask one:

I'm having trouble picturing where this particular piece of land is. From what you explain it doesn't seem to be contiguous with the rest of Connecticut. Are you saying that Connecticut was claiming a patch of land several dozen miles away from the rest of Connecticut? A map of the area including what area was claimed by Connecticut would be very informative if it were on the page. Another question: Any idea why it was given the unusual term: The Connecticut "Gore"? At first I thought this was a question about the Democratic 2000 presidential election ticket. Loomis51 00:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, see the boldface text that ends with a question mark for my question. Postdlf 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are on the right track. Some of the original colony charters granted in the 1600s ran to the western coast of North America in their original wording. Some of the early maps look quite peculiar to someone familiar with modern state boundaries, as several of the colonies were endless stripes west across the continent. In most cases the western boundaries of the new states were settled sensibly and quickly just before or just after the Revolution. The connecticut claims were more complex, involving non-contiguous western areas, overlapping claimed territories of New York, Pennsyvania, and several Iroquois nations. These areas were being actively settled by colonists from several colonies in the mid 18th century, before the Revolution. There were a number of conflicts, even some actual or threatened bloodshed over several parts of the western extension of Connecticut, especially the Wyoming Valley of northeast Pennsylvania, and the Western Reserve Area of Ohio. In the Revolution, most of the Iroquois backed the wrong faction, and their lands were considered fair game by many former colonists as the British withdrew their claims and their support for the Indians. This is off the top of my head and I will try to look up some details and references this weekend if no one can provide a fuller answer sooner and you want more. I realize I have not provided a source for the word gore, but suspect it might be an archaic description of the appearance of the western Connecticut land claims on a map. alteripse 03:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be based on the shape, as "gore" can mean a small triangular patch of land (see Gore (road)). Unfortunately, I have been unable to find a map illustrating it. My understanding, from the oblique references to it in the court cases, is that it was noncontiguous with Connecticut proper. I also know that it overlapped with at least part of Steuben County (based on the assertions of the New York land claimant in the above case), and possibly Chemung. Postdlf 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that Steuben County was newly formed in 1795 and Chemung was not formed until 1836... much of Western NY was Ontario County at the time of the case (1799). [64] KWH 15:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a map: [65] Here is a description: [66] Here is a description of the overlapping charters and ensuing conflict between Pa and Conn (let's blame the Brits): [67] alteripse 04:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those reference the Gore...the map just shows the Western Reserve and the Erie Triangle (now PA's "keystone"). I don't think the Wyoming lands (Wyoming Valley, NE Pennsylvania) connected either. Postdlf 14:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with it? From History of New York:

"At the north end of the Morris Reserve, an 87,000 acre (350 km²) triangular shaped tract ("The Triangle Tract") was sold by Morris to Herman Leroy, William Bayard and John McEvers, while a 100,000 acre (400 km²) tract due west of the Triangle Tract was sold to the State of Connecticut."

See also Image:WNY5.PNG. KWH 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's another book that mentions the matter and indicates that the Gore is now part of Pennsylvania. KWH 15:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It must've extended into both states. Postdlf 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

While I don't have a map to cite, i know that you can find maps that show the eastern states extending in bands due west from their current shapes during the colonial period. So like, if you extend the western border of connecticut until you hit ohio, that was "claimed" by connecticut. This also corresponds to the land in ohio that was claimed by CT.

Duchess of Windsor's first husbands

I'm curious for more information on the Duchess of Windsor's (Wallis Simpson's) first husbands, Earl Winfield Spencer and Ernest Aldrich Simpson. Specifically, was Spencer married two or three more times after he and Wallis divorced? The article at Wikipedia gives two more wives, but I have read he was married four times. If so, when and with whom did he contract this fourth marriage? And when did his second marriage (to Miriam J. ______) take place? I'm also curious about Ernest Simpson's children-Audrey, his daughter by his first wife, as well as his son by his third wife. I know the latter eventually moved to Israel and married twice there, but what became of him? And was his daughter in regular contact with him or any of her 3 stepmothers? What became of her? Any information on his first and fourth wives' previous marriages is also appreciated. Hope this isn't too much to ask-- the Internet seems to be lacking in information. TysK 23:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

historic photos from POLEN by Dr. Wilhelm Nölting, 1936

Searching for German/Polish/Europe web site containing historic pictures of Poland/Germany from book "Polen" by Dr. Wilhelm Nölting, published in 1936 - Berlin, Germany. The images may be have been shown in a gallery also.

This site has over 100 images and IS NOT at PolishRoots.com, which only has a few. Thanks for your help.

--152.163.100.72 23:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A google image search wasn't helpful, sadly. Polishroots.com seems to have 42 of the inages, and the cover is shown at www.detlef-heinsohn.de, but nothing else turned up at all. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

May 26

International Yacht Captain

My husband is an International Yacht Captain from Turkey. I am a U.S. Citizen. We are going through the red tape of the Homeland Security System for my husband to get his work permit here in the US. To me it seems that since he has an International License to Sail under 7 different Flags (including the U.S. and Canada), he should be able to work as a Yacht Captain here, or under any flag on his License. I have searched Maritime Law, Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard Regulations and general Google to no avail. He is going crazy to get to work at his trade. (Our immigration attorney cannot find anything on this and says he has to await his work permit then get a travel permit.) Any clues where to look??? Hundreds of on-line hours and no luck. P.S. So glad I tripped on this site!

You can stop looking. Your immigration attorney is right. Your husband will need a work permit like anyone else. I see no reason why it should be otherwise. --Shantavira 07:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Humanities/Law

My question concerns bank accounts for social groups like Adventure Scouts. One scout, the patrol leader, opened a joint account with another scout, the treasurer. This sounded like a bad idea to me since, for example, if one scout disappeared with the deposits, the other scout might be liable to any other scout members who contributed money.

I looked at the articles on nonprofits and fundraising, but I'm still not clear on what exactly to do. Does the Adventure scout group need to incorporate itself as a social club with its own EIN, articles of incorporation, bylaws, etc or is there some simpler way. I've heard of a "child" nonprofit group using the EIN of its "parent" group for fundraising, but how would that work with bank accounts? I imagine this question comes up a lot, I'm just not sure how it's normally handled.

I'm sure it depends both on the country and the organization. Non-profit organizations in the U.S. with which I'm familiar have strict restrictions on financial accounts of their entities. --Halcatalyst 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This would be for the U.S. Just generally, what kind of restrictions?

In the UK you can open an account for a group without going through the legal process of incorporating. However there are certainly a few things you should do, whatever country you are in. 1) make sure the account is in the name of the group, not the individuals. 2) Require two signatures on cheques and other withdrawals. Appointing three officers of the group and requiring at least two to sign is a good way to do it. 3) Create some sort of constitution for the group, specifying how officers are chosen. Your bank will probably require you to do this with any account in an organisation name.

As part of a larger group such as scouts this has almost certainly come up before. Check with the parent organisation. DJ Clayworth 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This site says: "No, you may not use an individual member's personal bank account. A voluntary association of individuals-such as your student organization-operates in the name of the entity and not in the name of the individuals who are part of that organization." The article covers most pitfalls and solutions. I'd suggest you discuss the issue confidentially with your local bank manager, or, as above, with your parent organisation. Your organisation basically needs written down financial rules and regulations, about members, about officers, about authorisations and financial reports etc. and the bank needs to know what your rules are, and to approve of them as being reasonable and safe. --Seejyb 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you everyone who answered. I checked over the link and it was very helpful. It gave me some good ideas on what needs to be done to do this correctly.

Who was the Saudi-Arabian Minister to Iraq on Nov. 10, 1944

I have an item that was given as a gift and it is engraved:

"To Col. P.H.M. Converse Cav. U.S. Army From H.E. Asa'ad Al Fakih Saudi-Arabian Minister to Iraq Baghdad 10 November 1944"

Can anyone help identify who these folks were (or are) or what this date represented for these countries?

Thanks, Stacey

• I wonder if he's related to Sa'ad Al-Faqih? The Saudi-Iraq connection would suggest that's the case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

17th century theories of insanity

Can anyone tell me how insanity was explained in Europe in the mid-1600s -- especially schizophrenic type insanity -- hallucinations, voices etc? If someone can provide a quote or two from scholars at the time, that would be a nice bonus too.

Thanks Adambrowne666 09:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The insanity article has a brief section on historical perspectives and it states that insanity has historically been attributed to supernatural or divine causes. I would suggest that this would be the case in the mid 1600s - that people who were insane would be treated as if the were possessed by demons, witches or just generally being punished by God.

However a google search highlighted this webpage webpage about witches in England in the Tudor and Stuart periods and it mentions contemporary physicians being familiar with writers who saw mental disorders as non-demonic and in some cases "natural" Colonel 11:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A book which might be of use is Mad Princes of Renaissance Germany. There is a review of it here which points out some of the more interesting points to the way insanity and courtly medicine worked at the time. --Fastfission 23:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, all - I've also found some stuff about hysterical madness - the notion that the uterus caused insanity in women - the womb rising up through the body to inflame and compress the brain! Watch out! Adambrowne666 06:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

funny little word that found its way into my vocabulary without a solid definition

maccobb is a funny little word that found its way into my vocabulary without fining a place of proper spelling or of a solid well held definition.

hi, some how I cant find the correct spelling or proper definition for the word "ma-cob" i understand it to some degree having to do with mystery and fascinating oddness. the movies Brazil and Eraser Head are to pieces of macobb expression. i think it may not be an English word.

may i beg your trouble for some assistance in my quest?

Perhaps you mean macabre: adj., 1 having death as a subject, comprising or including a personalized representation of death; 2 dwelling on the gruesome; 3 tending to produce horror in a beholder (Merraim-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary). —Wayward ^Talk 11:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you are pronouncing it correctly. The "re" is silent and it makes many people shudder when they hear people say mack-ab-ruh.--Fuhghettaboutit

That depends on where you're from, F. In many places, the "re" is not silent. JackofOz 14:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think of the last syllable as greatly de-emphasized, as is true for many French words. English speakers aren't used to de-emphasizing something to such an extent that you can barely hear it, so typically say it normally or leave it silent. BTW, the Language Ref Desk would have been a better choice for this Q. StuRat 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a punk band called "Corn on Macabre". —Keenan Pepper 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My late Dad used to pronounce it like Micawber (in Dickens' David Copperfield). JackofOz 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is wonderful, living history, a reminder to remain humble when studying human language. If macabre is the true "root" of maccob - and from the meaning the writer describes, that is likely - then is this not language living, growing, changing, seen in real time, originating from a single identifiable source? Surely not a common event, when the word is not consciously invented and published as such. One wonders how long it would take for the spelling to spread, the meaning to be slightly altered, here and there, and from time to time, so that future lexicographer ends up randomly speculating about the origin of this word (with Great Authority!). --Seejyb 11:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Not knowing how to spell a word is neither uncommon nor wonderful. Henry

^Flower 11:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(the "new" pronunciation also crosses phonemic zones -- if enough speakers adopt it, it will be the standard pronunciation. e.g. look up "colonel" [pronounced "kernal"] in an etymological dictionary.)

Henry, Henry... --Seejyb 17:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

whaaa...what is it, Min? Grutness...wha? 00:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Psychoacoustics question

I've read the psychoacoustics and music theory sections of Wikipedia, yet I still don't understand why certain segments of a piece appeal to some persons and not to others. Obviously some aspects are learned or cultural, but what happens in the development of a person that is "turned on" by certain notes?

Why do some people like works of art and not others? Why do some people like certain kinds of food and not others? It's not a matter of music theory, it's a matter of taste. I guess the physiological properties of the ear might have something to do with it, as in people with less accurate hearing find more temperament of consonances acceptable, but that can't be more than a small part of it. —Keenan Pepper 17:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your question is a good one, but I doubt that it has an answer that can be written in words. If I knew the formula of how to write music that predictably sends shivers down people's spine, I would have been a rich man. --vibo56 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would know of studies where individuals would listen to varied pieces of music while simultaneously recording EEG or MRI etc.

You might find something here. This one is maybe also of interest. --vibo56 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

school porject

Hi, i have a school porject i need a need avery intresting fact for the year 1992. Like a jaw dropper that will leave people amazed. Would you happen to know one or two?

Aren't "the porjects" where poor, dejected people live ? :-) StuRat 23:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at 1992, and select whichever event that makes your jaw drop. --vibo56 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

lol Bush vomiting on the prime minister of Japan would be a good one. see Jan in 1992 Nowimnthing 15:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone knows proper etiquette demands that visiting heads of state should vomit on the Emperor first. (Note that this was Bush Senior.) StuRat 16:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the smart thing to do. Why vomit in your own lap? --BluePlatypus 17:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, 15 June's During a spelling bee at a Trenton, New Jersey elementary school, U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle erroneously corrects a student's spelling of the word potato by indicating it should have an e at the end. Joe 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It slightly disturbs me that Dan Quayle and the "potato" incident would be a candidate for inclusion in a (probably secondary) school project. Even worse, it makes me feel very old (and I'm not even 20 yet!). --Sporkot 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It was mere logic from the vice. Doe, toe, potatoe look English ... Orlando, diminuendo, ado are latin (Spanish or Italian). --DLL 18:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what's so foolish about it. Attempting to apply logic and consistency to English spelling is madness! --BluePlatypus 20:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the word on the card actually "potatoes"? So Q. tries to make it singular for some reason, and... Look, I just feel sorry for the guy. It must be tough to have no skill in extraneous speech and yet have a job that eminently requires it.

I've honestly never seen such a fuss over a typo. Like none of us ever misspell words. Certain members of the public just didn't like Quayle and jumped on what was a silly typo and turned it into a major political issue, using it to question the very competence of the man to be V.P. Funny, isn't it? A popular Prez can get a BJ in the Oval Office and the public overwhelmingly comes do his defence (no pun intended), some even regarding the whole incident as "cool", but an unpopular V.P. makes a typo and all of a sudden he's the village idiot. Loomis51 23:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a chicken-egg thing, Loomis. He was widely seen as "the village idiot" well before this incident occurred, and the incident just served to reinforce this view. And it wasn't just that Q made a typo himself. You're right, we all make mistakes, and if it had been as simple as that, nobody would have cared. What Quayle did was to go to the trouble of "correcting" a child who had spelled the word correctly, and in so doing led the child away from the light and into the darkness. Anybody who corrects others has to be very sure of their stuff. Being a heart beat from the most powerful office in the world is no guarantee you know your stuff. JackofOz 02:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Dan Quayle "led the child away from the light and into the darkness" by wrongly correcting a kid's spelling. Sounds so eerie, like Quayle was some sort of Darth Vader: "(Heavy breathing) Join the dark side, my young child...spell potatato with an "e" at the end (more heavy breathing.)" I should point out that were I an American, I'd be a Republican (btw, is there a term for supporters of a particular party in a foreign country?). I truly don't understand why Quayle was treated so harshly by the media. He certainly had a very awkward, gauche way of presenting himself, and somehow the media translated that into stupidity. Personally, I was never a very big fan of his, and I can't for the life of me understand why Bush Sr. insisted on sticking with such an unpopular V.P. candidate for the '92 election. Still, I can't help feeling sorry for the guy. Aside from a few mini-blunders, like the "potatoe" incident, that whole "Murphy Brown" controversy, and numerous other faux pas, I can't really think of anything substantially stupid that he did. It just seems like when the media labels you a certain way, it's almost impossible to shake off that label. Remember that Bush Sr. was constantly being labeled as a "wimp" by the media, again for no apparent real reason, ... that is before he took such a swift and forceful stand against Saddam, kicking him out of Kuwait with his tail between his legs. Interestingly after the Gulf War, the media apparently decided that he wasn't such a "wimp" after all. Again, I was never much of a fan of Quayle, but give the guy a break, so he wrongly corrected a child's spelling of potato(e). Big friggin' deal. Personally, I still have to consult a dictionary every time I want to spell the word "possess" (How can the "ss" combination actually result in a "z" sound? At least that's how we pronounce it where I'm from. Very unusual.) Maybe Quayle should have spent less time visiting young children in American schools, and spent more time on his true passion: inventing the internet. Loomis51 10:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you've gone to the trouble of telling us not once but twice that you were no fan of his, maybe if you look into your heart you'll realise why you had that attitude. People who enter the public arena, particularly at such a level as Dan Quayle did, have to be prepared to have every word they utter and every step they take examined and analysed and criticised by the media. I hear what you're saying, let's have a bit of balance here and not just focus on the negative, but for better or worse that just ain't the way it works. Gerald Ford acquired a reputation for falling down a lot, because of a handful of isolated incidents. Do these truly represent the way he normally went about his day? Of course not, but those are the images that stick in people's minds. They are much more memorable than images of a person sitting comfortably on a chair with nothing unusual happening. Equally, I'm sure most of the sentences GWB utters do not contain mangled English, but he's uttered enough of the other type to make these what people remember about him. It's the media's equivalent of a cartoonist's caricature, where some notable feature of a person's face is exaggerated out of all proportion. Everyone knows that the person's nose really isn't that big, but we don't object to seeing a caricature because we pay more psychological attention to different or unusual features about people, whether it be their facial features or their awkward behaviours. Pontificating about spelling is not what people expect of their potential President. But to compound the error by leading the poor kid from the light of truth into the eerie darkness of illiteracy - well, that's bad, but memorably bad. You're a lawyer, you surely know that perceptions are just as important as reality, and this is never truer than in the political arena. In public life, it's not enough to just not do anything wrong. That's a recipe for doing nothing at all and just marking time. You hit the nail on the head about the media sitting up and taking notice of Bush senior when he took action in the Gulf. If Quayle had had the opportunity to demonstrate something like that kind of gumption, maybe he would have won a lot more respect. But maybe that's the perennial lot of U.S. V-Ps who don't make it to the top job. Maybe that's why whoever it was said the vice-presidency "ain't worth a pitcher of warm spit/piss" (sorry if the quote is inaccurate). They're destined to be seen almost as losers, despite being so close to the action. Maybe that's why strong U.S. presidents tend to choose weak V-Ps; they fit the office better than strong ones. JackofOz 12:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't say that I disagree with you one bit Jack. It's unfortunate that things have to be that way, but altogether it's a good assessment of life in the political spotlight, which, by the way, despite my fascination with all things political, is why I decided long ago to NEVER run for elective office! Just one thing though, what's up with the spooky imagery? Again with the "light of truth" and the "eerie darkness of illiteracy". Are you sure you haven't missed your calling as a campy sci-fi/fantasy novel writer? Just teasing. It's always interesting to read your input. Loomis51 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Since you noticed the "spooky" imagery earlier on, I thought you might like another taste of it. But if you find it too eerie and sinister to talk about the dark side, I'll desist. I've often wondered what my true calling is, and if I ever find out what I'm here for, you'll be the first to know. But I doubt it's a campy sci-fi novelist, or a campy anything for that matter. JackofOz 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, long for the days when the village idiot was only able to rise to the level of Vice President. :-) StuRat 23:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Awww Stu, I thought you were on my side here. It seems any time I'm brave enough to admit that I actually (yes, it's true!) have a great deal of respect for GWB, his policies and his administration, and dammit, that I think he's a great deal more intelligent and politically astute than almost anyone gives him credit for, it feels like I'm a gay man coming out of the closet! Yes, we're here, we like W, deal with it!

Curious choice of analogy. Do you actually know what that feels like? Would you like to know what that feels like? I can give you some pointers if you're thinking of taking the first step. Or maybe this was the first step. If so, congratulations on having the courage to out yourself so publicly, and welcome. If not, just tell me to shut up and go away.  :--) JackofOz 02:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But like Jack said, perceptions are just as important as reality. W is definitely "perceived" as a mindless boob, the media decided on that one a long time ago, and at this point there's no changing that. But he won a second term and will be able to serve an entire eight years as president. (Thank God he'll likely still be around for the ultimate showdown with Iran...picture a Howard Dean dealing with that genocidal madman Machmoud Whatever-a-Jani. I can just picture it: "Ok, so you've declared that you intend to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and you're designing nuclear warheads and placing them on missiles targeted at every Israeli city, village and town. It appears that something is bothering you. If you ever want to talk, I'll be here to listen.") Go W! Loomis51 04:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not a Bush fan. His pathetic attempts at public speaking are an embarrassment, but the invasion of Iraq on questionable evidence of WMD did substantial damage to the ability of the US to lead a coalition against true threats, such as Iran and North Korea. I could possibly have forgiven the invasion, had it at least been done competently. However, by using too few troops to prevent chaos, abolishing the existing Iraqi army, having an ambivalent attitude toward torture which lead to Abu Graib, and ignoring State Department recommendations, they assured that the current insurgency would rise to an unmanageable level. On the domestic front, Bush guaranteed huge increases in the US national debt by insisting on tax cuts in the middle of a war and had a truly idiotic proposal to "save" Social Security by taking money out of the system (for people to invest on their own). Bush's wiretapping of US citizens without Congressional or court approval also bothers me. Now, to show I'm not all negative on Bush, the invasion of Afghanistan was handled better and Bush's immigration reform policies seem reasonable. StuRat 02:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bush's anti-science attitude also annoys me, from ignoring the scientific consensus on global warming to limiting stem cell research. Putting an incompetent political appointee in charge of FEMA instead of a competent professional didn't win many points with me, either. StuRat 02:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

Am I right in saying this is an anatomical diagram of the heart vessels?

http://img80.imageshack.us/my.php?image=14a4jh.jpg

Actually, it appears to be illustrating the circle of Willis, in the brain. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was sure it was the heart I thought I recognised some of it oh well my mistake thanks mate.

No problem; let me know if I can be of further help. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Video of the consecration of the Eucharist in Roman Catholic Mass

Greetings,

May someone please point me to a video of the consecration of the Eucharist in Roman Catholic Mass?

I thank in advance whomever will reply,

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC).

Check out Google Video here. There are 23 videos as of 27 May 2006. There's also a great fourteen minute video of World Youth Day 2005 on the page. Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply,

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 09:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

Entry for John Keegan

I reciently completed an extensive paper on John Keegan and his historical work. It could be of use to a Wiki volunteer to expand his entry and maybe create entries for those books I analyzed (I could not obtain copies of all his books).

If a wiki volunteer would like to use it you can contact me at < e-mail removed >

I would ask that the full text of the paper not be posted, as I don't want to find a future student with a paper I wrote as an undergrad.

John Keegan. You should look and see if you disagree with anything, or if there is anything you can add. By the way, Wikipedia says it's not for original research.--Teutoberg 22:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We would really appreciate any contribution you could make personally to the John Keegan article. However I imagine much of your paper is analysis and criticism, and as Teutoberg says, an encyclopedia isn't really for that. However if you wanted to email me a copy of your paper I will see if I can extend the article. No promises though. (Use 'email this user' from my user page). DJ Clayworth 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Miitary Capes in Fascist Spain

I am assisting on the opera Carmen at the Santa Fe Opera. We would like to be correct in our use of military uniform capes in fascist Spain (1950's-60's). When was it appropriate to wear the cape element of the uniform? Was it for ceremonial purposes only? Or was it worn any time as desired purely for warmth? Was it only certain ranking officers that wore them as a part of their uniform? Thanks so much. --Ari98el 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was normal uniform, with a more fancy get-up for ceremonial occasions, but you could e-mail this police museum to be sure. Jameswilson 02:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

May 27

Piano Music in Little Britain

Those of you who have watched the first seasons of Little Britain might have noticed a sketch with a piano player (played by David Walliams) who always interrupts in the middle of a recital to do something mindless. What I know is that he performs Mozarts "Turkish March" (3rd mvt from K. 331, 11th sonata) in the 1st episode and the 2nd mvt from Beethovens "Pathetique" sonata (Op. 13, 8 sonata) in the 6th episode.

But it is rather "unclear" what pieces he performs in the 3rd and 8th episode. From what I know he played:

• Episode 1: Mozart K.331 (3rd mvt) "Turkish March"
• Episode 3: Unknown
• Episode 6: Beethoven Op. 13 (2nd mvt) "Pathetique sonata"
• Episode 8: Unknown

I have added a link to the soundtrack from the 3rd episode, if it can be to some help:

http://www.badongo.com/file/750022

I would be forever grateful if someone could help me complete the list (especially episode 3).

Sincerely -- Funper 00:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The file you linked to is the third movement of Beethoven's Mondschein Sonata, op.27 no. 2. David Sneek 08:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Always known in English as the "Moonlight" Sonata. JackofOz 14:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

what are the first names of these former Yugoslav leaders?

hello,

I am doing a biography on the following individuals I have last names but no first names making them extremely hard to find please help if you can!!! thank you, ash

Breshneu Andropou Gorbacheu Glasnost

P.S. I have allready found Joseph Broz Tito, Joseph Stalin, Lavernty Beria and Nikita Khrushchev thanks to Wikipedia's help but I am still in need of the others.

They have nothing to do with Yugoslavia. The first 3 Brezhnev, Andropov and Gorbachev were the heads of state of the former Soviet Union, and the 4th glasnost was not even a person but a word to describe Gorbachev's policy of openness and transparency. JackofOz 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I watched Andropov take office Andropov dead just 16 months later. :-) StuRat 13:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Then, when Chernenko dropped dead after only 13 months on the job, the Soviets decided it might be a good idea to put someone in office who wasn't older than the Revolution, which, inadvertently, meant they didn't care about it. Hence, the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. StuRat 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian Conquests

I have a question about ancient Macedonian conquests. Is there any real reason for why Macedonia didn't campaign in southern Italy? Alexander the Great goes about 2000+ miles in one direction, but never in the next 100-150 years do any Macedonian kings every go 50 miles across strait of Ortanto to southern Italy. Dose anybody have an explanation for this? The only theory I could come up with was that the Macedonians didn't have the male population to form an army at the time.

There was no real civilization to speak of (hence no wealth) to the west of Greece until after the rise of Rome. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

See Pyrrhus of Epirus AnonMoos 06:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Orkut in Brazil

What is the cause of orkut's overwhelming popularity in Brazil. The article describes it but doesn't go into the causes. deeptrivia (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume it's an expression of the Network effect. The benefit of an Orkut, MySpace or what have you is to connect to other people, particularly those who are like you. (I doubt that many high school anglophones want to connect to 50 year old Swedish tax accountants, for instance.) Once Orkut began to be the leader in the Brazilian market, then anybody who wanted to engage in social networking would find that most of their friends were already on Orkut, that there were more people speaking Brazilian Portugese on Orkut as compared with other networks, and so on until Orkut was the overwhelming leader in the market. The root causes may not be particularly clear. In The Tipping Point (book), Gladwell mentions connectors, mavens and salesmen as particularly influential people -- if a small community of these people started using Orkut when social networking began, then it wouldn't take much to snowball to the whole population. It's quite possible that even the people at Orkut have no idea why they caught on in particular with the Brazilians, but once it was clear that they had, they did what they could to increase their market share there. --ByeByeBaby 09:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm a brazilian, I've had an orkut profile for nearly three years now, I know many people who joined because someone created a community that would help them find old acquaintances (like 1982 alumni from a particular private school in a 50.000 people city type communities). Also, some people would have heard of the orkut fenomenon many times before receiving an invitation to join, so they would be eager to accept and join. Recently brazilian hackers found a way to spread viruses through orkut, making people send automatic messages saying (in portuguese) "Hi, the photos from our last party can be found here" with a link redirecting to an .exe file and stuff like that.VdSV9•♫ 12:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Can Muslims be monkeys and pigs

Something has been bothering me lately.

1. Son of a Jewish mother is a Jew
2. Son of a Muslim father is a Muslim
3. The holy Quran says Jews are monkeys and pigs

So if a Muslim man marries a Jewish women and they produce a son, would not the son be both a Jew and a Muslim.

And if so, would it not be possible for (some) muslims then to be monkeys and pigs too?

Ohanian 07:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff - however, it seems the Quran is confused on some issues. You can not technically be a pig AND a monkey at the same time. It could possibly be some sort of mix between the two species of which we do not know today - a "pinkey" of sorts. Another sollution might be that people of Jewish descend are either pigs OR monkeys but this would suggest two separate Jewish lines of descend between which there can be no interbreeding. Neither the Bible, the Torah nor the Quran mentions any such thing - so it would seem the "pinkey" creature is the most obvious sollution despite any lack of evidence of it's existance.

Should a Muslim man marry a female Jewish "pinkey" the offspring would as such genetically be half human/pinkey and half Muslim/Jewish - not half man/woman however (except in rare instances). The question is really if your Muslimness dissapears when you also hold Jewishness and Pinkeyness within you - the Quran must have some sort of answer to this.

Summa summarum: It's possible as long as the Quran 1) Allows Muslim men to marry Jewish women. 2) Weighs the Jewish descend more than the Muslim descend. Gardar Rurak 09:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it that answer was meant to be tongue-in-cheek ? Incidentally, the word you want is descent, descend means "to go lower": "People of African descent are more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia." "After you descend the staircase into the basement, turn right to find the freezer where I store the bodies." StuRat 13:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Simplest understanding is to read the original (untranslated) text, and if you can't read Arabic, sit with a friend who can translate for you. The issue becomes something of a non-issue. --Seejyb 16:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, do that. My first feeling was that you were reading a highly biased translation. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bob Brozman

He plays hawaiian music and would like to request an article about him. Love the site just haven't posted anything yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.60.66 (talk • contribs)

Looked him on Google and Allmusic. He gets 300,000 Google hits, including an article on NPR's website. He's been releasing music for 25 years as well. Sounds fairly impressive. Here's what I recommend 71, follow this link: Bob Brozman, then click Add a Request for It. Follow the instructions on the next page. Simply paste this into the appropriate category: [[Bob Brozman]]

If you have any questions, you can ask me on my Talk page, or paste this code onto your own talk page and wait for someone to come help you: [[helpme]]. Zepheus 16:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Pop/American Idol winners

hi, over in the UK we're all big fans of kelly clarkson, but we haven't heard of any of your (america's) other 'idol' winners (i gather there has been lots of series) - does any one know if theres a specfic reason for this (i.e. all the other ones are rubbish) or is it just becuase shes pretty and maybe all your other winners, like the current one, aren't? also, i've heard it on the grapevine that Will Young (the UK pop idol winner) wasn't promoted internationally becuase he didn't sign a contract which obligated him to keep schtum about his sexuality - can i anyone confirm (or deny) this? cheers!87.194.20.253 14:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put it bluntly, Kelly Clarkson is the only Idol winner with a successful career. Carie Underwood seems to be reaping the rewards, but that's more of country music so they wouldn't play it in Britian. --mboverload@ 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read that, by country music standards, Underwood is doing fairly well; Clarkson is of course a mainstream success. Ruben Studdard apparently came out with one risible song and disappeared; Fantasia Barrino is all but forgotten. I'm guessing Taylor Hicks will lose most of his appeal when he's on the radio vs. on TV. --zenohockey 02:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Clay Aiken, who came in second in the second season, has had a pretty successful career. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If "successful carrer" means "late-night gay-joke punching bag," sure =) --mboverload@ 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I've heard of Clay Aiken and I tend to use the rule of thumb that if a Dutch person knows an American, they must be pretty famous. Anyway, the question asked about winners, not the runners-up. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, we are NOT all big fans of Kelly Clarkson over here in the UK, well I'm not so that's certainly not all! ;-) DPM

Executions in imperial China

How many executions for year there was in imperial China? Vess

Imperial China lasted well over 2000 years. That's an impossible question to answer. Henry^Flower 15:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In the late XIX century. More than 10,000? User:Vess

Paedophiles and homophilophobias

I was wondering about the construction of some words like 'homophobe' which taken litterally, would be a fear of people with a similar characteristic (e.g. men not liking other men) rather than what it actually usually refers to which would be 'homophilophobe' - why isn't it just that? Also, there are people that claim a 'paedophobe' is someone that dislikes paedophiles when it's actually, as it should be, a person that doesn't like children/babies. Would it be safe to say that someone who doesn't like paedophiles is actually a padeophilophobe? What about homophobophobes? --Username132 (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Language isn't always perfectly consistent, but is flexible and can conform to different ideas of word length, ellipsis, and implied understanding. Furthermore, English isn't here to be a morpheme for morpheme translation from Greek. We may borrow stems from Greek into English, but our definitions are our own. -lethe ^{talk +} 17:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of such inconsistencies. Look at the word "paedophile" for instance. To be consistent, it should be "paedophiliac" - paedophile simply implies someone who likes children (and not in a sexual way) in the same way bibliphiles like books, anglophiles like things that are English and jaundoparamantuophiles like yellow plastic raincoats (OK, so I made the last one up). Words denoting sexual infatuation end -philiac", like necrophiliac, mysophiliacs, and all the other --philiacs with varieties listed in Category:Paraphilia. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The central problem is in the construction of "homosexual" to begin with, which mixes Latin and Greek. Since then, "homo" has been used for "man" (Latin) and combined with various Greek suffixes. In Greek, it's "same," and the compound would be "homophilia" for "same loving." It's when you stick the Latin "male" for "homo" that you get the confusion. At this point, the dam has burst and the waters have flowed...not much point trying to be pure now. Geogre 11:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

homo does not mean "male" in Latin. It means "man" as in "human" or "mankind". The Latin word for "man" as in "male" is "vir". Furthermore, homo- is not a combining form of Latin homo, rather homin- is, as in the word "hominid". -lethe ^{talk +} 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe "homo-" just means same, and "hetero-" means different. StuRat 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of Greek. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If this were a Linux conversation that would read: "You're thinking of Greek. Idiot."

Double Jeopardy

I saw a film where a woman was put away for killing a man who didn't die and was still alive. Can she really then go out and actually kill him after her release and there be nothing anyone would do, since she had already served time for it? --Username132 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No. That film is based on a misinterpretation of the law. Killing her husband one day, and killing her husband another day years later after she got out of prison are different crimes in the eyes of the law, so they can certainly convict her again. This is explained in our article Double Jeopardy (film). In the future, please search the encyclopedia for your answer before asking here. -lethe ^{talk +} 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The answers to this sort of question also depend on the laws of the country in question. See double jeopardy. --Shantavira 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I did actually check the double joepardy article, just not the one of the film (didn't occur to me). I think it's really unfair that people can get locked away for years for a crime they didn't commit and then the person they supposedly killed gets away with it. What's the penalty for pretending to be dead so someone goes away for your murder? --Username132 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's unfair every time anyone gets convicted for a crime they didn't commit. This unfortunate occurrence is known as a miscarriage of justice, and it happens, though obviously the system wants to avoid them as much as possible. I suppose setting someone up for murder is a form of fraud, and the penalty would be up to the judge or jury, and I expect how long the innocent person had been jailed would be a factor. I expect that this might also be a factor in the sentencing of Ashley Judd for her second murder. She'd still be convicted, she committed a crime, but they might give her a much lighter sentence due to time served. (On the other hand, the second murder is highly premeditated and deliberate, which some might not view favorably). -lethe ^{talk +} 20:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Lethe's analysis is spot-on, I think. You might be interested in Steven Avery; having served eighteen years in prison for a rape for the commission of which DNA eventually exonerated him, he was recently (having been free two years) charged with a rape and murder (a 16-year-old nephew has confessed to having committed the crime with Avery, although this nexus is only alleged, of course). If he is convicted and sentenced, it will be interesting to see how his sentence is formulated and whether/how his 18 years time served are applied against it (the nature of his crime, which many would call heinous--he is alleged to have bound a woman, whom he allegedly subsequently raped over two days and then murdered--would tend, in the mind of a judge, to militate against mercy's being shown). Rather unfortunately for Avery, just days after he received a $350,000 settlement from the state of Wisconsin, the family of the woman whom he is alleged to have killed filed a wrongful death suit against him, saying publicly that they hope to win his entire judgment. Joe 03:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that some countries have abandoned double jeopardy. In britain, for example, for about a year now its been perfectly legal for the police to keep hauling the same person in fron t of judge - regardless of how many times he's found not guilty. what fun times we live in! 87.194.20.253 17:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Other countries have ways around the law. In the US, a racial-based murderer who gets a sympathetic jury and gets acquitted by an individual state can still be charged by the federal government with "depriving the individual of their civil rights", which seems to carry similar penalties to a murder sentence. Also note that only a settlement or an acquital (all jurors voting not guilty) prevents a retrial. A hung jury or other mistrial does not prevent a retrial on the same charges. StuRat 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark Bolan again- Signed this time - age challenged newby

Did Mark Bolan publish novels? I work at a library and have a patron who is sure he published books in England but I haven't been able to find any information that I trust.I hope this is being signed correctly. Mroberts2002 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this Bolan of T-Rex fame? If so, this article says his first name was spelt Marc and also that this was a stage name, his real name being Mark (with the k) Feld. I managed to find a volume of poetry (under Marc Bolan) on http://www.copac.ac.uk called The Warlock of Love, published 1969. I was a librarian for a short while in another life - good luck. --The Gold Miner 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Communist states and religion

The communist states never paid clerics and never financied any religions. Vess

Which I'd say is A Good Thing in general. Was there a question, though...? —Zero Gravitas 18:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they did -- the few surviving priests and monks were essentially state employees, and the few surviving churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples were government buildings. AnonMoos 20:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither do a lot of non-communist states. The point being? --BluePlatypus 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose - if you stretch your definition of "religion" far enough - you could say that Communism became the state religion in those states. Certainly the philosophical tenets of Communism aren't that dissimilar from those in some religions. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The ideology of Marx was far less important than the ideology of Stalin in the Soviet Union. Usually in states such as these you end up with a cult of personality which is little more than a leader elevated to the role of a diety. --Fastfission 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Communist party designed the "Soviet" to specifically replace religion with "the Soviet." That, of course, is not very Marxist, not very Socialist, and certainly not Communist. Geogre 12:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "communist state." It's possible to have a state of communism, but no State. Communism as defined by Marx and Engels is a classless, stateless society. Pckeffer

Well primitive Communism and end-stag communism were different things. The state was supposed to "wither away," but, well, there was room for plenty of argument about whether there would be no state at all. Geogre 12:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Funky Shoes

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=9323079632&indexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting

What is with the funky white parts on these shoes and are they suited for wearing with a tuxedo? --Username132 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• They're based on a style called spectator shoes. Those soles pretty much rule them out for tux wear; if you're serious, the only shoes that go with a tux are black pumps (some prefer patent leather.) On the other hand, if you're talking those multicolored frilly outfits you can get in tux rental places, you can pretty much put whatever you want on your feet. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

White tops on black shoes have been popular for a very long time. It used to be that the shoe was completely black and you wore white spats over the top of the shoe. Combined, it was considered formal wear (which would be fitting for wear with a tuxedo). --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

May 28

Adam Abdul-Hakeem fka larry Davis

I would like to know as much as possible on the subject of Larry Davis, who at the age of 19 was framed by the NYPD for four murders. He also had a shoot out with police when they tried to kill him. He beat these charges but faced an outrageous sentenced or other charges. He was also brutalized while incarcerated.

Larry Davis was a minister who misappropriated church funds... A Clown in the Dark 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Who would prosecute this?

If I got a sniper rifle, and went down to the US/Mexico border and shot someone on the Mexican side from the US side, who would prosecute me? This is only hypothetical, not like there's anyone I want to kill. A Clown in the Dark 01:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Both countries would want to, and they'd probably reach an agreement as to who would. It's no different, really, from the numerous cases where people send drugs abroad, commit international wire fraud, or blow up an international airliner. Middenface 01:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the feds would take jurisdiction from the state (which usually handles murders)? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

According to criminal jurisdiction, when shots are fired across a state line, either state can prosecute the case. I suppose the same thing would apply to an international border.

Interestingly enough, one day I was driving west on U.S. 22 out of Pittsburgh when I saw skid marks just before the West Virginia border. The marks continued across the border onto the other side, where a truck had fallen into a shallow ravine. The Pennsylvania authorities were handling it. It turns out that when a vehicle accident crosses a state line, the state where the accident started is in charge. -- Mwalcoff 03:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What if I were to swim to Cuba and kill/rape somebody, then come back to America. America wouldn't extradiate me to Cuba. What would happen??? 12.183.203.184 22:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they would. The extradition treaty set up between the U.S. and Cuba in 1926 is still in effect despite the embargo. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A movie

There was a movie that came out a few years ago - a French movie, I think - set in World War I. I believe the main plot dealt with a soldier who had left the military for some reason and then met up with a woman and her child, and they were traveling across the country... That's really all I know — does anyone recognize/know the name of this movie? Thanks. :-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The only similar movie I can think of is A Very Long Engagement --mboverload@ 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not that one. I saw that one, actually, because I thought it might be it. In the one I'm thinking of, there's a man who (sort of randomly) comes across a woman and her child, whereas in A Very Long Engagement, the love story is a little more convetional (guy goes off to war, leaving loving girlfriend behind). zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any more info? I've got France, WWI, soldier, woman and child, cross-country. Is it Marthe? Zepheus 05:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It was released (in the US) within the past few years I (2003? 2004?), so it wasn't Marthe. It had a relatively wide distribution - newspapers in your average large market would surely have had a review of it... But that's all I can think of. Perhaps I'm conflating more than one movie in my mind, though I don't think so - at any rate, thanks for trying to help. (Side question - is there any way to search movies by tags or something like that? It might help me.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 09:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Going way out here, but you're not thinking of La Belle Epoch? Just being sure. Geogre 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, but I'm not sure what La Belle Epoch is. (I thought that was just a time period around the time of Gilded-Age France; IMDb turns up nothing.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 14:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No doubt I've got the title wrong -- Spanish film, young soldier in with a very wealthy family of women, intrigue ensues. It's an excellent film, but I don't want to hijack your question by offering another poser. Geogre 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to add that "Un long dimanche de fiançailles" is the original French title for "Very long engagement" (even though the title is not completely literal).Evilbu 16:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Belle Epoque (film) ? Spanish, 1992. References : Wikipedia. Search : Google. --DLL 21:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was close to the title. Geogre 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh. This one is driving me nuts. I tried the IMDb Power Search. If you didn't you might want to try that. Put in as much criteria as you know, and maybe you'll find what you're looking for. - Zepheus 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for showing me that Power Search thing - after a little work, I am nearly 100% sure I found the movie I was looking for. It's called Les Égarés, or "Strayed," and it's actually set in WWII, not WWI. One of main actors also has a major role in A Very Long Engagement, which is perhaps how I mixed up/conflated the two. Also, there are actually two children, not just one. So my plot description wasn't all that close after all. :-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 08:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeking information about Burlesque Comedian Harry Evanson

Harry Evanson was a great uncle of mine. He shows up in one wikipedia article about Bud Abbott which mentions that he once worked with Harry Evanson as burlesque comedians. Internet searches have yielded nothing further.

I'd appreciate any information or suggestions for where I might be able to find more information.

Thanks,

Stephen Silberman StephenSS 04:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC) --""""

Http://www.bbc.us.uk/Harry_Evanson.Article.BCom.shtml

I don't know who added the above link but I can't get it to work! Can anyone help with a correction?

Stephen Silberman StephenSS 15:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary philosophy

What do contemporary philosophers think/say about mystical systems's claim to 'absolute certainty'? ( even those who have sound logical foundations?). --Cosmic girl 05:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That depends, of course, on the philosopher. Daniel Dennett is famous for being very critical of religion and anything that resembles religion. The title of his latest book says it all: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Chl 18:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Most would be pretty suspicious, and want formal arguments as to where that certainty comes from. They'd be dismissive of the idea that one can hedge a rational argument for certainty in a statement of faith. (They'd probably be suspicious of anyone claiming "absolute certainty", but especially so for overtly faith-based claims). --Fastfission 03:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

thanx! :) --Cosmic girl 16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

US House of Representative electorate boundaries

I've been editing several Florida representative articles, and I see that Corrine Brown's district is shaped very awkwardly, running from Jacksonville to Orlando, with many random cities and towns in between. I know Corrine Brown is popular with the black electorate of Jacksonville, so was she given the white rural areas to even things out and assuage gerrymandering? I just think her district looks very awkward. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

 I do believe that you are correct in saying that Ms. Brown was given
 the rurals. Knowledge Bank 15:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This district is quite a gerrymandered one. I think you are likely on the wrong track that rural areas were included to "even things out"; more likely, a pure political desire to bundle Gainesville, Sanford, and Pine Hills with part of Jacksonville lead to the grotesque shape. (But I'm guessing; [68] might have some facts.) Apparently they went so wild in the last redistricting that there's an initiative in Floridato try to prevent this in the future. -R. S. Shaw 03:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yin & Yang

I see that one of the principles of Yin Yang is that they can transform into one another , yet I've read that the transformation is conditional ( ie depends on time and readiness ) . My question is : Is it really conditional in the original philosophy , and if so how can the transformation be a principle of yin yang when it only happens occassionally , and not all yin and yang transform into each other ? Maybe it means that all yin can be yang but must apply to the conditions ?thank you Hhnnrr 12:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

nothing even close ?? Hhnnrr 23:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

When the Eastern concept of Yin and Yang began is very unclear and even within the major traditions of Confucianism and Taoism, there is a wide variety of opinion. There are two concepts that interplay in the Tao in all of these traditions. The first is that the Tao is one, so there really is no division between Yin and Yang and the other is that Yin and Yang work like a Gyroscope to keep the Tao in balance. Of course, what I've said is vastly simplified and comes from an outsider, so take it with a grain of sand! ;-) --CTSWyneken 11:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do stock exchanges close?

Why do stock exchanges close every evening? Surely in our 24 hour, global, hi-tech economy we should be able to buy and sell anytime. What would be the problem with not closing? Thanks. --The Gold Miner 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that like any job, stockbrokers would like to work "normal" hours, and probably get back to their families at a proper time for dinner and such. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they do - but then what if you're MegaBank International and you receive news at four in the morning which makes you want to sell all your stock in Foobar Industries? You have staff in offices all around the world but you have to wait till one particular exhchange is open? It doesn't make sense to me. --The Gold Miner 22:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of behind the scenes work in many institutions, and I suspect it is also true for markets. It is difficult to keep up during the day often, so down hours help. I also suspect, with the emotions of fast-paced buying and selling, traders need a little time to reflect and to research. It's too easy to become a Lemming otherwise. --CTSWyneken 11:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In most cases you can trade stocks 24 hours (via electronic exchanges), but you will generally get poor prices (and many retail brokerage firms discourage or refuse to do it). The poor prices are a result of the absence of most interested traders, who participate mostly during the main exchange's hours (because they want good prices and liquidity). -R. S. Shaw 04:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The main reason that markets close every day is to allow for clearing and settlement to take place. This allows the back end systems to sort out the days trades and work out the relevant margins. The pages mentioned should shed a little more light on things. Gallaghp 12:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that does make sense. Thank you, and thanks to everyone who responded. --The Gold Miner 00:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

European WW1/WW2 graveyards

This question has been troubling me for some time and I hope someone can answer it. Why were so many Americans buried in Europe during the wars? The names are on the gravestones, so we knew who they were. So why were they not sent back to their grieving families? Sometimes you will even see several brothers buried together. I know most were, so it wasn't just logistics. Thank you in advance for your kind help. P. Crawford

It has only been recently that American dead were repatriated. It was definitely a logstics thing. Look at the large numbers of dead at Gettysburg, their homes were considerably closer than the homes of the dead in Europe. Bodies were not returned home. Can you imagine ships full of, excuse me, rotting bodies making the long journey home from Europe? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree partialy with the opinion above, but I also think that more cold hard answers are: costs, avaliability of transportation, and plain politics (or lack of them).

Costs: I don´t know how many Americans died in the entire WW2, but they were hundered of thousands at least. Now think what the transport of all these corpses would cost. Tens of millions of US dollars? Today we would say that it is worth it. But in 1945? The money was needed in many other things, like feeding the survivors, and in the reconstruction of Europe, Japan, etc. Many countries were completly destroyed and they needed help and help means cash.

Transports: Boats were needed for many things not the least for the transport of the wounded, released prisoners, war refugees (who were counted by the millions), soon to be discharged troops (again counted by the millions), transport of military equipment, food, etc in TWO large areas (the Atlantic AND the the Pacific). Remember always that altoo many ships had been sunk during the war.

Plain politics: Today, our political correct politicians (of almost every country, always looking to gain easy votes, and never forgeting to make these safe statements in front of the cameras) will always say that the honored dead deserve to be returned to their families. Well, cold hard logic tells us the following: Better to expend the money on the living (survivors), the dead are dead, and they don´t feel anything (at least they don´t complain). I might be exagerating, but around 1945 the ppl and the goverments were a bit more honest, and ,maybe made of sterner stuff. At the very least, they called things by the correct names: Departement of War (instead of "Defense").

Call me heartless and cold, but are true leaders not suppossed to make hard decisions instead of giving political correct statements? Flamarande 21:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And hundreds of thousands of individual funerals all around the country would have been bad for morale. Jameswilson 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/November 2005#WWII - something similar was answered back in November. [69] says for WWI/II that "...the Congress enacted laws and provided funds for the return of our honored dead to the United States, or for their permanent interment overseas, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the next of kin" - in other words, they were buried, and could be returned later or permanently interred in one of the large cemeteries. They weren't returned during hostilities - this practice only began in the 1950s for the US, and the 1980s for the UK. Shimgray | talk | 22:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, one small correction: During the Civil War in the US, the South did repatriate bodies some of the time. It took money, however, and time, and was done by contributions. Of all those buried at Gettysburg, there were more that were taken south. Additionally, other battles had graves details that would ship the dead home...some of the time. It depended greatly on how hot the area was and who controlled it after the struggle. Geogre 02:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Myth

Are there any Celtic world origin stories/creation myths? 172.149.64.87 21:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. All we seem to have on creation per se is Beira (mythology), which is not very enlightening. However, you can find our coverage of various Celtic "early days" myths at Celtic_mythology#Branches_of_Celtic_mythology. Googling for "celtic creation myth" produces some sites which say there are, and some sites which say there aren't. There seem to be three basic problems: a lack of written records from the period; diversity (Celts lived everwhere across Europe, and there's some doubt as to whether it makes sense to treat them as one group); and a lot of "information" about Celts on the web is, frankly, drivel. Treat anything you do find with some scepticism. Henry^Flower 22:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. 172.132.166.151 23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Court violates its OWN orders

The court jurisdiction is Kenton County, KY (Circuit). The circuit court made an order on Feb. 16, 2006, but in a court order of May 22, 2006, it violated it's own order. Where can information be obtained that defines a court violating its own orders, and what can be done about it?

For legal information, you should consult a lawyer, not anonymous people on the Internet. My guess, if you're interested, is that a court can vary its orders. If it acts contrary to one of its orders, then it will be considered to have varied its order implicitly. My further guess is that if you want to challenge the court's action, you should do so by lodging a motion in whichever case this is. Henry^Flower 22:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Road Trip

I am driving a car across the country and want the time to go to some use. Can any historians out there give me a couple fairly popular (so that they'd be available on tape) history books on tape on really any topic that isn't TOO arcane? Something along the lines of Schama's "A History of Britain" books, which i loved, although maybe a biography will work. Thanks a lot

There's a tape version of Norman Davies The Isles (a history of the British Isles), which is a nice hefty volume in print and probably fills the same niche as the Schama. Shimgray | talk | 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks. anything similarly interesting about anywhere else in europe? any good ww2 books? it doesn't necessarily have to fit in the same niche, just as long as it's good and interesting. i'll take a look at that one though. thanks

How about Band of Brothers (the book by Ambrose)? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

May 29

Sexual harrassment

what does sexual harrasment have to do regarding gender and sexuality?can somebody please help me by answering this question. thanks

(heading added). Do? It doesn't have to do anything! What exactly are you asking? Grutness...wha? 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual harassment requires a differential of real or perceived power and harassment of a sexual nature. Sometimes gender can provide a perceived differential of power by itself, arguably, and gender delimits those things that are sexualized. Gender is not sex, of course. See gender and sexual harassment before asking us to provide narratives. Geogre 02:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Violence and low self esteem

According to the article on self-esteem:

"It used to be assumed that bullies acted violently towards others because they suffered from low self-esteem (although no controlled studies were offered to back up this position)."

Why so? Why did people think that low self-esteem leads to violence? What was the logic behind it? --Bowlhover 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the thinking was that people with low self-esteem desire higher self-esteem. To acheive this, they can either proactively improve themselves or beat up others. By physically dominating others—which, for some, is easier than confronting the inner demons that cause low self-esteem in the first place—they become superior to them, and hence "better." --zenohockey 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Do a web search for "bullying", and you will find many sites discussing the issue which you mention. The problem lies in how one defines self-esteem. Bullying has much in common with narcissism, which the WP article calls "fragile self-esteem". I call it self-delusion, which can be shattered when faced with reality, while I reserve the word self-esteem for what comes from reality-based appraisals of oneself. Right at the bottom of it I feels that facing one's own demons without fear is what distinguishes the mature human from bullies, narcissists, violent people, et al. Paradoxically, bullies and violent people are amongst the easiest of people to manipulate, ask any CIA agent. They're like arrows, you just point them in the direction you want them to go. --Seejyb 18:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bullying can be physical, mental or emotional humiliation. the way I understand it is that people who do the bullying usually come from having low self-esteem themselves and quite often start off as the victim before becoming the offender. since they don't have any confidence or self-esteem they pick on people weaker and smaller than them in order to feel good about themselves in the hope that it'll build their self-esteem --David1111

Complete Works of Shakespeare (Longman)

Does The Complete Works of Shakespeare, 5th ed. (ed. David Bevington), published by Longman, abbreviate character names in the text of the plays? (e.g., "Ham." for Hamlet) --zenohockey 02:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the edition I own, yes, the names are abbreviated. The full names are given in a character list at the beginning of the play. Adozeneggsmcgee 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid of that... Thanks, though. --zenohockey 05:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if the collection were 1/4 again as long if the character names were spelled out every time.

Probably, but if I buy any author's complete works, I'm prepared for unwieldlyness. And it might take 25% more mental effort to figure out who "1 Serv." or "Per." is every time. --zenohockey 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pumps (shoes)

Why does the article on pump (device) give a link at the top to HIGH HEELED shoes? This is wrong and should be stopped. --Username132 (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you object? The word "pump" means different things in different contexts. This could probably be cleaned up a little with a disambiguation page or the {{otheruses}} template, but some people will go to "pump" looking for the shoe. Isopropyl 03:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In any event, this belongs on the talk page of the relevant article or elsewhere, and not at the reference desk. Isopropyl 03:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the questioner is objecting because he thinks pumps are flat, not high-heeled, shoes. --Richardrj 09:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well they are, aren't they? If you check out black tie then it recommends wearing 'pumps' as shoes. --Username132 (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. The OED has the following for 'pump': "a light, low-heeled shoe, usually of patent leather and without fastening, worn with evening dress and for dancing." But, as Isopropyl says, you need to take this to the talk page for high heeled shoes, or just be bold and change it yourself. --Richardrj 11:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There clearly aren't enough women or cultured gentlemen on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have changed it but I don't know what to change it to and discussion pages are SLOOWWWW ways to change things. pumps (shoes) doesn't exist so it must be called something else. --Username132 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Pumps" is the American name for "court shoes" - they have exactly the same design and use. Smart, medium high heels, usually no straps, heels usually triangular (vs stiletto), toe shape varies with fashion. Court shoes / pumps are the shoes you'd see a lady sort of dangling from her forefoot under the table, her midfoot and heel (encased in silk, of course) quite out of the shoe. When she stands up the foot naturally just slips back into the shoe. Most ladies in dancing cometitions seem to wear court shoes / pumps. --Seejyb 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's women's pumps. Men's pumps are basically loafers, aren't they? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• There's pumps for men? All the more reason to have a disambiguation notice. If the article was located at "pump (device)" the initial poster might have had a point, but since it's located at "pump" we should refer to other stuff by the same name, not everyone will be looking for the device. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If the questioner objects to the fact they're called high-heeled, just remove it. Referring to them as just shoes works fine (even better since it's shorter) for a dab notice. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems they can be just about anything - for me pumps are what we wore in the gym at school. I cant remember offhand what Americans call those. Jameswilson 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an American/British thing. American men are unashamed to wear suspenders. British men walk about in pumps. <shrug> Geogre 04:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not even know men's pumps existed (until now), but this site about American History and Art from New England even has a picture of them, circa 1830. If the caption had said "mocassins" I'd probably have accepted that as accurate. And high heels per se are not necessary. It looks like "loafers" is appropriate. In Africa we'd call them "slippers" or "slip-ons". "Pumps" seems to be an American word, does anyone from other English speaking countries know of it being used as standard word? (I'm fortunate my wife did not see me googling for "men pumps", I would have been teased to distraction . . .) --Seejyb 21:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, in American English "pumps" are exclusively women's shoes now. Perhaps there is a regionalism, however, where it is a loafer -- that happens in the US (the famous bucket/pail line). Geogre 02:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a very limited usage in the US: formalwear. For example, Brooks Brothers has these. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CW Television network airing in Canada?

Hi, I live in BC Canada and I'm just wondering if the new CW TV network will air here? Thanks for your time.

This message post seems to indicate that CW programming will be available for people getting certain Tribune superstations, so if you have extended cable or satellite, probably yes. Of course, since The CW is a merger of existing networks, many of their more popular shows are already on the air in Canada; Veronica Mars on CTV, for example. --ByeByeBaby 01:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

iran and russia's stance in Nagorno Karabach conflict

Hello,

I would like to know about the surrounding nation's policies towards the Nagorno Karabach conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh#The_war_for_Nagorno-Karabakh

This article says :"Meanwhile, Turkey and Iran supplied trainers, and the republic also was aided by 200 Russian officers who taught basic tactics to Azerbaijani soldiers in the northwest city of Barda"

But this site says:http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=606

that there is alliance between US, Turkey, Israel,and Azerbaijan, while Iran, Armenia and Russia cooperate.

Can anyone clarify?

Evilbu 09:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadam Husain

Why is it we didnt iniolate iran Harvey Stanfield jr

We'd like to give some sort of answer, but I think we may need to understand your question in more detail. Please don't be offended by our attempts to understand. My dictionary doesn't include the word "iniolate". Do you mean "annihilate"? "isolate"? "inviolate"? Or something else? Also, who is the "we" in your question, and what is the connection you are making between Saddam Hussein and Iran? Notinasnaid 10:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "annihilate"? As in to destroy completely? Maybe I missed something in the press but what would Saddam Hussein have to do with Iran? Dismas|^(talk) 10:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Immolate? Geogre 12:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What are kids learning these days? What happened to the days of teaching kids how to suitly emphazi in school? СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 13:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Who says this is a kid? But anyway : you shouldn't put more effort in replying when this person only does that much to ask his questions. His spelling is incorrect (he could have used google and found out immediately how to write Saddam Hussein), he doesn't give a time, and he writes Iran without clarifying...Evilbu 14:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

'Iran' looks like a mistake for 'Iraq' to me. --Richardrj 14:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont see what the problem is. This is actually a message for Sadam Husain (not to be confused with Saddam Hussein) from his buddy Harvey Stanfield. He just wondered why they didn't inio late, which is obviously street slang for holding up a gas station. Then he notes "iran", just a typo. He meant "I ran" - because it can be a bit scary when you're about to inio late. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the mistake between Iraq and Iran for a while, this kind of question really annoys me. Some country's government illegally attacks another country, or produces weapons of mass destruction, so some bright guy comes along with the idea of annihilating the entire country. Even when it comes to these so-called "Axis of Evil" countries, I don't think the vast majority of the population is really guilty of anything - they might even be completely ignorant of their country's conflicts with other nations. I'm assuming the person who asked this question is from the USA - there are some people there who think that the only way to negotiate with another country is to kill enough of its people to make it comply. JIP | Talk 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed JIP, war and politics is not for nerdy intellectuals! In the time frame it takes to figure out the difference between Iraq and Iran and how to write Saddam Hussein, you could've annihilated both populations! Evilbu 19:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am from the US and I am in no way supporting what George Bush has done, but some guy that was on Saddam's cabinet (the minister of war, I believe) said that they did have weapons of mass destruction and he doesn't care what we found. I kind of think Bush's invasion was justified, but the long drawn out process of making it a democracy and whatnot is just putting a drain on the economy, and above all else, annoying. Like many others I belive it isn't our place. One last thing: please don't place a stereotype on Americans (Evilbu!) based on one person's ignorance. That's like saying saying you're a nerdy dragonball z freak with no life because your username is evilbu! Imagine if I said that. Wouldn't you be offended? schyler 19:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I'm laughing so hard I can hardly breath! That's a joke, right? "please don't place a stereotype on Americans (Evilbu!) based on one person's ignorance." "Bush's invasion was justified, but the long drawn out process of making it a democracy and whatnot is just putting a drain on the economy, and above all else, annoying. Like many others I belive it isn't our place." It was okay to do the fun, exciting invading bit where you destroy the infrastructure, services, farmland, people, etc, but why should we hang around preventing them from being invaded by religious fanatics as they struggle to stay alive and rebuild? I mean, they're people used to living in a first world country, a third world country must be easier, right? It isn't our place to help build societies, only break them up.... Skittle 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I obviously AM a DBZ fan (among many others : I am also a history buff, movie lover and math student), but yes that would offend me. I agree the last sentence was unnecessary (and I removed it). I admit I got quite worked up to see someone proposing weird stuff while obviously not putting any effort in it.Evilbu 20:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I recommend Cobra II by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor. The question of WMD, why there weren't any, why the Iraqis thought there were, and why Saddam didn't cooperate as completely as he could have with the UN while he cooperated with the UN is explained. I just finished the book yesterday, and it's definitive. Here's the pocket version of it. Saddam did not have WMD, and he knew it. However, he was not afraid of a US invasion. He was afraid of a Shiite uprising in the south and an Iranian invasion. He had used chemical weapons (not as many as he tried to use, as these fearsome WMD malfunctioned and didn't go off) against the uprising in 1991, but his regime had destroyed them all. However, he wanted to have a deterrence by doubt. He didn't want to violate the UN ruling and justify an invasion, but he wanted everyone to think he had WMD. He never had bio weapons and had never developed any. His nuclear program had not even been reconstituted to the planning on planning level. There is a vast amount to say about this. He made an announcement to his general staff two weeks before the invasion that there were no WMD, but they were so used to paranoia and gaming that they didn't believe it. They thought he must still have some but not want them to know about it. As late as the 3rd ID's incursions into Bagdad, Iraqi commanders thought they might be rescued by the use of the WMD Saddam had told them he didn't have. Geogre 03:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Skittle, sorry if I get you wrong but did you call Iraq a first world country? Evilbu 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq was a first world country, unless you define a first world country as 'Western Europe, North America and Oceania'. If you're defining it as 'developed country' rather than 'developing'. It isn't really any more. There were very bad things happening in Iraq before the sanctions and war, but that isn't enough to make it a third world country by any stretch. Germany was still a first world country in the '30s. Much of Iraq was populated by People Like Us, doctors and shopkeepers and bankers and businessmen and museum curators. Now they are living in a third world country. I don't see how they can be expected to rebuild it without extensive help, because I know we (the majority of people in my country) couldn't, particularly if there were rival factions, gangs and religous fanatics trying to moving into the power vacuum. Skittle 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

apple - the new microsoft?

hi, recently the french government passed a law saying that all MP3 players have to be able to play all downloaded music (or maybe it was the other way around-anyway the effect is the same). this, as you can imagine, had apple all stewed becuase it meant that they could no longer force people to buy from iTunes. my question is, why are other countries ok with apple arm-twisting consumers? whilst ipods are great, i would appreciate at least having the option of shopping around for my digital music rather than having to pay 79p ($1.50!) on itunes UK -it doesnt even let me download it cheaper from the german or US sites! why isn't this seen as being massively anti-competitive (given that something like 75% of all MP3 players sold are ipods) and why hasn't someone brought apple to book? thanks! 87.194.20.253 11:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand this whole competitive vs. anti-competitive thing. I mean, Apple is a company, and it's out to make money. What is so surprising about the fact that they want to lock people into their formats? Surely, if they've developed the software, they are entitled to do whatever they like with it. If people don't like it, they can go elsewhere. What am I missing here? --Richardrj 12:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of the other way around than the way you've stated it. Apple aren't forcing people to buy from iTunes for their iPods, it's more about making you have an iPod to download and play music from iTMS. You see, Apple don't really make much money from the music sales, but they do from selling iPods. You agree that the iPod is "great", but there are plenty of other options to get music on to it including ripping CDs and buying from other download sites which offer MP3s, AAC, MP4, WAV, AIFF or other iPod compatible formats. The French law was about getting Apple to open up its FairPlay DRM system to other MP3 player manufacturers so that iTunes songs could be played on those players. The reason for the difference in price between countries is because that is the cost per song that country's record industry has negotiated with Apple. --Canley 13:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good - that enables me to ask my question again :) Why should Apple open up its DRM to other manufacturers? What business is it of the government's what MP3 players Apple makes iTunes songs playable on? Like I said, Apple is a business, and people who own other MP3 players would just have to not shop at iTunes. --Richardrj 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See antitrust for some of the arguments on both sides. 130.188.8.13 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Even the most free-market countries have thousands of pages of laws about what to do if a particular company, or group of companies, gets so dominant in its field that it is in a position to dictate customer's choices. So sometimes governments have to split up companies, order them to sell part of their business, etc. You see it a lot with takeovers of, say, one supermarket chain by another. If the result would be that the only two major supermarkets in a small town would end up in the hands of one company, they are not allowed to take over the store in that particular town as part of the deal. Instead it has to be sold to a third party.

I dont know the ins and outs of this case but in general a free market only works efficiently if customers have the whip hand over producers. So if iTunes are clearly the best, fair enough, but Apple has to be stopped from using that dominance to get consumers to buy other goods, such as a particular MP3 player (which may not be the best value) on the back of that. Otherwise, the free market in MP3 players isnt going to work, (so the best producers are rewarded, I mean). That can only happen if the decision which MP3 player to buy is a separate choice - ie people buy the best MP3 player (in terms of quality and/or price) on its own merits, not just because one has compatibility with iTunes and the other doesnt. Jameswilson 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think one should also consider: why is the iTunes Music Store so popular? It's not the cheapest online music store, and there are very few songs or albums you couldn't get from another online store or a CD. The reason iTMS is so popular is because iPods are popular! Apple's whole marketing strategy is to promote the synergy between the iPod and iTunes. If you don't have an iPod, you use another music store. True "anti-competitive" behaviour is a company using it's dominance in the market to destroy other companies, and apart from producing a "cool", "desirable" and "popular" product, I don't think Apple has behaved like this at all. -Canley 06:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but, Canley, having a strategy to "promote" synergy between them is one thing, but the argument is that Apple have gone over the line, by virtually enforcing the synergy by making their product incompatible with others.

The general point is interesting though. What happens if, via free market competition, one company becomes dominant and unassailable in its field. Fair and square. No questionable conduct. Just through the excellence of their product/service. Free market competition has resulted in a clear winner.

What do the competition authorities do then? Do they say congratulations, and let the company enjoy the fruits of its success for the next ten years. Or, do they say, our job is to ensure that there is a truly competitive market but your very success at out-selling your rivals means we no longer have that in this sector. And as we believe in the benefits of competition above all else (for innovation, etc) we cant sit back and let you carry on unchallenged for ten years. We'll have to change the rules of the game in some way to encourage new competitors into this sector to replace the ones you have beaten.

In a way its tough on the successful company but from the free-market ideology point of view you may have to do that. In the above case, if the authorities dont do anything the next generation of MP3 players (or whatever replaces them) probably wont be American, because no American company will invest in the R+D as long as the compatibility issue remains. Jameswilson 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Chili revolt : Wolf Biermann sings about cameraman filming his own murder

Hello,

in our German class in high school, we listened to "Der Kameramann" (the cameraman) by Wolf Biermann. It was about the 1973 coup in Chili by Pinochet.

These are the lyrics (only in German) :http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4092/Chile/biermann.html

My question is about this part :

"Und das ist Chile in einem Wort: Ein Mann filmt seinen Mörder. Beim Mord! Der Kameramann zielt genau auf den Mann. Der Mann legt genau auf die Kamera an. Dann wackelt das Bild, der Film reisst ab."

rough translation( sorry, neither English nor German is my native language)

"And that is Chili in one word : a man films his murdered, during the murder! The cameraman aims at the man. The man aims at the camera. Then the images become unstable, the film rolls off."

So basically it's about a cameraman filming a group of soldiers during the coup, and when he films one of them, the soldiers spots him, aims at the camera, shoots, and you can see the cameraman is falling down. I'm way too young to have seen it myself on TV back then.

Did this happen for real, or did Biermann make it up? I have been looking for years all over the internet now, and I have never found anything about, so needless to say : I haven't found the images either.

So all replies are welcome.

Evilbu 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I quote from The Washington Post :

After 32 Years, Zooming In on a Killer, By Monte Reel, Washington Post Foreign Service, Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page D01

. . . Moments later, Henrichsen lay sprawled on the pavement with a fatal bullet lodged in his chest, while his camera pointed up at a blank sky. A soldier grabbed the camera, yanked out a reel of film and destroyed it, unaware that there was a second chamber with six more minutes of shot film inside.

There is a picture of the cameraman. If you read the article you will see that they have apparently now managed to identify the killer, from the film that was not removed. --Seejyb 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The accused killer of Leonardo Henrichsen as alleged by Henrichsen's family is Héctor Hernán Bustamante Gómez. Sounds like there still hasn't been a trial. [70] --Cam 04:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't a "chili revolt" be what your intestines do when you eat chili with too many hot chilies in it ? "When chilly in Chile, eat chili with chilies." StuRat 22:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Name that tune

It has been about 6 months since I last asked this, so I'll see if anyone new recognizes this now...

In the early 90s (1990-1992), when MTV still played music, there was a one-hit-wonder rap artist with a song about going to "Club E in Del Mar" and hitting on a woman who "Dissed" him. After 15 years, I have very little memory for the song, but I'l like to know who the artist was or what the name of the song was. Searching Google is useless. There is a song called "Club Del Mar" that is not rap or American or even from the past 30 years. So, finding this minor rap song is very difficult. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Phew. Do you remember any other lyrics? I searched [ohhla.com], which, while incomplete, is pretty much exclusively American rap lyrics, and found no hits for "Del Mar" or "Club E" (except for once when E-Roc was talking about a club). Sorry I couldn't be of any more help. --ByeByeBaby 01:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not "Funky Cold Medina," is it? Geogre 03:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the title that first popped to my mind as well. Dismas|^(talk) 06:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I know that one. The problem is that I really don't like rap at all. When I was stationed in 29 Palms and just got a TV, MTV had this rap song in rotation. I ignored it until I heard the lyric "dissed me a miss". A very common Marine Corps phrase is "disked a miss". Next time, I listened to the song. The guy talked about heading down I-5 to go to a fabled "club called E" in Del Mar. There is a huge Marine Corps E-Club in Del Mar. The whole rap song was peppered with Marine Corps lingo. So, since I was in the Marines, the song stuck in my head.

Now, why do I care about this song? After I heard it, I started hearing everyone using the phrase "dissed (me/him/her/them) a miss" - and they weren't Marines. I thought it funny that a bad pronunciation of "disked" would catch on as "dissed". Then, a couple years later, the phrase was just "dissed". But, instead of being traced back to the rap song, everyone said it was short for "disresepct". So, if I can find the original song, I can demonstrate that before the popularity of "dissed", there was a rap song in which the artist complained about being "dissed" when he meant "disked". --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally a side issue, but I think you're going to lose that particular etymological argument. I think "dissed" for "disrespected/dismissed" goes back to the 1970's. "Homeboy" goes back, for example, very, very far, and a fair amount of rap slang was rife before it was recorded. (I'm not sure whether a new Partridge's Dictionary would keep track. Obviously, the OED does, but we'll have to wait quite a while for it, and it'll be confined to print sources anyway.) Geogre 13:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The first recorded use I have been able to find, since I cannot find this song to determine if it is older or not, is a Public Enemy interview from 1987. There are rumors that it was used in rap music all the way back to the 70s, but there is no example of such. Popular use didn't begin until well after 1990. So, I just want to know which came first - diss or the elusive rap song with the line "diss a miss". --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First Punic Wars

Does anyone know who the military dictator the Romans appointed when Hamilcar Barca took most of Sicily, I think it was near the end of the conflict 241 BC? Ok thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Mosley (talk • contribs) 18:19 UTC, 29 May 2006.

Punic Wars is a good place to start. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was Aulus Atilius Caiatinus. See First Punic War for lots of classical detail. --Cam 04:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Using food with art

I'm wanting to find any articles written on the importance of why it is not recommended to use food with art projects. If anyone has come across an article(s) I would appreciate knowing about it. Thanks. --Ikaplan 17:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea it is not recommended to use food with art projects? It is not something I have heard of. People have used food for centuries, e.g. still life painters paint fruit, vegetables (and dead fish/animals for that matter). Tyrenius 01:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Butter sculpture MeltBanana 01:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the art could be perishable, but modern art is sometimes not intended to be permanent. Also, every American kid has used pasta to make "art". --Nelson Ricardo 01:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For children's art projects, it's wise to forbid the use of foods because little tykes might try to eat the art. Since, for it to have become art, it will probably have gotten glue and finishes and paints on it, it might not be good for the tum-tum. People who use food in their art have to either use varnish on it or some other sealant to prevent its biodegrading and getting aromatic... unless that smell/decay is part of the art. If it is, run for your life. Geogre 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate sculpture and modeling needs no varnish. It needs a temperate room too. --DLL 21:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend you do as artist Toi Sennhauser did. She baked bread using her own vaginal yeast: Article here

At my university there was a student who made a sculpture of a bed out of partially eaten slices of toast. It was on display in a stairwell for several months (until it began to go green and they had to dispose of it).

Legalization of Marijuana (In the US)

In recent months I have been thinking about this subject (mostly because of the use of it and MANY other drugs by my siblings and its effects). I am going to number my questions to make them easier to answer.

1. Why would marijuana be legalized in the first place?
2. If marijuana were to be legalized, would it only be prescribed?
3. Or could anyone carry it?
4. What reasons would there be to prescribe it.
5. Who would produce/manufacture/distribute it?
6. If it were only prescribed, would there be an increase in impersonating an M.D. by filling out a prescription?
7. Would anyone really care about the new law, and just go about using it the way marijuana has been used?
8. What kind of things would happen to our population (again in the US) if it were legalized for anyone to use?

Thank you for helping answer my questions. schyler 21:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• 1. because prohibition doesn't work, and only serves to breed contempt for laws and authority
  2. maybe
  3. maybe
  4. See California medical marijuana law for an example
  5. It's not exactly rocket science to grow the stuff
  6. maybe; see "contempt for laws and authority"
  7. maybe; see "contempt for laws and authority"
  8. a lot fewer people would be imprisoned for victimless crimes
• However: Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and the reference desk isn't really a place for speculation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia (even the reference desk) is not for speculation. I can only advise to questioner to look into places where marijuana is legal. In what ways are they better than the United States due to legalization of marijuana? In what ways are they worse than the United States due to legalization of marijuana? --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely we have an article on marijuana legalization... Right? Hey! We do! And it has an article linked off of it specifically dealing with the U.S. Dismas|^(talk) 06:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The legalization debate would surely involve a Joint Congressional Committee. And if it were legalized, maybe it would be produced by US tobacco companies and be as unregulated as tobacco, allowing those dopes to put in toxic additives, making it just as deadly. Well, as they say, "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence". :-) StuRat 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

May 30

pearl harbor

In simple terms, what happened at pearl harbor and why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.171.146 (talk • contribs)

This is what the Simple English Wikipedia article on Pearl Harbor says:

“ Pearl Harbor is a naval base in the U.S. state of Hawaii, on the island of Oahu. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, which was a surprise. The attack led to America's fighting in World War Two. Ben Affleck starred in the Hollywood remake of the attack. ”

In the future if you have trouble understanding a Wikipedia article (I assume you looked at our Pearl Harbor article before writing to this reference desk), you can try your search in the Simple English Wikipedia:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

previous answers (in bad faith)

We're not going to do your homework for you. See Attack on Pearl Harbor. - Zepheus 01:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, anyone who can't ask their parent "in simple terms, what happened at pearl harbor and why" and get a meaningful answer doesn't deserve to know: the only one who deserves an education is someone whose parents are well-educated. Do you think the kid who thought to ask the question "in simple terms" didn't try to read the first paragraph of pearl harbor? Why should we magnify the effects that he/she can't get a straight answer to "Mom, what does this mean?"

Bombs fell. People died. --Serie 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ships sank. Planes got shot down. --Tyrenius 19:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Serie! Tyrenius! The question includes "and why". Bombs fell. [2,403] people [in the United States military] died. Because the country of Japan attacked some United States military ships and airplanes. The attack was a complete surprise because America wasn't at war yet with Japan, but Japan was already fighting in World War II. After the attack on Pearl Harbor America started to fight in World War II.

If someone is offended with me "doing the poster's homework" they might as well go and delete the simple English wikipedia entry: [71].

One country Japan made a massive tactical error big mistake, by attacking America, dooming the countries it was allied with to failure and as a result the countries on Japan's side lost World War II. Skittle 00:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Civics Class question

Good Evening,

Could you please help me to understand what it means when a political leader is referred to as an "owl". Thank you very much.

That they're nocturnal and eat rats? (Just kidding. A dictionary would be your best help here, not an encyclopedia.) Geogre 03:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That or they hoot and make people die (Again, I'm just going based on the above suggestion, I suggest looking @ wiktionary:owl and seeing which definitions seem appropriate). 68.39.174.238 05:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's a back formation from the collective term for owls, a parliament of owls. JackofOz 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It took me a while. Geoffrey Chaucer puns are pretty rare. Geogre 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Judges and free speech

I was just wondering if judges are cosidered "Public Officials" within its meaning in the NY Times v Sullivan case. Xtra 02:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Judging by 15 minutes of research, and disclaiming any trained legal expertise (IANAL and all that): it depends. If you have access to it, take a look at 44 A.L.R.5th 193, §§ 17[a]-[b]. --zenohockey 03:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who holds public office is a public official. That would include judges. Which means that the Sullivan actual malice standard applies to the criticism of a judge's official duties. There are contextual exceptions, of course: lawyers are subject to disciplinary rules as members of the bar that make them a little restricted in how abrasively they can comment on a judge's ruling, and when anyone is in a judge's courtroom, contempt charges will always be a risk if you go too far in insulting a judge. Does that answer your question? Postdlf 03:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Determining the exact name of a certain org

OK, I'm trying to find out exactly what the name of the New Jersey Supreme Court/Supreme Court of New Jersey as I proposed it be moved and then discovered that... noone seemed to know exactly WHAT it was called. All sources I've turned up so far are either inconclusive (Like the State Constitution), or contradict themselves (Like their offical seal and offical website [!]). Does anyone know, or have an idea where a definative name could be found? Thanx. 68.39.174.238 05:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea, but if I had to pick a source to go with, the seal seems to be the best bet to me. --Chapuisat 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I just looked at the seal and I see what you mean. In this case, I would look at the naming convention for all the other state supreme court pages. --Chapuisat 16:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can have a naming convention, as states may give their courts different names. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that other state supreme coorts really have much say on this though... 68.39.174.238 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has an "official" name in the sense you are hoping for. It is vested in the Constitution of NJ [72], which next to the simple appellation "the Supreme Court" variously uses both versions (see [73] and [74]). An official NJ web site also uses both versions on one web page [75]. So it is called by both names, and neither is "the" official name. It is just "the Supreme Court", and the rest is tagged on for disambiguation. If they had been Wikipedians, they might have used "Supreme Court (New Jersey)". The version "Supreme Court of New Jersey" sounds more official, and if you really want to make an impression, try the "Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey" [76]. --Lambiam^Talk 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been through most of those before, and am glad I didn't miss anything. As it is I'm trying to find the most appropriate place for the page. If it's the new one there should be some definate evidence, and if not I'll pull the move request. Another idea, if they are functionally and offically equal, should the articel mention that? 68.39.174.238 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The ottoman empire

sorry to bother, but i was just wandering what the Ottoman Empire achieved? i also wanted to know why it was so special and why it was destroted

thank you for your kind words(which i will receive)

tabz

• Please let us know if you still have any questions after reading our article on Ottoman Empire. Thanks, Notinasnaid 08:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Stop wandering. You might get lost. I suggest you start wondering. It's much more productive. - 131.211.210.11 09:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've often wondered why wander is pronounced wonder, but wonder is pronounced wunder. It'd be wonderful to find out. No wonder the poor questioner is confused. JackofOz 11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wanda! I wandaaa ..." --Cam 13:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• destroted? Grutness...wha? 09:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, they seem to have invented a nice comfy place to rest your feet while relaxing on a recliner after a hard day's work. Loomis51 09:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire and Pearl Harbour both came up in the Radio Times crossword today. Is this just a spooky coincidence? --Shantavira 12:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do they really change the spelling of American place names? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, just as Roma becomes Rome in an English atlas (or encyclopedia).--Shantavira 17:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's two different languages! It seems weird to see something as clearly American as "Pearl Harbor" Britishized. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why it was so special and why it was destroyed ? An instructive parallel would be "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. A nice and revigorating booklet. --DLL 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the "Briticization" of "Pearl HarboUr", it's just another case of the British (or Commonwealth) practice of retaining the "U" in many words where Americans have dropped it. It would GREATLY surprise me if Americans (uncharacteristically) showed the type of linguistic restraint that you seem to expect from the Brits. For example, would Americans respect the Canadian spelling of Nova Scotia's "Halifax HarboUr"? I doubt it. In American English it's surely revised as "Halifax Harbor". Loomis51 22:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There's blood on everyone's hands about this kind of thing. Rumsfeld is the "Secretary of Defense", a formal title whose spelling should be honoured everywhere, yet whenever it's mentioned in the Australian press it morphs into the non-existent title "Secretary of Defence". I guess when our Minister for Defence is mentioned in the U.S. press, he would be referred to as the Australian "Minister for Defense". JackofOz 23:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We Americans usually leave "Labour Party" as is, though. --Cam 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's good. The Australian Labor Party officially changed that part of its name from "Labour" to "Labor" back in the 1970s, yet it is still sometimes spelled as "Labour" by well-meaning people both here and overseas. Our article is deficient about this aspect of its history. I'll do what I can to correct it. JackofOz 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Humanities

I am trying to locate an article or any article similar to the subject matter. The Subject is; " The policies, objectives and conmcept of a vernacular society. Thank you. George De Rozario

Edward Goldsmith seems to do a lot of writing on vernacular society. Nowimnthing 15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright holder for Wikipedia contributions

I've recently seen several examples where disgruntled Wikipedia editors are sending DMCA takedown notices to our "designated agent" to take down their contributions. Now such a notice needs to contain a statement that, under penalty of perjury, the sender is authorized to act for the copyright holder. My question is this: Who is, legally, the "copyright holder" for contributions to Wikipedia, especially in light of the fact that an article is generally a collaborative work, involving the creative input of several editors? Could, say the Wikimedia Foundation potentially be compelled to promptly take down the Jimbo page at the whim of AaronSw (who effectively started it[77]), or else risk losing "safe harbor" status? --Lambiam^Talk 10:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is something best handled by the lawyers, I'm afraid. I'm not a lawyer and this is therefore not legal advice. We have notices all over the place that contributions here are under an open content license. The question at hand would be whether such notices are binding on editors, when we haven't signed anything. If not, then the rights to the contributions of each individual editor are still with those editors. Practically speaking, it would be very difficult for a contributor to establish what they wrote, that it was original expression, etc. especially to the standards of a court of law. There are also probably dozens of things I'm missing, so, let's leave the question with the lawyers. --CTSWyneken 10:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeking legal advice. I'm just curious to find out how people more expert in current U.S. legal thought than I am (of which there must be some among the readers of these pages) think how these legal terms might be interpreted in this context. --Lambiam^Talk 14:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Each contributor agrees to license their contributions. In short, everyone who edits an article is a copyright holder on the article, but they have all agreed when submitting it to license it under GFDL. If the material submitted to an article was done by someone who had the ability to license the copyright in the first place (i.e., it was actually their original contribution), then they should not be able to sue Wikimedia for infringement. --Fastfission 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia contributor is the copyright holder of whatever contributions that he makes, but not the article as a whole if it includes the contributions of others; no one has a greater claim to an article than the specific elements that they put into it. This copyright becomes effective (the work is fixed in a tangible medium) when the words are first typed on the screen in the edit window, not when the "save page" button is pushed. Pushing the "save page" button just acts to distribute the copyrighted work to Wikipedia for online posting and to license it under the GFDL terms. That none of this is in writing doesn't matter because we're dealing with a license—permission to use, not an assignment of all rights. Licenses have been implied by courts under much less than the express circumstances we operate by here. Postdlf 03:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• People who submit to Wikipedia agree to license their work under the GFDL. You can't revoke that license once it's posted. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So says the license, but that's never been tested in court. For great justice. 22:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Public Speaking

Can anybody help me with as assignment? We had to create a speech which I already did and then read it in front of a bunch of adults. Anyway does anybody have some public speaking tips?

You will find lots of useful external links from our article on public speaking. --Shantavira 12:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Most important: "Don't panic". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

When you're up there, remember (a) they want to hear what you have to say, or they wouldn't be there, and (b) you probably know more about the subject than any of them.--24.80.70.174 16:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Important too. Do not leave your eye upon the text you're reading. Talk to the farthest person in the room - be sure to be distincly heard. And smile like a clown. You shall feel ridiculous, but, from the distance, people will only remember a good impression from you. --DLL 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Practising public speaking in front of the mirror will probably not help. I tried it once, and barely got a word out. Fear or anxiety had nothing to do with it. I felt ridiculous trying to speak when I knew no one was listening. In the end, I just read my seminar paper over and over again, and when I got to the presentation, I just carried it out as I went along. It was very difficult for the first couple of minutes, but then I "got hang" of what my seminar paper was all about, and went so technical-minded that I didn't worry about the audience any more. Of course this was only in a group of less than twenty people, not nearly a large public audience. JIP | Talk 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say that I find practicing the talk out loud many times helps me quite a bit -- it allows me to anticipate the entire thing ahead of time, to know where every potentially awkward turn of phrase is, and feel confident that it will take the amount of time I want it to. I feel a lot better giving a talk I've practiced at least twice. And it's not that no one is listening -- the intended audience of a practice talk is yourself. If you listen to your own words you'll be able to tell what there is to improve before someone else listens to them. --Fastfission 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Then there's the classic advice to make you less afraid by visualizing your audience naked. Of course, if your audience is attractive and you are an easily exited male, you might want to be sure you're standing behind a podium, or you might come off as a bit stiff. :-) StuRat 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Depending on how excited he became, he might need to be exited more quickly than he anticipated. :--) JackofOz 00:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "I hate to just come and go, but...". :-) StuRat 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Never, ever give in to the common North American temptation to open your speech with a joke. It's trite and will usually garner little more than a sympathy laugh. If it bombs, it'll just increase your initial awkwardness and nervousness. --DavidGC 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with opening with a good, new joke. I do agree, however, that a bad, old joke is worse than no joke. StuRat 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Smile: If your audience knows that you're interested in your material, they're likely to be conned into trying to see why. Look like you're pleased to be there. It makes a huge difference. The more bored or scared you seem, the more bored/embarassed they'll be. Geogre 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Practice in front of a mirror.
• Smile.
• Pick one person towards the centre of the audience and pretend that they are a friend of yours who is interested in learning what you have to say, and speak as though you are speaking to them alone.
• Don't be afraid to move - ou don't have to cling to the podium (but don't wave your arms around too much!)
• Remember that you are the only one who knows the exact content of your speech so (a) you are teaching the audience, since you know that one fact more than them, and (b) if you do fluff a line, it probably won't be as obvious as you think.
• get interested - or at least try to seem interested - in what you're talking about. The best speakers in the world could read the phone book and hold an audience if they seemed interested in what they were saying.
• Most important of all - GO TO THE BATHROOM BEFORE YOU HAVE TO GET UP TO SPEAK!

Grutness...wha? 06:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So Grutness, it sounds like you may have a very personal reason for adding that last bullet ? :-) StuRat 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:) No, it's just often regarded as the single most important rule of public speaking - but it's one that a lot of people forget until they start to speak. Grutness...wha? 11:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speak loudly, slowly, and clearly. However loud you're speaking, double the volume. However slow you're speaking, half the tempo. I'm a former debating president, so I've seen a lot of public speaking, and I have never yet seen someone do it too loudly, or too slowly. Oh, and enjoy yourself! :-) If you're happy, confident, and comfortable, that will come across to your audience, and make you a much more engaging speaker. Mnemeson 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be, 'however loud/slow you normally speak"!? Or else it could get very interesting half way through your speech! ;) Dave 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Temple of Apollo, London

What supporting evidence is available that the Temple of Apollo was at Westminster? (Your ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Pauls_Cathedral)

Is there any substance to the claim that Westminster Abbey is built over the Temple's site?

All I could find was this: [78] Looks like it is just a rumor, maybe that page should be changed to reflect the uncertainty as nothing in Brittanica or World Book mentions this rumored temple. I'll leave it up to those of you who know more about British history. I also note that wikipedia's official article on Westminster abbey doesn't mention it, so it should probably be corrected. Nowimnthing 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Most religious buildings were build on the ruins of older ones. The stones are not cheap to quarry and carry ; the place retains some spirit that it is good to vampirize or revamp ; and so on. Ever if there is no source, there are strong chances. Now, Apollo or Belenus ? Or Borvo ? --DLL 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble believing a temple dedicated to a greek god would be located in the UK. I'd recommend removing it unless we can get some clear sourcing in. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There are a large number of temples in the UK to all sorts of gods (the Romans were rather inclusive.) Rmhermen 18:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The destruction of the Temple of Apollo by Lucius of Britain around 200CE is mentioned in the Flores Historiarum over a millenium later; although it may have been mentioned in an earlier work by Sulcard. Gustave Doré recounts some other theories of the Abbey's origin. [79] MeltBanana 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bushmen

Hi. I am doing a project about bushmen, and I need to know how they used ostrich-eggs and how they hid it. I can't find any detail anywhere, not even mentioning a good webpage. Please help me! I am desperate...Thank you!

This National Geographic page [80] doesn't talk about the eggs, but it has a lot of links and a bibliography as well as dates of other NG articles. If I remember my anth classes, most of those books will talk about the importance of ostriches to the San. Nowimnthing 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It also might help to know that many Bushmen prefer to be referred to as the Khoi, !Kung, or various other names, so not all information will pop up from a web search of "Bushmen".--M@rēino 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Music credit for Rumble Fish

Could someone with a DVD or a soundtrack CD from this movie please check the music credits and see whether Rudy Colombini is listed. The amazon.com photo of the front cover only mentions Stewart Copeland. See Talk:Rudy Colombini for why I'm asking. Thanks. Phr (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked IMDB and there is no mention of Colombini. Sounds very dubious to me. --Richardrj 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I own the DVD, and there is only Copeland. Is this supposed to be one of the musicians who executed Copeland's music, perhaps? Even there...no listing. Geogre 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I could go to the Nob Hill Hotel and ask him. (not kidding, btw) - Zepheus 21:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zepheus, I'd rather that you didn't ask him. He's been spamming Wikipedia but not recently; might as well let sleeping dogs lie (see the AfD for Fitzgerald Hotel). To Geogre: thanks for checking that. The Rudy Colombini article (likely written by himself, see the talk page) says "Rudy Colombini has been featured on both Universal and EMI records, was co-writer for the soundtrack of Francis Ford Coppola's film Rumble fish". Phr (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't. Alright, so I was half-kidding. It's just so tempting because he's nearby. - Zepheus 22:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• If any are interested, discuss this page and others at Talk:Rudy Colombini. - Zepheus 05:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

May 30

Antarctican Elections

Hi, I was wondering if any elections are held in any Antarctic bases for leadership positions, such as mayoralties in the civilian Chilean and Argentine bases? Thank you for any assistance you can render.

I kind of doubt it considering that it is mainly research stations manned by scientists. Leaders of scientific expeditions are usually chosen by the sponsoring government or agency. Kind of like when you go on a cruise ship, you don't get to vote on who gets to be the captain, the captain is hired by the owners of the ship. The sponsoring party has the responsibility of protecting its investment. Maybe this will help: List of research stations in Antarctica. Nowimnthing 20:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about local elections, but in 2005, the residents of "Argentine Antarctica" voted overwhelmingly for the "Federal Fueguino" party for parliament. "Fueguino" is the adjective form of "Tierra del Fuego," which Argentine Antarctica is considered a part of for electoral purposes. ([81]) -- Mwalcoff 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Italian parliamentary electoral system now has 4 electoral zones representing Italians living abroad. One of these zones covers Italians living in Asia, Africa, Australia and Antarctica. See Parliament of Italy#Overseas Constituency. JackofOz 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CULTURE OR SOCIETY WITH NO MUSIC

I am developing a paper on music and the various 'acceptable' forms in today's society. From an anthropological perspective, has there been a culture, society, tribe or some other known group that does not have some type of music (instrumental, vocal or both)? Thanks for the assistance.

Not that I know of, although I believe music was illegal in Afghanistan, under the Taliban. According to our article on the Taliban: "The Taliban banned all forms of television, imagery, music and sports". Of course, making something illegal rarely stops it completely. StuRat 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hardly think they banned Qur'an recitation or other very traditional Islamic chants, though I doubt they were very keen on Sufi music.--Pharos 11:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

not according to Grout's History of Western Music.

I seem to recall reading about tribes in which music was considered so sacred that only grown men were allowed to make (or hear?) it, and then only in certain rituals. Ring a bell with anyone? Skittle 16:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be very surprised by this; it's far more likely that a certain kind of music would be restricted to men.--Pharos 11:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Same idea of acceptability stands for dance in cathoolic countries. Danse nourishes upon body movement and music. The French word dance comes from a germanic origin, is this showing that the latin word was defnitly banned in those days ? --DLL 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Potentially, Laurent, South Dakota may be a local community without music.Bwithh 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know; surely the deaf can appreciate percussion.--Pharos 11:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• There might be some societies that have banned music, but I highly doubt you'll find one that never invented music. The Swadesh list includes the word "sing", which indicates that the word sing is common to virtually all languages. You can check the Rosetta Project homepage, though. If they list a language that has no word for sing, it means either that the people do not sing, or (and this is MUCH more likely IMO) their word for "sing" has not been properly translated yet.--M@rēino 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Clothing for very hot and humid climate??

What kinds of clothing have people traditionally developed for wearing in very hot and humid climates? It's been extremely hot in Toronto with the humidex in the 40s, and I'm conisdering trying some unconventional clothing, perhaps from another culture, that was speficially designed for these kind of conditions.--Sonjaaa 22:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably very little clothing is what most natives of such regions wear. If forced to wear clothes, then perhaps light colored, air-permeable, loose fitting clothing ? I find underwear are a particular problem in such weather, as the sweat in them never evaporates. So, you may want to "go commando". Alternatively, changing clothes as soon as they get sweaty works, too. StuRat 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So basically loincloth type clothing or nudity works best.--Sonjaaa 04:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

suggest you visit a reputable outdoor equipment/adventure type shop and ask them. they should be able to advise. --DPM 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That advice falls into the same category as "don't ask the barber if you need a haircut". That is, if you go to a store that sells clothing, they are sure to advise that you buy their clothing to stay cool. It may very well keep you cooler than other clothing, but I'm rather skeptical that it would keep you cooler than no (or very little) clothing. StuRat 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it may seem counterintuitive, but it would seem that less clothing doesn't neccesarily translate into more comfort in hot weather. Think of traditional Arabian garb. Living in the dessert, if they've mastered anything at all it's the art of staying cool in insanely hot weather (50c+...nothing like we Canadians can even imagine). The key actually seems to try to leave as little skin as possible exposed, (which also seems rather counterintuitive), to wear very loose fitting clothing, to make sure the clothing is made of the most "breathable" of fabrics (cotton is ideal), and finally, one factor that most people seem to neglect, the colour of the clothing is exteremely important. It should be as light as possible, white being ideal, as the darker the colour, the more heat it absorbs, whereas the lighter, the more it deflects. Basically, if you're willing to walk the streets of TO looking like Lawrence of Arabia, you'd actually probably be even quite a bit more comfortable than walking the streets completely nude. Then again, didn't a bunch of feminists in Ontario not to long ago win a court case allowing women to go topless in public? I kinda think that's a cool idea too. Loomis51 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the clothing you descibe is designed for exceedingly hot and very dry climates - I think the humidity makes a difference, as all that cloth would get soaked and stick together, reducing ventilation. My own experience from spending time in hot and humid climates seems to be that the most comfortable clothes to wear are loose-fitting T-shirts / blouses, together with loose shorts or trousers. Sandals work quite well to keep the feet ventilated. As Loomis said, light colours are best. Don't forget a large hat, (something like an Akubra), keeping your head cool and the sun out of your eyes can greatly add to the sensation of feeling cool. Accept the fact that you'll be sweating a lot and make sure the sweat can evaporate easily (hence the loose-fitting clothing). Above all, get used to the conditions - the first week or so may be uncomfortable, but soon you won't even notice the heat. And drink plenty of water. — QuantumEleven 10:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably fortunate that the hot, wet places have plenty of foliage to shade them! In, say, the Sahara, you wouldn't last too long out in the sun wearing just a loincloth....--Ed hazell 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lap-laps, sarongs, saris, lungis and dhotis are all common in hot, humid countries. Natgoo 09:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No one has mentioned the danger of sun exposure - you should think about that before going the loin cloth route. For great justice. 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

May 31

Legalization Of All Drugs

Is the REAL reason that drugs aren't legalized because of the health effects (the masses are too stupid to control themselves) or because the people that can make that happen benefit more from the current situation (crime, gangs and nastiness fuelled by illegal drug sales). Legalise drugs as in the ending of prohibition, and a chunk of nasty industry is pulled from underneath nasty people, right? --Username132 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are various arguments for and against drug prohibition detailed in our article on the topic. In certain countries it may be that legislators are influenced by those who directly profit from illegal drug sales, but it's hard to see how those same people wouldn't profit from legal drug sales. If you were looking for possible benefits to legislators from the trade in illegal drugs, then a few people have made a case for it creating a perpetual war, which could benefit dominant classes. Warofdreams talk 02:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would tend more towards the former explanation, combined with the fact that in North America, politicians always tend to be more popular (and therefore help their own reelection) if they are perceived as being tough on drugs. If one were to look at it from a cynical standpoint as the second explanation provides, it would actually be MORE beneficial to politcians to legalize those sorts of drugs, since those who would most benefit from legalization would be drug companies and the health industry. Drug companies and the health industry have far more political clout in the United States than criminals and gangs. --DavidGC 02:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I'm hearing this right. All three of you commenting above seem to actually believe that the government (of say, the US) is actually so corrupt and so decadent that it's actually possible that government officials, as a whole, are so amoral that their purpose in criminalizing drugs is actually to benefit organized crime, and in turn, benefit themselves financially? I must have read that wrong. But if that's what you guys are actually contemplating, then I must say, that this has got to be THE MOST absurd, insane, paranoid conspiracy theory I have ever heard. This one truly takes the cake. I promised myself before this that I wouldn't resort to ad hominems, as ad hominems are generally beneath me and serve as very poor logical arguments. But I just can't resist this time. Speaking of drugs, Just what exactly are you guys smoking? Please tell me I misread the above comments. I simply find it too difficult to believe that anyone can actually entertain the absurd notions you guys seem to be suggesting. Loomis51 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The uncrazed version of the "government profits" argument is that the prison industry has an interest in keeping drug arrests high (not state prisons, but private ones). These corporations are very wealthy and contribute heavily to the Republican Party, in particular, while doctors contribute more to the Democratic Party; therefore, this argument runs, Republicans are pressured to make new drug crimes, while Democrats are pressured to favor treatment over punishment.

Personally, I think this is complex. First, it is unpopular to legalize drugs, so anyone advocating it will lose politically (the margin is narrow in some places, but it is the majority position generally). Second, the government spent a great deal of time explaining the evils of these drugs, and it can't now say, "Oh, never mind." Third, there is probably a real regret that alcohol is legal and, in the absence of being able to introduce prohibition, the least politicians can do is not allow other depressants to be legal.

However, some folks will prefer to believe that possible economic motives equal a definite conspiracy. Geogre 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it just because people who are high can't control themselves (literally) and can endanger other people. Obviously this would only occur to the more hardcore drugs, and not the lighter ones like canibis etc. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Frank Bruno - Eye Of The Tiger

Hi, this is bit of an awkward question but I'll give it a go. British boxer Frank Bruno released a version of Eye Of The Tiger in 1995 and although he takes the credit for it, it's clearly not him performing the vocals. any ideas who the vocalist for his version of the song is? Thanks

How is it clear that it is not him? --Chapuisat 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Frank Bruno has a VERY deep voice and the guy singing has a high voice rather like Dave Bickler of Survivor, I thought it might have been Dave but I can't find any information that confirms it.

I doubt very much whether he could have got away with this. Everybody would have known it was someone else and would have ridiculed him. I haven't heard the piece but maybe he was singing falsetto? --Shantavira 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no possible way Frank Bruno could have sang as high as that, his voice is too deep and as far as I'm aware he can't even sing. the person singing sounds like a professional rock singer

I did some looking around, and I can't find anyone who suggested he didn't sing it. According to [82] he has recorded at least one other song (with Ozzy Osbourne). --Chapuisat 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked out that one with Ozzy Osbourne and it's like a comedy song he did with Billy Connolly, Ozzy isn't actually part of it so I don't know why he's credited unless he wrote it. anyway, I found a Frank Bruno official website so I've asked them and hope I get a positive answer. thanks for all your help

Prohibition

Maybe I missed it, but I can't find on prohibition, why prohibition was even introduced in the first place? How do such high-up people come up with such a stupid idea? --Username132 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

see Temperance movement Nowimnthing 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Women who were disgusted that their husbands were spending all the family's money on liquor, and feminists who sympathized with these women, were one strong factor -- it was the combination of this with religious fundamentalism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and the WWI experience which put it over the top... AnonMoos 07:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that women were a major factor, as they had only recently acquired the vote and were therefore politically inexperienced. Thus, they thought that making anything bad illegal (or voting for those who promise to do so) will make it go away. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Making alcohol illegal didn't stop it any more than making drugs, prostitution, adultery, homosexuality, or anything else you don't like illegal, does (or did). StuRat 14:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus the alcoholic beverage producers, which should have united to fight such a stupid idea, instead turned on each other. The beer brewers said that only wine and hard liquor should be banned, due to it's higher alcohol content, while those companies argued that only beer should be made illegal, as that was brewed by those "God-forsaken Huns" (there was a substantial anti-German sentiment in the US following WW1). StuRat 14:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

scandanavian immigration to nz

why did scandanavians immigrate to nz in the past? how did they sustain their culture in nz? what difficulties did they face when immigrating?

Is this a homework question? You could try contacting or looking at the websites of one of the Scandinavian clubs in New Zealand, such as http://www.geocities.com/scandannevirke/ or http://www.geocities.com/scanmanawatu/ --Canley 08:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We also have articles on Norsewood and Dannevirke, New Zealand, the main centres of Scandinavian settlement in NZ. It is quite possible that you could find (via google) a history of Dannevirke (the larger of the two places), which would probably provide more information. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Title of Handel's coronation anthem

Hello.
Handel's coronation anthem HWV 261 is called My Heart is Inditing.
Can anyone tell me what that means as I haven't found inditing in any of my dictionaries.
Thanks in advance. — Oxag อ๊อกซัก 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

From the OED: indite (verb): "To put into words, compose (a poem, tale, speech, etc.); to give a literary or rhetorical form to (words, an address); to express or describe in a literary composition." --Shantavira 06:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But how could the subject of such a verb be a heart ?
Could it mean something like my heart is elated/overjoyed ?
— Oxag อ๊อกซัก 07:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a phrase clipped from the first line of the recitative. "My heart is inditing" is just the first poetic line. Probably his heart is inditing its love or praise or joy. Unfortunately, I don't recognize the line by memory, but I'm quite sure the words came from a contemporary poet. (You might call a song "Go and catch a falling star," as with John Donne's poem, when the title is just the first line of the poem.) Geogre 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The words to the anthem were taken from Psalm 45:1,10,12 and Isaiah 49:23. I have a copy of the KJV before me and Psalm 45:1 reads:

• "My heart overfloweth with a goodly matter: I speak the things which I have made touching the king: My tongue is the pen of a ready writer Thou art fairer than the children of men" JackofOz 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

JackofOz just beat me to it. Handel's words are "My heart is inditing of a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made unto the King". But I think the New English Bible expresses it best: "My heart is stirred by a noble theme, in a king's honour I utter the song I have made, and my tongue runs like the pen of an expert scribe." That last bit would seem to be debatable. --Shantavira 14:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You're actually the first person I've seen praise the New English Bible translation over an RSV. (I read it the most of all my translations, too, and especially for their Apocrypha, but people bad mouth it so often that I'm surprised.) Geogre 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to all of you.
— Oxag อ๊อกซัก 15:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Treason in Australia

I can remember someone telling me that there have only been four cases of prosecuted treason in Australia (including before 1901), and none of them resulted in a conviction. Does anybody know what they were? --203.129.57.80 08:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The rebel miners of the Eureka Stockade were charged with High Treason in 1855, there were thirteen of them, all found Not Guilty in seven trials [83]. The only other possibility I can think of is the prosecution of members of the Communist Party of Australia in 1949, although I think that may have been for sedition, not treason. --Canley 09:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Archaeological digs/deceased persons

If someone was to decide to dig up a dead person in a grave I would imagine there would be a huge outcry, respect to the body and all that. However, in this case of archaeology, this does happen, I assume under the guise of in the interest of science/history. I have no real qualms about this but when I get buried I dont expect someone to come along in a couple of hundred years and start poking around, cleaning me up and putting me on display for everyone to see should they wish to.

My question is, what period of time is considered 'acceptable' to start messing around with deceased people who have been buried in good faith? --DPM 10:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there were a time involved, and there have been/are plenty of arguments in the United States about the disinterring of American Indian bones. Nearest to me is the Etowah museum in the form of a burial mound opened up for tourists to walk through. Since the tribe was wiped out, it doesn't have specific modern descendants to protest, and yet, nevertheless, many folks have objected. The question will always be balanced, with how much can be learned by the research, on the one side, and the disrespect of grave disturbing, on the other. If, for example, we could learn a great deal by examining Mary Mallon (aka Typhoid Mary), we'd exhume her. If we could merely satisfy our curiosity, we wouldn't. Geogre 12:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, however the article states that her body was incinerated, not buried.--DPM 14:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I had Typhoid Mary on my mind because Nova on Tuesday was about her life and treatment. She got a very, very, very bad deal. Geogre 17:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But she was also a very, very, very stupid and stubborn woman who killed people through her ignorance and carelessness by resuming working as a cook after agreeing, as a condition of her freedom, not to. - Nunh-huh 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been on archaeolgical digs, let me assure you that human remains are dealt with very seriously and with the utmost respect. Even with remains thousands of years old the archaeologists treat the bones very carefully. Most of the time they are re-interred as quickly as possibly after the research is done. Other than a few notable exceptions like mummies, almost every museum display you see is actually a cast of the actual remains. Nowimnthing 12:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I may have caused offence. I understand that bones etc are treated with respect. My question was purely concerned with when it's deemed acceptable to disturb such things. --DPM 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think, in many ways, a dead body is considered to be property. Thus, as long as someone holds title to that property (say in the form of a burial plot), then no archaeologist has the right to go dig it up. Even if the title is lost, as long as the cemetery continues to operate, they are unlikely to allow exhumations without a court order, as this type of thing would tend to discourage future business. However, once the cemetery is abandoned, the archeologists may be able to have a go at them. You might want to choose a newer, huge cemetery with only a few occupied plots so far, as this will ensure they continue to sell plots and stay in business for many years to come. A cemetery which is almost full, with no room to expand, may be abandoned sooner than you think. Also, a cemetery which sold all it's plots years in advance, then squandered the money, may be abandoned sooner than the number of open plots would otherwise indicate. StuRat 14:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, just wanted to be sure we were on the same page. I agree with StuRat's general statement and will add this regarding time. It is generally a combination of time and necessity that determine when it is ok to exhume a body. In cases where there are living relatives to the deceased, it is often left up to them (as in property rights) whether the body can be exhumed. Of course they can always be overridden by more pressing concerns like criminal or health investigations. This property right is generally respected but it does get more vague with time. For example Native American tribes in the U.S. have successfully petitioned courts to have their ancestors remains returned to them for burial. They are usually more successful in this when they can show proof that they are in fact direct descendants. That gets harder as you go further back and the tribes are not in the same configuration as they are today. [84]. If you are really worried about it, you can look into other options at Burial or Natural burial where there probably won't be any remains left after a couple hundred years for anyone to disturb. Nowimnthing 15:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to face the (minimal) risk of being dug up, cremation is your solution. - Nunh-huh 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, think about it, all the billions of people that have ever lived are all dead. Only a fraction of a percentage end up in a museum. Nowimnthing 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but a lot more ended up being "disrespected" in some other way. Egyptians, for example, used to toss old mummies on the fire for heating. StuRat 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Paris is the classic example of digging up the dead when the real estate they're in becomes valuable - though sanitation was the stated reason. (The remains suffered the indignity of being used in decorative pattern in catacombs where now, for a centime or so, German teenagers can see how fragile bones are.) The gates of New Haven's Grove Street Cemetery are engraved "The Dead Shall Rise Again", and many a Yale president has said, "If Yale needs the land, they will!". - Nunh-huh 04:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

jews in america

hi, my step-mother is, for all intents and purposes, russian. however, becuase she is (ancestrally) jewish, the US government negotiated her "release" from behind the iron curtain for a life of plenty in the states. Being neither american nor old enough to remember, i'm wondering, did the US do this for any other minority? if not, why was it just the jews? also have they done similar mass evacuations from other nasty places? gays from iran? falun-gongers from china? 87.194.20.253 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The United States unofficially supported the mass evacuation of many oppressed blacks from the United States to Liberia. --Kainaw ^(talk) 11:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about how much negotiating the U.S. did for other groups, but they have offered political asylum to quite a few different groups of people, see here: Immigration to the United States#Political asylum. Nowimnthing 12:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jews from Sudan to Israel: Operation Moses. Lost Boys of Sudan to the U.S. Rmhermen 16:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppressed from the United Stales to Siberia ? I'm reading too quickly. --DLL 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading between the lines of your "question", no, historically Jews have been given no special treatment in the US. In fact, just a couple of months before the outbreak of WWII, the infamous SS St. Louis, a ship containing some 1,000 Jews departing from Hamburg to seek assylum in the US, was in fact denied entry into the US by the Roosevelt Administration. Shamefully, my own country, Canada, also turned the ship away, as did Cuba. The ship eventually had no choice but to return to Europe, in what has been called in film the Voyage of the Damned, after which the vast majority were ultimately exterminated.

Today, thankfully, the US has more humane refugee policies. But NO, Jews do not enjoy any "special status" when it comes to immigration. So, in answer to your real question, NO, the US is not controlled by any "Secret Society of Zionists" or whatever organization the most recent anti-semitic conspiracy theorists have dreamed up. Your "for all intents and purposes Russian but (ancestrally) Jewish" step-mother was indeed lucky, as a lucky few, regardless of their ethnicity managed to escape from behind the Iron Curtain during the years of the Soviet Union. Loomis51 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i'm certainly no anti-semite and find the very suggestion extremely offensive. she is "for all intents and purposes russian" because, officially, she is of course american and given that the communists took her russian passport off her, and as a result can never reclaim her russian citizenship, she has no official claim to be russian, despite the fact that culturally she very much is. i mentioned the fact that she is ancestrally jewish becuase she in not a practising Jew so cleary the US was very generous in its deal. As for the suggestion that i sign up for the "secret society of zionists", well i just don't. had hitler succeeded in his aims my father (whose parents, by the way, fled Germany in the 30's becuase they were, you guessed it, jewish) wouldn't have been born and has the US deal not happened, i would of course be deprived on a ever-so-cute bsby sister. my "real" question was simply to ask, in what sense is this a US policy or was it just a one off. perhaps i could have expressed it differently but really, you just shouldn't go looking for anti-semitism and you certainly shouldn't be trigger-happy in accusing people of anti-semitism. 87.194.20.253 11:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. for the avoidance of any doubt, when i say "is this a US policy"i mean "the emigration of oppressed groups", whether they be jews, gentiles or people with three eyes! 87.194.20.253 11:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's fact it. Most Jews are white, and Judaism is similar to Christianity. I'm sure at that point of time (if not even now), this factor played a major role in this special American concern for Jews. OTOH, this concern really picked up only after the second world war, and especially after the details of the holocaust became known. Jews were also the "enemy of the enemy" kind of people. In fact, sometime in the beginning of the 20th century, there were all kinds of laws preventing Jews, among other people, to immigrate to the US. deeptrivia (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I simply cannot apologize for my remarks. As an RD regular, I can tell with absolute certainty that this has been the first time I have ever accused a questioner of being an anti-semite. Anyone who knows me, knows that I'm loathe to harp on anti-semitism, except in the most obvious of cases. I'm the furthest thing from being "trigger-happy" about accusing people of anti-semitism. However, I'm sorry to tell you, but your question absolutely reeked of anti-semitism. Not for one reason, or for two, but in at least a dozen different ways. If you are indeed not an anti-semite, I really must say, you seem to have an uncanny knack for writing like one. Your story is simply filled with too many holes. You say that the communists took your step-mother's Russian passport from her. That makes absolutely no sense. Is your step-mother over 89 years old? Seems unlikely as she recently gave birth to your ever-so-cute baby sister. Assuming she was born sometime after 1917, yet as you said escaped the Soviet Union, a state that ceased to exist in 1991, she was therefore born in the Soviet Union, and as you said, escaped from the Soviet Union. It therefore makes no sense to me when you speak of a "Russian Passport" that the communists took away from her. During the entire time she lived in the Soviet Union, there simply did not exist such a thing as a "Russian Passport" for the communists to have taken away. Further, you say that because the communists took away her "Russian Passport", she can never reclaim her Russian citizenship. This also makes no sense. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that she actually had some sort of "Russian Passport" which the communists took away, which, as I've said, makes absolutely no sense, it further makes no sense that having one's passport taken away somehow denies one of citizenship. A passport is used for identification and international travel. It is definitely not a requirement for citizenship. Finally, if your step-mother was indeed born in Russia, you may be surprised by the fact that Russia actually has its own "law of return". I'm not sure of the details, I believe that it provides that if you have at least one Russian born grandparent, you can be "fast-tracked" to become a Russian Citizen. So certainly, if your step-mother wished, despite "the communists taking away her Russian passport" (???) she can certainly become a Russian citizen if she wished. But again, your story is full of holes...whether it's anti-semitism, ignorance or whatever, it just plain doesn't smell right. Loomis51 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be the case that you're a regular at RD who has never been accused of accusing others of anti-Semitism, but there's a first time for everything. You have accused the asker of an innocent question of anti-Semitism, and I cannot imagine why. I'm sorry Loomis, but I think you're way out of line here. You spend 8 or 9 sentences harping on the fact that the questioner conflates Russia with the USSR. Lots of Americans do that, take it easy. Just because he says Russia when he means USSR doesn't mean he's a lying anti-Semite, and more than it would if he said America when he meant USA. Try assuming a little good faith. Or if you cannot assume good faith, then just don't answer the question at all. It will keep things much more civil and productive here. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're totally missing the point here. There's absolutely no crime in conflating Russia with the Soviet Union, it's a common and innocent mistake. I'm merely pointing out that the whole story is incredibly fishy, as it flies in the face of reality in so many ways. Perhaps I gave a far too detailed explanation of why this story sounds bogus. I'll put it in much simpler terms: The statement that the asker's step-mother can never reclaim her Russian citizenship is, quite simply, absolutely false. She can. Absolutely. Without a doubt. It's the law in Russia.

You say you can't imagine why I so arbitrarily chose to accuse this particular asker and this particular asker alone of anti-semitism. I'm not sure what your particular background is, and frankly, it's none of my business. What I can say, though, is that being a member of a perpetually persecuted group, you tend to develop something of a "radar", for lack of a better term, for EXACTLY when that ugly menace of bigotry is being presented in a veiled format. It actually gets to the point where it's ridiculously simple, because the pattern of reasoning and the speach of such veiled bigotry becomes so ridiculously predictable.

I don't expect you to understand, and I don't blame you for not understanding. I actually have a great deal of respect for the principles that you are trying to convey onto me, and, because you believe in these principles, I have a great deal of respect for you. I totally agree with the principle of assuming good faith, and in the vast majority of cases I observe that principle to it's utmost. Nonetheless, there are unfortunately a rare few instances where, you just know, that good faith is not present. Loomis51 07:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've totally missed the point. Rather, I think I've just disagreed with the point. The story seems not at all fishy to me. I will readily admit however that my own particular background includes almost no knowledge of nor experience with either anti-Semitism or Soviet law about defectors (though I would be surprised if it were as lenient as you suggest, or are you referring solely to post-Soviet Russian law?)

But let me check with you, perhaps I have missed the point, as you suggest. So your two points are these: 1. there were no Russian passports during the Soviet era, only Soviet passports. 2. all Russians were allowed to return to the USSR, no matter what the means of their defection. The first seems like an innocent sloppiness of language, and the second doesn't sound accurate to me. Was not defection a crime under the Soviets? Was there not danger of reprisal for those who were brought back? Again, I do not know anything about Soviet law, but to me it is your position that seems questionable. Does your anti-Semitism radar ever get too sensitive?. -lethe ^{talk +}

08:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you lethe! how refreshing voices of reason are. on the second point, whilst no expert in Russian law, i am absolutley certain that my step-mother, for whatever reason, is under the impression that she cannot ever reclaim her russian citizenship. she has russian residency for sure, but evertime she visits her family in st petersburg, she takes her US passpost (she has no other) and has to go through the same checks everytime. also, it would seem strange that if she was indeed now a russian citizen, why then can her daughter not claim dual-nationality and so claim a russian passport (it would certainly save alot of time at russian immigration desks). Assuming my step-mother couldn't be more wrong on this issue, that she can reclaim her russian citizenship just like that, why does that make me anti-semtic? Belonging to a "perpetually persecuted group" as i do (i'm gay) i absolutely understand your sensitivity with regards to bigotry (its a quality we both share) but to say that that somehow gives you license to tar me with "that" brush as and when you see fit on the basis that pin-pointing anti-semitism is some kind of infallible talent you have is grossly unfair on the accused and, dareisay it, does us minorites no good whatsoever. thanks. 87.194.20.253 13:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this discussion is taking on a more civil tone. I'm also glad that the original questioner has added some extra information to clarify things.

Russia today is actually undergoing a rather serious population crisis (no doubt in large part due to the massive exodus of Russians of all stripes after the fall of the Soviet Union). As a result its government has begun to enact measures to reverse this trend. One measure that I believe I've recently heard about is the implementation of a "baby bonus" of some $10,000 (that's a lot of rubles!) for those families who opt to have more than one child. Another is the passage of laws encouraging Russian expatriates to return to Russia.

Not that today's Russia doesn't have its problems, (in fact it's quite a troubled society, to say the least,) but one thing is for sure: the present "Russian Federation" is trying its best to distance itself from its Soviet past. As such I find it highly unlikely that the present government would in any way be prejudiced against Soviet defectors when it comes to repatriating them into the new Russia. I'm therefore pretty certain that if your step-mother ever wished to become a Russian citizen, the Russian government would not only permit her return, but embrace it.

But I'm not saying that she's a Russian citizen now. She probably had to renounce her Soviet/Russian citizenship when she originally left. What I'm saying is that if she ever wished to once again become a Russian citizen, she probably wouldn't have much of a problem.

But on to the real issue, why I sensed a great deal of anti-semitism in your question. I'm actually glad that you're gay and can understand what bigotry is like (not that I'm at all glad that you're the victim of it, but merely that you can relate to where I'm coming from). I'm sure you can sense a veiled homophobic remark or gesture from a mile away. Well, when I read your question, like I said, I spotted about a dozen telltale signs. You basically stated with apparent certainty that the US government actually negotiated with the Soviets to get your step-mother out of the Soviet Union because she was Jewish. During the Soviet era, there were literally millions dissidents (regardless of religion) who suffered the cruelest of treatments because they dared to disagree with the communist regime. These people were literally dying to escape that country for a life of freedom in the US, yet the US was not able to help them one bit. (Just to add a little extra perspective, if the Soviets were good at anything, it was the suppression of expression. Bizarre as it may sound, Jews living under Soviet rule suffered far less anti-semitism than under pre and post-Soviet rule. This is because the Soviet Union, being a one party state imposing atheism on all its citizens was able to supress those anti-semitic organizations and political parties, such as pomyats, for example, that immediately sprang up when the Soviet Union fell and such policies as state-imposed atheism, one-party rule, etc... no longer applied.) Yet when it came to a Jew, the US made a special effort to persuade the Soviets to let her go. Why would they do that if they didn't, for whatever sinister motive give Jews special treatment? Why let all those poor non-Jewish Soviets rot in gulags, but jump to the aid of a Jew in order to bring her over to the land of "plenty" (i.e. $$$, another telltale sign, not the land of freedom or the land of equality, but the land of "plenty". We Jews do love money, don't we). The implication is just too obvious: US government policy was somehow dictated by some hidden Jewish agenda. Look up and you see as the title of the question the rather omenous and downright frightening: "Jews in America". Not "US immigration policy regarding Jews" or "US immigration policy during the Soviet era", but simply "Jews in America". Sounds more like the title to an article on the Klan website than a legitimate honest question.

Since you're sensitive to and can relate to bigotry, imagine if you read as the title to a question "Homosexuals in the Media", wouldn't that title alone spook the hell out of you? Now imagine if the question went on to say: "As a white, Christian, straight man, I seem to be having an unusually difficult time getting my foot in the door in the print-media industry. Could anyone explain to me why this may be?" Wouldn't the whole phrasing of the title and the tone and implication of the question set off a million red flags in your head? Be honest.

In any case, as I've been saying all along, it was the phrasing of your question that set off a million red flags in MY head. In my response, I never actually accused YOU of being an anti-semite, but more precisely, pointed out that your question sounded very anti-semitic. I've also been saying all along something along the lines of "you may not be an anti-semite, but you sure write like one". Your last entry cleared a few things up, causing me to lean more towards the conclusion that you're in fact not an anti-semite, but simply posed a very anti-semitic sounding question. Loomis51 16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the original question, your step-mother presumably benefited from the Jackson-Vanik amendment.--Pharos 10:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Un Homme Et Une Femme by Clementine (French Lounge music)

What is the whole biography of Clémentine? And what's the lyrics?

You might have more luck if you ask at the French Wikipedia. The lyrics go: "Daaah daaah daaah da-da-da-da-da da-da-da-da-da; Daaah daaah daaah da-da-da-da-da da-da-da-da-da;...." --Shantavira 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The lyrics are here, I think. Do you want to know what they mean? --Cam 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Eastern European Music

What's the biography of "Les Mystere Vois de Bulgaria?"

What is your actual question? It's a recording, it doesn't have a "biography". JackofOz 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a recording - it is, or was, a musical ensemble. Le Mystère des Voix Bulgares is just a stub, but I don't know anything more about them. --Richardrj 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also the name of a recording. I used to own a copy. JackofOz 01:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Naked in the snow"

There seem to be porn sites showing women outside in the snow, completely naked. While naked women are all well and good, aren't there health issues here? How do they prevent the models from catching a serious cold? I was myself once naked outside at a temperature close to 0 °C, and the very next day I came down with a cold. Is there some trick I'm missing here? JIP | Talk 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple. They move the girls on to the sneezing fetish sites :) --Richardrj 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - there is no relation between being cold and catching a cold. I've been in 40 below wearing just boxer shorts and boots and didn't catch a cold or anything at all. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not exactly true, there is a relationship. Exposure to the cold, especially prolonged exposure, can damage the body and make it more susceptible to infiltration by organisms which cause colds and other diseases. A very brief exposure, however, will have a negligible effect. I suspect they run out, take a pic, then quickly go inside to warm up. If they stayed out long, their skin would turn pale, which most people would find unattractive anyway. And Kainaw, you should know that one case of anecdotal evidence hardly constitutes proof. Using that method, anyone who ever played Russian Roulette and lived could argue that it's not the least bit dangerous. StuRat 14:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Kainaw is right, and StuRat is right. There have been studies under controlled circumstances trying to induce colds in people by making them cold. No positive results. However, during winter months dry air may decrease mucousal flow in the sinuses and tear production in the eyes, thus making it easier for airborne rhinoviruses to lodge. Additionally, winter months mean that people are indoors more, thus in contact with each other, so one sick person leads to others. However, body temperature didn't have much of a role in the illness, and if you make people cold during summer, but none of them has a rhinovirus, they are unlikely to get one. Geogre 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm right!? Something is definately wrong. I need another bottle of NyQuil. Actually, a cold study was done in our hospital. There was no correlation between being cold and catching a cold. There was a correlation between being cold and having a sore throat, dry sinuses (including bloody noses), and chest pain. However, having those symptoms does not mean you have a necessarily have a cold. Plus, I love having a chance to talk about running around in 40 below weather in my boxers. How often does that come up in conversation? --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the study in the hospital lacked the necessary exposure to rhinovirus. If this had been included, I would think that those exposed to environmental stresses, such as extreme cold, would be shown to be more susceptible to the viruses than the control group. StuRat 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat curious as to why you like to run around in -40 degree weather in just boxer shorts. I can only assume it's because you find running around in -40 degree weather in briefs to be a bit too constricting. :-) StuRat 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have a baby girl, you should wear boxers. Besides, tighty whities are so embarrassing looking compared to the manly boxer. Geogre 17:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The hospital study did not increase or decrease exposure to the virus. That was a control. The goal was to see if there is a direct correlation between cold temperature and catching a cold with all other variables constant. As for the low temps - I was just lazy. I was stationed on top of a mountain in Norway in Feb and it takes a lot of time to get dressed. So, when I had to pee, I just went to the toilet in my boxers. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like they made an effort to intentionally expose both groups to the virus. I would have been very surprised if any test subjects developed colds without any exposure to the virus. Again, exposure to environmental stresses, such as extreme cold, will only increase the incidence of colds provided there is also some exposure to the viruses. StuRat 02:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also such a thing as fake snow. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Next you'll be telling me that the breasts might be false as well. :-) Geogre 17:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Being naked in the snow is no big deal. As long as you remain dry, and there's no wind, you don't lose body heat very fast. --Serie 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The -40° and the boxers remind me of a letter written to a Canadian medical journal (I think it was the anaesthesiology journal) a decade or longer ago. This doc had been out jogging early morning at way below zero temp, and on returning home found he had developed frostbite of the penis. He was busy trying to warm up the injured organ by manual means when his wife walked into the kitchen. He wrote that he had some explaining to do. The title of the letter was something like (not sure of this, though): "Hitherto Unrecognized Hazard of Jogging". (reference avalable, but I'll have to dig it out of a pile, so ask if someone wants it) --Seejyb 02:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well read

I often hear people being described as 'well read'. I take this to mean they have read many books by a wide spectrum of authors. In my adult life I guess I've read about 200-300 books (I'm 33 by the way). I read all sorts of books but I have never read Shakespeare other than at school. My questions are: 1. Can I be well read without having read Shakespeare? and 2. Whether or not reading Shakespeare is a pre-requisite for being well read, how many books do you have to read and by how many different authors to be considered 'well read'? --DPM 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Well Read" means the person has a lot of book knowledge. It implies that the person has read (or at least knows enough to discuss) the classics - such as Shakespeare. While it is often a compliment, it can be an insult as well. "Can he fix an engine?" "Nope, he's just well read." --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Now then, I've read lots of classics but no Shakespeare, are you saying that no Shakespeare, no well read status? Hypothetically speaking you could have read every book printed but without Billy S, you cant be considered well read.--DPM 15:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Billy S, as you call him, is a biggie. Many "well read" people would indeed consider a total lack of knowledge of The Bard to be, or not to be, a reason to be barred from their exclusive club. Perhaps I can offer you a way to wipe out this damned spot from your otherwise good record, have you at least seen, or even just heard, a Shakespeare play (either live or on radio/TV or in a movie) ? If so, the play's the thing to qualify you as well read. I'll even give you points for Shakespeare rip-offs like West Side Story. Still no ? Have you ever seen an Avon lady ? Do you own a globe ? Have you ever seen anything with Robert Urich in it ? Do you like to play with slings and arrows ? :-) StuRat 16:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"well read" is one of those terms that doesn't work if you go round applying it to yourself. If you start calling yourself well-read you will just sound like a jerk. So if you really want people to call you 'well-read' you will have to read books they think are important, in which case Shakespeare is good. Alternatively you could try reading things you think you might like. That might be Shakespeare - you'll never know till you've tried. (Incidentally, in my opinion Shakespeare is much better seen on stage than read). DJ Clayworth 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous books that provide reading lists. Perhaps the most ambitious and worthy is Cultural Literacy by E. D. Hirsch, Jr. Also, read Closing of the American Mind (even though "American" is the title, the book is fairly universal) by Alan Bloom.

The bookful blockhead ignorantly read,

With loads of learned lumber in his head,

With his own tongue still edifies his ears,

And always list'ning to himself appears. (Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism)

Read well, read judiciously, and live the stuff. Geogre 17:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a rather ambitious reading list in Huxley's Those Barren Leaves? Or was it Antic Hay? (a well-read person would know I suppose). I had a plan of going through that list, but I never did, in fact, I have lost the list and don't remember what was on it. Btw, it would make precious little sense to read lots of English classics and ignore Shakespeare, because a lot of authors will keep referring to Shakespeare, implicitly or explicltly, so that you'll feel left out unless you go and read up at least secondary works. I suppose nowadays you qualify as well-read if you can read and understand Shakespeare and Milton without footnotes; but note that being "well-read" traditionally doesn't stop at the English language barrier. According to Macaulay, an educated man is one who reads his Plato with his feet on the fender (meaning, fluently and without a dictionary) while Mark Pattison felt that you have literary culture if you are able to fully appreciate Lycidas. dab (ᛏ) 18:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised no one has mentioned the Great Books curriculum yet. Rmhermen 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty good curriculum, but one problem is which of the curricula you mean, because the original (the Harvard freshman reading list) has gotten turned into a product, and that product has been offered by multiple companies in multiple packages. Geogre 19:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Well read" generally does not refer to the quantity of books read but the perceived cultural quality of them as well. Reading 1,000 science fiction novels will make one well read in science fiction but not generally well read. Most people consider someone "well read" if they have read most of the major novels out there, and to a lesser extent some of the major non-fiction books as well. Reading the entirety of Anne Rice's work will not make one as "well read" as reading the major works of Shakespeare, Milton, Eliot, Borges, etc. (to pick a few names at random).--Fastfission 02:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, one could be considered well read despite never having read a single word of these people's works, or of Dickens, or Jane Austen, or Tolstoy, or of hundreds of others. Fwiw, I think the whole Shakespeare thing is a furphy. His works are sonnets and plays, none of which are meant to be "read" in a passive sense. Poems are meant to be spoken aloud, and plays are meant to be performed. Just sitting and reading Shakespeare plays to oneself, in isolation from their dramatic context, would be like reading a film script and thinking you had a real sense of what the finished movie was like. JackofOz 03:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to explain the term "furphy", Jack, since that's Aussie slang. StuRat 02:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. For you, Stu, anything within reason. A furphy is a bit like what our article says it is, but in my usage it's more like "a common misconception". We talk about Shakespeare as if he's the be-all-and-end-all of English literature. It's not that he's unimportant, but really one can get a very full appreciation of literature without him (but please don't interpret that as licence to not study him, because he's simply peerless). It's the totality of what you read or what you're exposed to that makes the impact on your life, not that you've been reading Shakespeare specifically, or Emily Bronte specifically, or Oscar Wilde specifically, or anybody else. In most cases, our perception of Mr S has been violated by our schoolroom introduction to him, where we sat and laboriously analysed every sentence, with scant (or no) regard for the music in his words that only comes alive when the thing is acted the way it was meant to be. Shakespeare's works are literature only in an incidental sense. Their primary genius is as theatre and drama. JackofOz 11:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Koons 's contact

would you please help me to find jeff Koons 's artistic  ? I need to deal a project with his artistic agent and I can't find anywhere who is he and where to get in touch with him. Thanks a lot for your help. Yours sincerely

veronique LEBLANC from Paris, France Head of artbuying dptt McCann Erickson Paris

Sorry for anyone who may be annoyed by a foreign language response on English Wiki, (I'd be rather annoyed myself seeing a discussion on English Wiki in a language I don't understand, so please provide feedback if this is any way innappropriate) but given the phrasing of the question, I just felt it would be most helpful to the questioner to answer in French.

Votre question est un peut difficile a comprendre en anglais, donc je vais essayer de repondre en français. J'ai essayé mais malheureusement j'ai pas trouvé un contact direct pour Jeff Koons. En tous cas, il apparait qu'un certain "Max Hetzler" en Allemagne peut avoir l'information que vous cherchez car il est proprietaire d'une gallerie qui possede des oeuvres de Koons:

Galerie Max Hetzler

Zimmerstrasse 90/91

D-10117 Berlin

Phone (+4930) 229 24 37

Fax (+4930) 229 24 17

Email effacé pour le proteger contre le spam - consultez l'histoire s.v.p. Sandstein 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Holzmarktstrasse 15 – 18

S-Bahnbogen 48

D-10179 Berlin

Phone (+4930) 240 45 630

Fax (+4930) 240 45 632

J'espere que cette information va prouver utile. Bonne Chance! Loomis51 01:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange Man

http://img343.imageshack.us/my.php?image=16a0ni.jpg

Can you guys tell me who this scary looking guy is?

That's Lavrenti Beria, head of the secret police in the Soviet Union under Stalin. --Shadarian 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot mate.

Republican Nominee for Governor of New York

When are we going to find out who the official Republican nominee for Governor of New York is? --Shadarian 16:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be this week at the convention [85]. Nowimnthing 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

confused

hello my name is rick and iam going to a pain clinic in ky and they are giving me percocet but i recenty messed up my knee and ankle if i go to the hospital and they give me any pain meds am i breaking the law thank you

See the top of the page, as we're not a place for giving out legal or medical advice. The most important thing, and I say this as a layman, is to make sure that all doctors prescribing for you know what else you are taking. The doctors who proscribe should be aware of any pain medication you're already taking. It's important for your health. Geogre 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not familiar with KY law as in the US the criminal law is within the jurisdiction of the state, and therefore each state has a separate criminal code. I'm not even American, so my knowledge of KY criminal law is that much weaker. Further, I don't specialize in criminal law at all, so basically, what I'm saying is that I'm really not the best guy to be giving this sort of legal advice. So just to be sure, please consider the following as if it were coming from a complete layman, as it would be improper for me to give you legal advice under these circumstances. Having acknowledged all of the above, that this is merely to be taken as the advice of a layman and not the advice of a lawyer (sorry for all that, I just have to be really careful to cover my ass here!) my take on the whole thing is pretty simple:

Should you be completely honest with each doctor your dealing with about what meds you're on, and should they nonetheless further prescribe you additional meds, I can't possibly imagine how you can be considered to be breaking the law. If anything, having been completely honest about all the relevant information, should heaven forbid anything go wrong, it would be the doctors, not you, who would clearly be in the wrong.

But again, this shouldn't be considered as definitive advice, as KY criminal law may have some peculiarities that I'm unaware of. I'm just speaking from a general understanding of the basics of criminal law, and in no way do I claim to be a licenced practitioner of law in the State of Kentucky.

(i.e. don't worry buddy, as long as you're honest with your docs you're not breaking the law) Good luck. Loomis51 00:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're so right, Loomis51. I join you in wishing Rick well. One point: I deduce from the fearful tone of the question that Rick has been required to sign an Opioid Contract at the pain clinic which he attends. That is a contract, not a law, but can come across as very intimidating and downright terrifying. The contract usually requires the patient to inform any other doctor treating him/her of the treatment at the pain clinic. So if this patient does not inform his knee doc, he would be breaking the contract, and the pain clinic may then change his treatment plan. If he does inform the knee doctor, he is keeping his side of the contract, and definitely not doing anything illegal. To be doubly sure, I could suggest that Rick ask the knee doc - in writing - to contact the pain clinic to make sure what pain treatment they would approve of for Rick's new problem. This suggestion is probably overkill, but Rick does seems somewhat frightened. Then it is not Rick's problem, but the doctors', and Rick can use his emotional energy in striving for a good recovery from his injury. --Seejyb 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Newark, NJ government

What Boards and Commissions are statutorily required in Newark, NJ? How can you create a new board and how can you get rid of a board?

Newark's city website is here [86]. Based on my brief but expert check, I do not see any advisory bodies. There are federal and state boards but that's all I saw. Advisory bodies would typically be created, modified and disbanded by motions of council, probably with input by staff report. Each municipality is organized differently, with different names for similar positions. For example, what I would call City Manager or Chief Administrative Officer, Newark calls Business Administrator. I suggest you contact his office to find out if Newark does have any advisory bodies such as committees or boards. What is odd about the city's site is the lack of easy-to-spot contact info.--Shandon 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Newark School system, having been found "at best flagrantly delinquent or at worst deceptive in discharging its responsibilities to its students" by the State of New Jersey, has been under state control for the past ten years. The suspicion that the governance of Newark has been consciously kept labyrinthine and ponderous to keep its activities safe from scrutiny has occurred to more than one person, so perhaps the lack of contact info isn't so unexplainable.... - Nunh-huh 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unicode and prosody

Are there unicode characters to represent prosody, mainly, symbols for long and short syllables (but preferably also a symbol for 'any syllable', 'caesura' etc.)? At Tristubh I made do with ¯ and ˘ which are properly intended as superscript characters. dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you try em dash ? and its little brother en dash ? --DLL 22:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Search for "METRICAL" on http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/version/4.1/index.htm, and read the original proposal with some background at http://www.tlg.uci.edu/final/metricalsymbolsbrief.pdf. In my browser (Firefox) I see question marks for these, so probably they aren't generally implemented. Articles discussing prosody in poetry, such as that on the dactylic hexameter, appear not to use them. --Lambiam^Talk 11:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Great Lies in History (on video)

I am working on a video compilation of great lies through history and I wondered if anyone had some ideas for me. Examples that I have some up with are:

• George H.W. Bush “Read My Lips, No New Taxes”
• Bill Clinton “I did not have sex with that woman”
• Richard Nixon “I am not a crook”

They don't have to be politicians, but it seems like they are the ones most be videotaped lying.

Look pal, everybody lies. If the stupid electors only vote in politicians who say what the people want to hear, then you simply have to lie to get elected. Why should politicians be diffrent than us? Why is everybody so amazed by it? Why is everybody such a hypocrit and never admits that great politicians can to good things through the right lies? Even the great examples of leadership lied: Like Franklin Delano Roseveld who got elected upon his promise NOT to enter the WWII. I am sure that Abraham Lincoln (honest Abe) promised that he would not endanger the Union even if that meant NOT to release the slaves. Kennedy who promised US military support to the cubans exiles and then chickend out. It goes on and on, in the end what really matters is: Why did they lie? Was it a good reason? And what was the result? The last is by far the most important of all. Flamarande 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Politicians are the best source for lies, but businesses are also. As for politicians, any will work and it doesn't matter what side you are on. You can take George Bush's assertion that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or you can opt for Saddam's declaration that he has weapons of mass destruction and he will drive Israel into the sea. Either way, you've got a good lie. In business, look at the Enron head's assertion that they didn't know anything at all about the bad accounting. How about something as simple at Windows 96, I mean Windows 97, no I mean Windows 98 - or how about "Do no evil" and then censoring content for China? What makes it a great lie is your opinion on the matter. If you think Clinton is the greatest President since sliced bread, then you won't consider his "I did not have sex with that woman" a great lie. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that I like Bush junior (I thing that he is a honest religious retard), but imagine they really had found some WOMD, the inteligence agencies told them there weren´t any, but the Central (Lack of) Inteligence Agency had been wrong before a lot of times, you know? All of us would applaud the decision to go to war. Flamarande 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to Bush Sr.'s "No new taxes" statement, I see that more as a broken promise than as any sort of lie. I suppose it depends on what you really think is going on in the minds of these individuals. I sincerely believe that Bush honestly (however naively) had no intention of raising taxes when he made that remark. I don't see that as a lie at all, but rather a remark on a subject that he should have put a lot more thought and research into into before actually going ahead and irresponsibly "shooting from the hip" about. But then again, it depends on the extent of one's skepticism of politicians in general and Bush Sr. in particular.

In any case, let's look at the situation with a bit more perspective: Bush made the remark in '88 while riding on an enormous lead in the polls with regards to his opponent Michael Dukakis. Further, for any swing voter highly concerned with the issue of rising taxes, absent the remark, the choice would be just as clear: Bush the Republican would certainly be far less likely to raise taxes than Dukakis, who was quite liberal even by Democratic standards. The remark was completely unnecessary, in fact it was actually more of a blunder than a lie in my opinion, given the fact that it ended up causing far more damage for Bush's career than had he not made it at all. The whole "read my lips" fiasco was actually a leading factor in Bush's defeat in '92, a defeat that just one short year earlier seemed so incredibly unfathomable given Bush's record breaking popularity ratings, that Saturday Night Live actually did a sketch where the cast-members, impersonating the leading Democrats of the time, participated in a debate, each strenuously arguing why he should not be chosen to go through the embarassment of losing to Bush in the '92 election, each doing their best to list their most negative characteristics, with Mario Cuomo simply stating: "two words - mob ties".Loomis51 23:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone is missing my point. I don't need a lecture on why politicians lie, I was simply looking for some video clips of people lying (hopefully to humorous effect) to put in an ad campaign I'm working on.

The Iraqi Information Minister has a few good ones from the US invasion, such as "There are no American tanks in Baghdad". --Serie 23:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my little lecture, I submitted it before I read your last comment. In any case, I think it's still relevant, as it displays that labelling something a "lie" is a lot easier said than done. You actually have to get into the minds of the individuals making the statements, and then subjectively decide whether the remark was a "true", "out-and-out" lie, or whether the speaker actually believed what he or she was saying. I'll give you a couple more examples:

• Yasser Arafat (on various occasions...forgive me for paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact words) - "We [the PLO or later the PA] recognize the right of Israel to exist", or alternatively, "We [the PLO or later the PA] completely denounce all forms of violence".

Was he telling the truth? Was he lying? You'd have to get into his now (thankfully) dead brain to be absolutely certain. Otherwise it depends on who you ask. For those gullible enough to believe he was being truthful when he made these statements, it sort of became "their" truth, in an odd sense. In any case, it might be far more difficult than you had expected to find a list of clear lies to include in your ad campaign.

Just as a final example to think about, since you're looking for something that may also have humourous effect, where do you think you'd but O.J. Simpsons statement, after being acquitted of all murder charges, to the effect that (again, forgive me for paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact words): "Now I intend to focus all of my efforts on trying to find the true killer". Tough call, eh? Loomis51 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I'd say that Bush Sr.'s "no new taxes" statement was not a lie but a promise he broke. Some other political lies are:

• • Dwight Eisenhower calling Francis Gary Powers' U-2 a weather device.
  • Richard Nixon campaigning on a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War.
  • Gary Hart denying he was having an affair.
  • Joseph McCarthy claiming to have a list of 57 (or 81, or 205) Communists in the State Department.
  • Karl Rove claiming he didn't know who Valerie Plame was.
  • George W. Bush saying he didn't know of anyone in his administration leaking classified information. (Lewis Libby later testified Bush himself approved the leak of a classified document on Iraq.)
  • Ronald Reagan's invention of the "Welfare Queen." -- Mwalcoff 23:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder where your political inclinations lie, Mwalcoff. You just listed six Republican "liars" with one token Democrat (Gary Hart,) who incidentally, from the list, is the lowest profile individual.

Also, call me crazy, but wasn't it during Nixon's administration that the Vietnam War was in fact efectively put to an end? How then was his campaign statement that he had a plan to end the Vietnam War a lie? Seems like he pretty much delivered on that statement.Loomis51 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're crazy, Loomis (lol). No American administration can claim credit for ending the Vietnam War. Nixon in 1974 belatedly removed most of the Americans from the equation (in which they and other western powers including Australia had no business being involved in the first place) and left the Vietnamese to fight it out amongst themselves. The war may have been over for the Americans, but that didn't mean it was over. The fighting and the dying continued, and the war didn't end in any real sense till after the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. One week earlier, on 23 April, Gerald Ford made the somewhat vacuous pronouncement that the Vietnam War was officially over. Not only was this a little premature, but he was talking about a conflict that his country had turned its back on, so it was none of their business anymore. How would it be if, say, the Tsar of Russia had declared the US Civil War was officially at an end? Ford must have thought the American people were incredibly stupid, to come out with such a ridiculous statement. JackofOz 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me, Jack, that you actually believe that the conflict in Vietnam was a purely local issue, just a mere squabble between opposing factions in a swampy little country in Indochina. The Vietnam War was one of the clearest examples of a proxy war between the greatest powers at the time, China and the Soviet Union on the one hand, and the US on the other. You say the western powers had no business being involved in the war. What about the eastern powers? What about the 320,000 Chinese troops that actually served in Vietnam to back the communist north? Did they have any business being there?

No. Of course not. JackofOz 02:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that once the western powers were removed from the equation, the Vietnamese were left to fight it out amongst themselves. Do you actually believe that? Do you actually believe that once the west withdrew, the Chinese and the Soviets similarly withdrew their support of the north and truly left the Vietnamese to fight it out amongst themselves? (Besides, even if they did, they had already supplied the north with such a massive cache of military equipment that a final victory by the north was inevitable.)

Please don't always take my hyperbole literally (except, of course, when that's entirely appropriate). JackofOz 02:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Vietnam War was indeed a tragedy of immense proportions. And yes, when looking at that particular war on its own, the west clearly lost. The reality, however, is that a much larger war was going on at the time: the cold war. The Vietnam "War" was, in my opinion, more of a battle than a war. A battle within the much greater cold war. A battle which the free countries of the world lost, but still managed to give the east a bloody nose. A battle that kept the self-imploding but openly expansionist east occupied long enough that it no longer became feasible to expand further, throughout Indochina, and perhaps even further south, into Indonesia and finally into that rather odd, sparsely populated island nation where there lives a rather funny group of people who speak a rather funny brand of English and who have a rather tiny military to defend themselves from outside aggressors, as it hardly ever occured to them that anybody would have any interest in attacking their nation. Loomis51 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey fella, now you're getting personal. I won't even try to correct such cocky Canadian canards, except to refer you to Japanese air attacks on Australia, 1942-43, and in particular Air raids on Darwin, February 19, 1942; the Japanese midget submarine Attack on Sydney Harbour; and the Brisbane Line. The now thankfully defunct White Australia Policy owed part of its existence to the xenophobic attitude of the British colonists who felt that if any "foreign" cultures were allowed to thrive here, those foreigners would take over from within. Re defence spending: we have the longest coastline of any nation, a coastline that surrounds the world's most arid continent, huge parts of which are uninhabitable; and we're located a long way from the "main game" of Europe/USA, so our arrival on the world stage has been very recent in historical terms. These all account for the lowest population density of any continent except Antarctica. Because of the inherent tension between our geography and our demography, we will probably never acquire the critical mass of human capital required to have a truly secure perimeter. So, without being completely naive about it, we place a great importance on maintaining friendly relations with our neighbours. Which is why we've become the leading nation in our region on a whole range of measures. JackofOz 02:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, Jack, there's obviously been a miscommunication here. If I inadvertently offended you, then I appologize. You tell me not to take your hyperbole literally, all I ask from you is to understand in similar fashion that I may use similar techniques to drive home a point. My reference to something along the lines of "a rather odd people who speak a rather funny brand of English...with a tiny army..." was clearly not to be taken literally. My main point, in simple terms, was that I couldn't understand why an Australian such as yourself, (with obviously a good memory for past instances of miltary agression against Australia,) would be against his country getting involved in a war where the very identity of a Australia as a free nation was clearly at stake. So I used a bit of sarcarsm. The horror.

By the way, perhaps you should check out Geography of Canada and compare it to Geography of Australia. It would appear that Canada has roughly eight times as much coastline as Australia. Not that I'd ever be so uptight as to correct someone about such a rather meaningless piece of trivia, but since you seem to have reacted in such an inexplicably hostile manner, basically accusing me of being a total ignoramus on all things Australian, I only thought it fitting.

Look, we're in the same boat here. If you assumed that I was suggesting that Australia has the means to build up some sort of massive military infrastructure, you couldn't be more wrong. It's no secret that the Canadian military is the laughingstock of the western world. It's so obvious that to openly mock it is common fare. (Common Canadian joke: Q-What do you call three guys, two canoes and a slingshot? A-The Royal Canadian Navy.) We simply don't have the means to build up much of a military, plus, most Canadians seem to live in some fantasyland thinking the world is such a peaceful friendly place and nobody ever threatens us because we're so damn lovable, when the reality of the matter is that the only reason our national security is such a non-issue is because that other country that we happen to share the continent with just happens to have the most massive and powerful military on the planet.

Yes, despite a lack of resources to build up a significant military, the Australians did what's right and helped out in Vietnam, even if only sending a symbolic military contingent, just to show solidarity with the free countries of the world. Good on them I say! Same thing goes for the mission in Afghanistan, and, dare I say, Iraq. Good on them!

Canada, on the other hand, has been shamelessly shirking in it's responsibilities as a member of the community of free nations. On 9/11 our closest neighbour and friend was barbarously attacked by an organization which was hosted and being given aid and comfort by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Can you believe that only five short years later, a motion introduced to Parliament by our minority government to extend the mission in Afghanistan by a mere two years just barely squeaked through? Shame on us for even giving the issue a second thought!

If you disagree with my obviously heavily right leaning views, take it out on me, not on Canada, as my views diverge GREATLY from those of my fellow Canadians. Calling what I said a "cocky Canadian canard" simply makes no sense, as my views are so UNCanadian when it comes to these issues. Not that I don't love my country, its people, its dedication to multiculturalism, freedom and tolerance, I actually couldn't imagine living anywhere else. I simply find myself in an extremely small minority when it comes to issues of international relations.

Like I said, I'm sorry if I inadvertently offended you, but at the same time, I'm no sycophant, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining exactly what I meant, point by point, and how it wasn't meant to offend you. I honestly don't have the time, and frankly, I'm not entirely unoffended by your rather unexpected turnabout. I had thought that over the past little while we had established a degree of goodwill between each other, to the extent that you would give me the benefit of the doubt in cases where my writing may leave room for interpretation. Apparently not. I sincerely hope that you would reconsider that "cocky Canadian canard" comment, but if you can't, I'm afraid there's not much else that I can do to make things right. Loomis51 13:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, I took no offence at your remarks, and I certainly meant none by my response. I was merely engaging in "robust intellectual debate". We're adults and we can withstand the best others have to offer in such debates. There's no need for people's sensitivities to get bruised, unless there's clear evidence of personal attacks being made. I have seen no such evidence in any of our interchanges, and I don't intend there will be any. If "cocky Canadian canard" offended you, I of course withdraw. I thought it was obvious that my deliberate use of alliteration was a signal there was good humour being displayed here. If you force me to adopt the "lol" language and put a smiley after every single time I say something humorous, to make absolutely sure the reader doesn't misconstrue what I just said as malicious or whatever, then it just makes for a very unnatural and stilted way of writing for me. I guess we all have our own personal views on what humour is, and the best way of expressing it. A very instructive lesson, which I'm sure you would appreciate, was listening to Andrew Denton interviewing Mel Brooks a couple of years ago on Enough Rope (ABC TV). Mel was directing the stage version of The Producers over here. They were discussing the song Springtime for Hitler, and Denton asked Mel if there was any subject that was off limits for humour. Brooks replied "None, absolutely none", and went on to explain that a song like "Springtime for Hitler" is inherently very funny, and only those Jews who are committed to being eternal victims would get all offended by it. Laughing at such a song does not mean that a Jew has suddenly forgotten about the Holocaust, or ceased to care, it just means that they can see the funny side of any situation, which is a necessary survival skill. I'm sure Victor Frankl would agree wholheartedly. So, that's my sermon about humour. I fear I've now become too tangential even for me, so I'll leave it at that. Cheers. JackofOz 23:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeez Jack! You really had me going there! As I think I've at least implied in the past, I have no problem with "robust intellectual debate". In fact I love it, all the moreso with someone who holds diametrically opposing views to mine, so long as there's that inexplicable "kinship of spirit" -- basically, that underlying mutual respect that can trascend any debate, no matter how heated. Please don't change your manner of debating on my account. No need to withdraw the "cocky Canadian canard" comment either. In fact, my coy little reference to a "rather odd group of people, speaking a rather odd brand of English" was intended to hopefully put a grin on your face, and possibly produce a bit of a chuckle...with you then responding similarly with a good-hearted dig about Canada (which apparently you did...though it apparently went over my head). I'm sure that had the exchange gone on in person, I would have been able to sense the underlying good-will, it can just get tricky sometimes in writing. With regards to the Mel Brooks story, I couldn't agree with you more. "Springtime for Hitler", for me, is brilliant satire. In any case, I'm sure the original questioner of this question (I honestly can't even remember what the original question was!) is by now completely bewildered by this whole give and take. So for her/his sake, maybe we should just quit now, and let the rest of the bunch continue with their discussion. G'day, you absolutely asinine Aussie ass! Loomis51 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The "secret plan" (which Nixon denied having) was to end the war without losing it. Nixon appears to have had no such plan; the real question is whether he really claimed to have one in the first place. See Election_promise#Richard_Nixon.27s_Election_promises. --Fastfission 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Nixon "ended" the Vietnam War was not my point. The questioner asked for examples of politicians lying, and there's no question Nixon was lying when he said he had a plan to end the war in 1968. I seem to remember a documentary that intersperced a clip of a 1968 Nixon campaign speech with a post-Watergate interview in which Nixon chuckled and admitted there was no such plan. I can't help it if I mostly thought of GOP lies. Clinton was already taken, and Carter, if anything, was too honest. -- Mwalcoff 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush's "no new taxes" wasn't a lie, it was a broken promise. A lie is stating something that is not true; a broken promise is saying you will (or won't) do something, and then not doing it. Personally I'm less critical of broken promises than I am lies; a promise may need to be broken occasionally, if the circumstances change. A lie is a lie no matter how you spin it. Though some lies are, in my mind, worse than others (Clinton's "didn't have sex" lie didn't hurt anyone; Bush Jr.'s "Saddam has WMDs and participated in 9/11" lie has so far resulted in thousands of US and Iraqi deaths, with more no doubt to come). --Fastfission 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A.Q. Khan was quoted about a million times before 1998 claiming that Pakistan's nuclear program was not developing a bomb, though I don't know if that is on video anywhere (or in English). The entire Soviet state was built on lies but that isn't particularly interesting (and they are all in Russian). Hmm... I'm drawing somewhat of a blank at the moment. --Fastfission 02:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is footage of a Congressional hearing in which the CEOs of the big tobacco companies claim one by one that they had no clue whatsoever that smoking might have adverse health effects. If I'm not mistaken it's in The Corporation. --Lambiam^Talk 05:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple such events in German politics, the most famous one probably being Uwe Barschel claiming he didn't know anything about the Barschel affair (he said something to the effect that the lies of his detractors would "fall like a house of cards"). You'd probably have a problem with the langugage barrier since you probably cannot expect your audience to understand German, but if you want to educate them a bit about politics outside of the US, the Barschel affair is a classic example of what you're looking for (I'm a bit surprised we have no article at all on en.wikipedia, I'll see if I can fix that). If you're looking for a bit of comic relief in between, two classics that instantly come to mind are Obi Wan Kenobi saying "Only imperial stromtroopers are so precise" and "What I told you was true...from a certain point of view" -- Ferkelparade π 06:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One recent event in Canada occured last May the entire Canadian parliamentary press corp broke out in laughter at a press conference when Paul Martin made the obviously untrue claim that Belinda Stronach's defection was not going to affect the upcoming confidence vote. - SimonP 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some British examples:

Tony Blair claiming that Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction which could be deployed within 15 minutes

Tony Blair later claiing that the reason we invaded Iraq had nothing to do with WMD & was because Saddam was a dictator.

Charles Kennedy denying he had a drink problem.

Alan Clark on his involvement in the Arms to Iraq scandal.

Harold Wilson saying "the pound in your pocket isn't devalued".

John Profumo denying an affair with Christine Keeler

Gordon Brown & Tony Blair saying there is no rift & they're the best of friends & working well together.

David Blunkett denying fiddling travel expenses & pulling strings to get a visa for his mistresses nanny.

Johnathan Aitken & Jeffrey Archer saying just about anything - there are so many lies to choose from.

AllanHainey 09:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• • If you want to expand beyond politics, don't forget that professional athletes and actors routinely lie to journalists. The trouble with these lies is that it often takes a long time to tell whether it's a lie, and in many cases, the liar feels like it was nobody's business to know the truth, anyway. For example: Barry Bonds has definitely lied about steroids, but how much? Elton John lied about first being straight and then being bisexual when he was gay all along, but was it really any of our business? --M@rēino 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe the subject matter is none of our business, but if they're choosing to make any sort of public statement, a lie is still a lie. Compare Elton John and Kevin Spacey for example. One told lies for a while; the other has preferred not to make any statement, so people still speculate, but he can't be accused of lying.
• People in general lie all the time. When confronted with a street beggar asking for $2 for "a cup of coffee", most people prefer to say "Sorry but I don't have any change on me right now" (a lie) rather than "I don't believe you when you say you want the money for coffee because I suspect you're a drug addict and I don't want to support that. But even if I believed you, I just don't want to help you anyway, because if I help you I'll feel I have to help all the others like you whenever I'm asked, but I feel unable to come right out and say that because that will make me seem like an uncharitable person (which may well be the truth)". JackofOz 21:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)