Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 12

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives

The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 11 Humanities desk archive July 13 >

Great Depression and Britain

How did the great depression affect Great Britian?

It's somewhat depressing that you didn't read the rules and check out our article Great Depression before asking your homework question. JackofOz 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Another link which may prove useful is Jarrow March. Grutness...wha? 04:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Or even Great Depression in the United Kingdom. Although I think some fact-checking for this particular article is needed, it talks of "income tax was raised from 22.5 pence to 25 pence in the pound" - at a time when the UK had pre-decimal coinage this doesn't make sense. Jooler 10:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been corrected to d... Shimgray | talk | 10:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Still not happy about that. 22.5d translates as 1s 10d ha'penny. 25d = 2s 1d. A decent reference is required, not some anonymous word document that could have been generated from the article or some other unknown source. Jooler 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite see what the problem is - can someone enlighten me? Pence have been around since antiquity, they're not just a decimal-era unit. It makes sense, in a tax context, to talk in pence and not convert to shillings and pence. This makes for a much easier direct comparison (22.5 vs. 25). There were many commercial contexts where prices were always quoted in pence only, such as primary produce (135 pence per bale, or whatever). JackofOz 04:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess somebody has converted the actual rates at the time into decimal currency, and that the rates were actually 4/6 raised to 5/- -- Arwel (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I can see clearly now. JackofOz 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay... what's the year? Hrm. Pear's Cyclopedia, forty-fourth edition (ie 1934) gives income tax as being 4s. 6d. in the pound standard rate, but 2s. 3d. in the pound on the first £175 of taxable income, and then the usual arcane structure of allowances. I'll see if I can find a better figure. Shimgray | talk | 10:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The New Budget Proposals (copy of a White Paper pub. in the Times, 11 Sep 1931): "It is proposed to increase the standard rate of income tax from 4s 6d. to 5s. in the £ for the year 1931-32". This was confirmed in the Finance (No. 2) Bill a week later, which was rattled through Parliament and got its final reading on October 3rd. So it looks like it was a conversion error... I've updated the article. Shimgray | talk | 10:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree a better reference is desirable. In the time I allowed for it, I was hopeful of finding a historical table of tax data, but the Word document was the best I could find. There was no reference at all before, but one was needed to check whether old or new pence was meant. Some material I found suggested authors didn't know the difference. Notinasnaid 09:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

George Washington's conversion

I have an article by a certain Ben Emerson which states categorically that the First President of the United States, George Washington, was in fact baptised a Catholic before he died on the night of December 13, 1799. The article states as follows:

"On December 13, 1799, Washington (aged 67 years) was exposed to a storm of sleet and developed a cold. He rested in bed at his home in Mount Vernon, Virginia.

On the morning of the 14th at 3.00, he had a severe attack of membranous croup. At daybreak, Mrs. Washington sent for the only physician, Dr. Craik. Two other physicians also came, but all three together could not save him. Washington died between 10.00 and 11.00 that night.

About four hours before Washington's death, Father Leonard Neale, a Jesuit priest was called to Mount Vernon from St. Mary's Mission across the Piscataway River. Washington had been an Episcopalian, but was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church that night. After Washingtons's death, a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary and one of St. John were found among the effects on an enventory of articles at his home.

George Washington had an interest in Roman Catholicism for many years. His servant Juba stated that the General made the Sign of the Cross before meals. He may have learned this practice from his Catholic lieutenants, John Fitzgerald or Stephen Moylan. At Valley Forge, Washington had forbidden during "Pope's Day", the burning in effigy of the Roman Pontiff. As President, Washington slipped into a Catholic Church several times to attend Sunday Mass."

End of article. I was unable to verify the source.

Presumably you're referring to this? You didn't ask a question, but given the source I'd be quite skeptical about its claims without any other backup (the usual published biographies are pretty good there). Ziggurat 00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this, which is a page from the "[i]nventory of articles" mentioned above. You can see the St. John and Virgin Mary items there. Whether this proves Washington was Catholic is debatable. --Cam 02:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on, everybody knows that Washington was actually the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion. (Joking aside, the Catholic conversion story is fictional.) --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 09:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Celts

"The ancient Celts are thus best depicted as a loose and highly diverse collection of indigenous tribal societies bound together by trade, a common druidic religion, and similar political institutions — but each having its own local language and traditions"

Does this mean they were likely of the same ethnic group?.-Rainsey 04:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

According to which definition of ethnicity? --Dweller 11:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The ultimate definition of "ancient Celt" is "speaker of a language from the Celtic linguistic sub-group of Indo-European". AnonMoos 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Celts are like the Slavs -- probably diverged from the same clan, but possibly a group of clans that are learned the same language, and then diverged. See Gaul and Celtici for examples of how far spread out they were. --M@rēino 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

the number 11

In the wake of yesterday´s terrorist attack in Mumbai (the media is indicating that it is most probably an attack by Islamic fundamentalist groups), it seems strange that the 11th is being constantly chosen in recent times as the date for major terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda & similar groups (of the 4 major "homeland" attacks since Sept. 2001, 3 have now been on the 11th - Madrid, NY/Washington and Mumbai) - is there any reason for this that we know of? I have checked on wikipage "eleven" but there is no direct info. about this in this context. Thanks for any info. ==Joel==

Well, if you choose a day and it works for you, you might as well stick with it. However, there are far too many terrorist attacks all the time to actually say they waited until the 11th. They said

"Hey, we'll be ready in that week, fuck it, lets do it on the 11th"

*People yelling in Farsi*

"Alright!" --mboverload@ 07:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• is the Islamic calendar the same as the western one?I think not therefore the question seems a bit foolish.hotclaws**==(81.134.99.206 08:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

• Farsi speaking mullahs in Iran channel the oil money to Arabic-speaking Hezbollah youths in Lebanon and Hamas youths in Palestine who love to blow themselves to pieces. It's a way of life for them. They don't value life. They accomplish nothing and are willing to relinquish it with ease.

• Iran and Afghanistan have a solar Islamic calendar. Arabic countries have a lunar one.--71.105.21.228 16:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

All the above is entirely true. However, the fact that the Islamic calendar is entirely different from the Gregorian shouldn't be seen as a definitive answer to the question. Perhaps the terrorists, for whatever odd reason, (after all, one cannot expect sense from such animals), think that the number 11 has some sort of special meaning in civilized countries. In fact, to a certain extent it does.

Hostilities were formally ended on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, marking the end of WWI. To this day, Veterans Day (in the US for example) and Remembrance Day (in Commonwealth countries), is commemorated at 11 o'clock each year on the 11th of Novemeber (the eleventh month). This was likely chosen for cultural reasons, as the expression "the eleventh hour" has significance as expressing victory at the last possible moment.

Also, it should be mentioned that WWI marked the end of the Ottoman Empire, and with it Muslim rule in a large part of the world, especially the middle east. For fundamentalist Muslims this is seen as a major setback in their pursuit of world domination.

Remember also that back in 1973 the Muslim nations of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt chose the 10th day of Tishrei of the Jewish Calendar to attack Israel in what became known as the Yom Kippur War, that day being the holiest day in Judaism, a day of fasting and prayer, and, therefore, the day when Israel would be least prepared for attack.

All this is pure speculation and likely entirely irrelevant, nonetheless, there remains a very small possibility that the terrorists chose days numbered 11 for their relevance to their victims. Loomis 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer and the info., Loomis. ==Joel==

movie filming location

--207.200.116.137 07:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)M--207.200.116.137 07:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)--207.200.116.137 07:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)In the 1955 movie, "Love is a Many-Splendored Thing," there was a scene involving a sampan ride across "the bay" to a floating restaurant or on an island (?). William Holden's character was taking out Jennifer Jones' character on a first date to celebrate the Chinese Moon Festival. Was this filmed in Hong Kong and if so, where exactly? Thank you.

The scene was filmed in Hong Kong, although it's hard to say exactly where as it was over 50 years ago. There are a couple of floating restaurants around Hong Kong and I believe the sampans usually leave from Aberdeen Harbour. The largest and arguably most famous is the Jumbo Floating Restaurant, but as that started operating in 1976, it obviously wasn't the one in the film. The characters later take a larger boat to Macao. --Canley 09:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the version of the film that starred Pinocchio, called "Love is a Many-Splintered Thing". :-) StuRat 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethical living

There's a lot of talk about ethical living these days, but to me it seems pretty dubious. Take vegetarianism, for instance. I know there are other arguments for not eating meat, but let's take the one that runs that it's wrong to eat meat because animals suffer in factory farms and suchlike. To me, that is not a valid argument. If I opt out of meat-eating for that reason, the animals will continue to suffer. The only difference is, I can now hold my head up and say "well, the animals are still suffering, but at least I'm not contributing to it." And that is essentially an act of self-satisfaction. The same goes for something like taking public transport rather than driving the car. When I lived in London, people were constantly being urged to do this, because cars contribute more to global warming, congestion, and so on. But choosing to take public transport is not an act of altruism, it's one of selfishness.

Nor do I buy the argument that runs "if more people were to give up meat, or at least to make a fuss about the conditions in factory farms, there will be a groundswell of opinion that will lead to worthwhile change. I'm just doing my bit, that's all." That argument is delusional. The fact is, unless factory farms are done away with at a single stroke, nothing will ever change. And the same goes for all of the horrors and injustices in the world. --Richardrj 08:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Voting is delusional as well, which is a problem =D. All "altruistic" acts are done for self gratification or for fear or some of the billion versions of hell they subscribe to. In the end, giving money to charity feels good. If it feels good, people do it. --mboverload@ 08:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Richardrj, do I understand your only reservation being with the fact that you don't see a causal link between your choice and the amount of torture in existence now or in the future? ie, your conclusion would be different if torture were "made-to-order" and the conditions are like "you walk into a McDonald's at 3 AM that has no customers, but because there are no customers, nothing's being tortured. But they're ready to start torturing, just for you, finishing a minute after you've placed your order"? Is the ONLY problem you have with the causality, and in the sentence I just described, you wouldn't place an order? OR, is your problem with the fact that even if you refrain from causing something, other people still will, so that the only condition under which you would keep from doing something wrong is if you're the only one who would end up doing that this year (or, perhaps, ever in the future)? 82.131.186.168 11:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

82, my head's spinning a little from reading your question :) But I think I mean the latter, although I don't agree that eating meat, for example, is of itself wrong. I'm still laughing at your poem from the other day, though, especially the last line. --Richardrj 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You have an interesting line of argument, which seems to rely on saying "some people think the sky is blue, but that's delusional". You don't say, for example, why you consider taking public transport to be selfish. As for vegetarianism, if meat farming is wasteful of resources (for which there is good evidence) then fewer meat eaters means less meat farming and less waste of resources. DJ Clayworth 16:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

i think you do need to expand on "public tranport= selfish" line. i mean, if everyone took public tranport then the gap between rich and poor would be less visible, there would be less road death and public tranport would improve due to higher income, leading to a virtuos cycle. increased car use has the opposite effect (and thats before factoring in global warming). if you dont want to live an ethical lifestyle then thats fine but i think, certialy on the public tranport question, youre trying to justify your apathy but its not necessary - we all different, be happy with the fact that you dont give a shit! 201.32.187.74 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Richardjr, if you'd like to read some pretty thought-provoking arguments about the ethics and economics of vegetarianism, check out some of the stuff that Peter Singer has written. I don't agree with all of his arguments (and I am not a vegetarian), but he makes a pretty strong case about the ethics of it. His writings are very accessible, as well. Ethically speaking, though, just because your individual actions do not have any obvious immediate effect on the big picture does not get you as an individual off the hook, and economics is full of examples where markets rose and fell based on consumer behavior and changing opinions about the ethics of things. --Fastfission 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because some action happens to work for you, does not make it selfishness. Would you refuse to enter into a relationship with someone you really loved, just because you would enjoy their company as much as they enjoyed yours? Of course not. Do you refuse to accept payment for services you render, just because it increases your bank balance? Of course not. Is either of these things selfish? Of course not. Selfishness, to me, is about doing things that benefit you, with no regard to how other parties might be affected. Where there is mutual benefit, or the satisfaction of a just contract, the concept of selfishness does not arise. It's all about win-win, which is the complete antithesis of selfishness. JackofOz 04:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with your statement "If I opt out of meat-eating for that reason, the animals will continue to suffer." If only you do this and no-one else, then there will be one less meat-eating person in your town/city/country. This is a reduction in the demand for meat (however slight), which, based on how our economy works, will eventually reduce the supply of meat (since the producers do not wish prices to fall too far, or too much produced meat going unsold. See supply and demand.) Admittedly, the difference one person makes is small, but even a handful of people going vegetarian can make a dent in the meat consumption of a town or city. So you are not being selfish, you are actively contributing to the cause you're trying to promote in your own individual way.

As for your point about public transport, you don't really explain why you consider it to be selfishness, but think about this: even one person (you) taking public transport to, say, get to work every day instead of driving reduces the global CO₂ emissions of your city/country by a quentifiable amount - whatever your car would have produced on the journey to work. Additionally, you will have reduced the number of vehicles on the road during the hour of your journey by one. That's a measurable positive impact on society, and will probably bring a benefit to you as well, depending on the traffic conditions where you live, and how much petrol costs vs the cost of a bus or tube ticket. — QuantumEleven 06:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The answers to the questions you asked depend on deeper ontological and epistemological questions about causality that dictate your ethical philosophy. The main problem is that, in at least some of the cases you mentioned, the results are all or nothing. Either a chicken is raised and killed, or it's not. Either CO2 levels rise enough to raise the temperature that extra half a degree that leads to a horrible catastrophe or kills off a plant or animal species, or they don't. Either a traffic jam happens or no one cares than one more car was on the road. And in almost all of these cases, the effect would have happened even if your action had not. According to most views of causality that are commonly believed, this means that your actions did not cause that event. The aggregate of all the other actions of all of the other people that did the same thing you did, did so. However, you could look at causality probabilistically, in that your taking the bus decreases the chance of CO2 levels rising to catastrophic minutely, and I think that this view is much more useful than the standard ideas in making good choices in many areas of your life. So, if you feel that you should care about chickens being killed, then you should(intuitively), think about how much your not eating chicken for your next meal decreases the chance that a chicken will be killed, and you can be justified in having an appropriate level of satisfaction acording to how much of a difference you made. It is true that people often delude themselves about how much of a difference they are making. Voting or taking the bus will have very little impact on anything. It is mostly the people that are not you that decide what is going to happen in the world around you. There are more of them than there are of you. Crazywolf 09:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is mistaken.

I don't know how much meat there is on a cow, but lets say its 100kg. You decide to become vegetarian, and over the next year or two eat 100kg less meat than you would have done otherwise.

Now it does not matter if the meat you didnt eat would have come from many different cows, because if the law of supply and demand is at work, then one less cow will be farmed for meat in the future. Thus your action alone has saved one cow. Similarly for other resources.

As an analogy consider a bank account. Your attitude would be like saying that if you want to save money then you must not make any money withdrawals at all. However even if you just withdraw one less $ than you normally would, then you still have one more $ in your account than you would have done otherwise. Your action does make a difference. Its not all or nothing.

Another example - Christmas trees. You decide not to have a Christmas tree nest Christmas. That means one less tree is chopped down. --62.253.48.198 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever justification or self-satisfaction a standards-bearing individual derives from ethical living, it has yet to be argued that, yes it DOES make a difference and influence others in what an individual does. The concession that "they," others who are less self-aware, or presumably lazy, won't change, is untrue. The general populace is highly open and seeking change and leadership, but they follow fashionable trends, not carefully-reasoned ethical guidelines.

The general populace will move and work in order to do what is considered generally acceptable. Consumer culture is built upon injecting a feeling of need for conspicuous consumption, therefore just as a middle-class family will devote lots of expense and energy towards SUVs and other items of conspicuous consumption (i.e. work long hours to afford it), so may they adopt higher ethical standards if society deems it acceptable and vogue. It is not hard to sell ethical living but it must be marketed towards the repitilian brain.

The human rights movement prides itself on the contributions of a few individuals.

Examples: many years ago discrimination against blacks stopped being fashionable and now blatant racism is in the minority. This had to do with laws being passed, but laws in the USA are determined by a democratic process, a trend, a majority vote (no conspiracy theory tangents, please). Generally bigotry is a natural tendency and so attitudes must be modified by social mores. An example of this kind of change can be observed happening right now. Only a few years ago popular culture still felt it was OK to discriminate against homosexuals in entertainment. Now we can see by the change in comedy acts that this is no longer considered "funny" material.

Sturmabteilung

The Sturmabteilung was an atheist organization? And the Sturmabteilung's man were often atheists? --Vess 09:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are statements with question marks. What's your question? --Dweller 11:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can take it the poster is unfamiliar with the way in which English questions are usually formed, and their questions are clear enough. JackofOz 04:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless I see any evidence of this, I wouldn't think so. That issue wasn't really a focus of Nazism, which preferred to work within the existing religious framework, while minimizing its actual political power. Atheism would probably have been tolerated, provided that it coincided with rabid anti-semitism and anti-communism. Then again, the Nazis would probably have required a belief in Divine Providence of some kind. Without such a belief, neither Hitler nor Germany could have any supernatural significance. Bhumiya (said/done) 07:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ichpuchtli Goddess Table.

Ok the thing is I was reading the Linux page. I noticed how they had a table well I tried to build my own like that but I found I coulfdn't, I also found that I could not put in a picture.

The table is the problem I got lost what to put question marks behind ones uncertain of.

name = Xochiquetzal-Ichpuchtli screenshot = (couldn't do that no upload buton) Religon = Aztec Origen = Central & South America Culure = Aztec? Nature = Kind? Job = Fertiliy/Lust

little help please.

sorry if there are any typos it is just I have broken my arm and am typing with one hand.

Damn, man. Wikipedia isn't that important -- go see a doctor!

I suggest you copy the whole table, then change one thing at a time, and use the preview button, until you have it just right, then save it. I often use this method on things I'm unsure of. StuRat 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Former appointed Church of Ireland Bishops of Cork and Waterford

Please forgive me if my first attempt went through. This is my first use of this wonderful service. I have not been able to find a list of appointed Bishops of the Church of Ireland. I am doing family research before a trip to Ireland. My great grandfather,Christopher Burkitt Harley, was (I am told) appointed Bishop of either Cork or Waterford around 1900 but died before being installed. Any help in getting a list of former Bishops will be appreciated. Thank you in advance for any help you have.

Generally, we do have tables at the individual bishoprics. I think, if we have Bishop of Cork and Bishop of Waterford, we're going to have a processional table. If those articles don't exist, there are ways to get the information. Geogre 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Our article on the Church of Ireland lists the current bishops but not past ones. The Church itself might have the information you're looking for. You are probably already familiar with their policy on genealogical research. --Halcatalyst 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a list of the Bishops of Cork of the Church of Ireland. --Cam 02:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Crockford's Clerical Directory will probably have a list, or a contemporary British almanack, both of which may be in a large reference library (though finding the latter might be a matter of luck). Nothing in the OxDNB. I'll see if I can turn anything up without having to go into town. Shimgray | talk | 10:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I can confirm he wasn't elected to Cork in 1912, or in 1894; these seem to have gone without a hitch according to contemporary reports in the Times. Shimgray | talk | 10:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Waterford is more confusing - there's a Suffragan Bishop of that title in the CoI, and a Bishop of that title in the RC church. Can't find any ref to him as either from 1885 to 1915. Shimgray | talk | 10:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Demise of Soviet Union

Is Mikhail Gorbachev more responsible for the dissolution of the Soviet Union or Boris Yeltsin?--Patchouli 13:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I should think the republics and satellites are most responsible. However, Gorbachev ultimately made the decision to not apply force to keeping these nations in the Soviet sphere. Now, you could take the naive western view and say that they were always yearning to kick out the Russians or the view that it was a loud minority that did and that the economies were bad enough that the minorities succeeded. Either way, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and East Germany had the greatest effect, as their independence encouraged the various republics to try it, too. Geogre 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

David Remnick says (in his wonderful Lenin's Tomb) that the changes really required both of them. Without a middle-of-the-road, compromising-but-still-a-socialist politician like Gorbachev, Yeltsin would never had had the political safety to make his more radical swings, and egg Gorbachev into more and more reforms. Without someone like Yeltsin putting heavy pressure on reform, there are many times when Gorbachev could have let the more right-wing elements of the Poliburo undo the reforms. Now, as the whether who is more responsible for the dissolution itself—I don't think it is a matter of either of them, by themselves, being responsible. If I were to try and oversimplify it: Gorbachev + Yeltsin led to reforms which led to instability which led to pressures which led to a coup which led to Yeltsin becoming politically more powerful than Gorbachev and secession which led to the end of the USSR. --Fastfission 20:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• What specifically were those reforms implemented by the two men? I doubt that there was any reform in terms of creating a just legal system. Do you think Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been justly convicted with the 9-year prison term? Wouldn't he be just fined if Khodorkovsky lived in the United States and charged with the same things?--Patchouli 06:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider the Soviet justice system under Stalin. Would Khodorkovsky have gotten a fair trial then? Would he even have gotten a trial at all? It's a considerable reform when the Powers That Be need a kangaroo trial to get someone out of the way, rather than merely vanishing him. --Serie 18:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Gorbachev and Yeltsin came to power over 30 years after Stalin's death whereupon the vanishings had been reduced dramatically. At that time, while the American judicial system was way superior to the Soviet's, it still had some flaws that can be seen in the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Tsien Hsue-shen cases. Additionally, the Russian legal system was lagging behind its American counterpart even when Nicholas II was in control.

I am really interested in knowing how the U.S. deals with someone charged with the same things as Khodorkovsky. Does tax evasion ever result in a 9-year prison term?--Patchouli 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

de in Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

Is de a sign of aristocratic ancestry or gentry background in the Netherlands? I know that it means the. Does Queen Beatrix ever knight anyone ?--Patchouli 13:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. But what I do know is that in Flemish (which is Dutch with a certain accent in Belgium, on paper they look the same) it is actually more fancy to have a de in your name than a De, it is case sensitive.

Evilbu 16:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The native Dutch form of the old European "locative honorific" is actually van. "De" could be the Dutch definite article, rather than the French locative honorific (I don't know which is true in this case). AnonMoos 18:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In Dutch names "de" is very common and it does not indicate aristocratic ancestry. Neither does "van", which may have been a "locative honorific" at some point, but also appears in many normal names. David Sneek 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We have articles (although without much detail): de#Dutch and van (Dutch). Rmhermen 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is there legally recognized knighthood in the Netherlands?--Patchouli 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Vanity/Autobiography pages

I've read the Wiki policies on 'vanity' pages, and had a question that didn't seem to be addressed: what's WP's policy on a person or company's Press Agent creating and modifying a page for their client? While it rings of vanity on the "don't create pages about yourself" level, it also could qualify as being created by a third party. What should be done if a page is discovered that's blatently created (eg even mentioned as such in the talk page) by the press agent? SpikeJones 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why assume that it doesn't happen all the time? Do you think that the guys in Congress don't have people editing their pages (some have admitted to paying editors)? It doesn't matter who writes a page. Others will see it. If it is a glowing review of a person or business, someone will come along and edit it. If it is about something that isn't notable, the article will be nominated for deletion. All in all, Wikipedia has a large enough population to be self-regulating. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, such an article could be removed for being a commercial advertisement for the individual. A ten page article full of praise for a model who never did anything more than an underwear ad in a Sears catalog might be a good example. StuRat 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - I'd need to see the ad first :) --Richardrj 07:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

cannot find article back which neatly explained names of Asian capitals

I once found an article about an Asian city, which claimed the name of the city meant something like capital in a certain language, and then it started summing up other asian cities which had similar names, it actually showed a trend.

I liked that explanation, and I would really know more. The article itself would help a great deal actually.

Thanks.

Evilbu 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It was probably Beijing. Look at the first paragraph under the Names section. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes that is probably it. Are there any other cities with names of former names like that, that are not included in that paragraph? Isn't a similarity like this worth a separate article (for instance there is an article concerning flags similar to the Turkish flag).

Uhm, if Hanoi means eastern capital, then what was the former, you can't go much more to the west in Vietnam can you? Evilbu 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Hanoi is in the north, you can go a bit further west. However, the name "Eastern Capital" assumes there is a "Western Capital" of another country nearby, not a capital of the same country. I don't know ancient Vietnamese history. In China, there were multiple capitals and they were named based on their location to the previous one. Perhaps a similar thing happened in Vietnam. Or, maybe they wanted to be like the "Eastern Capital" in China - they just didn't stick "New" in front of everything like New York, New Hampshire, and New England. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There was also a "Western Capital" at Tay Do (modern Thanh Hóa, I think, or at least in Thanh Hóa Province). I believe modern Hanoi first became known as the "Eastern" when the capital was moved to Tay Do in 1397 [1] [2]. Still, the naming's a bit odd — if you look at a map, it's really more a matter of north and south than east and west. -- Vardion 05:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Beijing: Northern Capital

(Shangdu: Upper Capital)

Nanjing: Southern Capital

Xijing: Western Capital

Dongjing: Eastern Capital (of N. Song)

Zhongdu: Central Capital/City (of Jin)

-- Миборовский 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

strahov stadium

hi i was just wondering, how does one on here put a picture on? i'd like to go on google and paste it on the document to the strahov stadium. i just figured for the world's largest stadium wikipedia needs a pic.

This type of question is better suited for the Help Desk, however, bear in mind that you can not upload just any picture, you must have one that is not subject to copyright and is properly licensed. --LarryMac 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversies - New Kadampa Tradition

Hello;

I'm a member of the New Kadampa Tradition and have always lamented the wad of criticism at the bottom of the Wikipedia article here, even though, I do understand the right to express it. However, while browsing through other parts I came apart the article on the Opus Dei. I was wondering what would the process consist of to separate the information on the NKT and the objections to it into 2 separate articles, like the Opus Dei has done?

Thanks!

Geoff <email removed to prevent spamming>

--Glbonn

The Opus Dei article was not split up into several separate articles by Opus Dei itself (well, at least I hope it wasn't) but by wikipedia editors, because it was getting too long. The neutrality of the article is disputed, by the way. The article on the New Kadampa Tradition, on the other hand, is not excessively long, so it can present the different viewpoints on the same page. This is considered the best way to do things on wikipedia. If you think the article gives certain criticisms undue weight or is POV, you can discuss that on its talk page, here. David Sneek 18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Great Gatsby Question

In The Great Gatsby, is the Jewish character Meyer's last name Wolfsheim or Wolfshiem? I had always thought the former, and most sources (including Wikipedia) agree, but

• there is an article in which the "Wolfshiem" is used exclusively, except in a quote where "Wolfsheim" is used; in that case there is a [sic] to denote that "Wolfsheim" is incorrect.
• An extext has it as Wolfshiem.

JianLi 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The googlefight was won by Wolfsheim, which is also what our article calls him. David Sneek 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...but that is my dilemma: Wolfsheim is more popular. However, what would seem an unimpeachable source (the etext) contradicts this, as does an article that actually considers both spellings. Does anybody have a hard copy of the text that they can check? The first mention of the name would be halfway through chapter 4 JianLi 18:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it in two hours when I'm back in my house. Hopefully someone can find it before then. Isopropyl 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the other online versions I can find ([3], [4]) also give Wolfshiem. Perhaps a google fight was not the right way to solve this, because people may misrember the name as the more natural sounding Wolfsheim (-heim being a common suffix in German names). David Sneek 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This brings to mind the conflict between (the more popular) "e. e. cummings" and (the less ridiculous, more correct, and Wikipedia-sanctioned) "E. E. Cummings."JianLi 19:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a hard copy of the text, and it gives Wolfsheim. However it is actually a Spanish translation ("El Gran Gatsby") so there could have been an error in transcription.JianLi 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there are a lot of texts at Google Book Search, both of the novel itself and of works about it, which have "Meyer Wolfshiem." --Cam 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I've solved it: it seems merely that back then, much got changed in books between editions, and Fitzgerald was especially careless and tended to correct earlier mistakes in later editions. Somewhere along the way, Wolfsheim in one edition was changed to Wolfshiem in another [5]. Whether the author's original draft or his final one is definitive is the subject of an interesting article [6]. JianLi 04:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

SORIN CERIN BIOGRAPHY

I am curious about Sorin Cerin, the author of ,"The Cerin Theory of Universal Genesis "who is in the book"The Origin of God".What and how is that theory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.104.189.107 (talk • contribs) .

• This site, referenced from our stub on Sorin Cerin, mightr help you out. --Halcatalyst 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

single mph increases gas mpg ?

What highway speed should I maintain to get best gas mileage on SUV and full size large block pickup with tailgate up. In N.E. Tx. area year round interstate driveing. Is it 60 mph or something else.20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC) thanks

This probably belongs at the science reference desk, but you probably want to be going as fast as possible with the lowest reading on the tachometer. That's my guess. Isopropyl 20:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For many vehicles, a torque vs. RPM and/or horsepower vs. RPM chart is provided, typically in the sales brochure. You want to aim for the RPM (or a little below) that provides the peak horsepower in normal driving and peak torque during heavy towing. Whatever speed that gives you, that's the optimal performance speed. While the RPMs tends to be higher in small engine cars, the speed tends to be higher in vehicles with more cylinders and gears, but 60 MPH might be typical. StuRat 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently on the science RD, the calculation of MPG was discussed. As demands for increasing MPG in SUV's was made, the speed at which highway MPG was calculated was reduced to an strainge number around 45mpg (I think it is actually 47mph or 43mph - but the exact number doesn't matter). If the best MPG was around 60mph, why would auto makers have the speed reduced below 55mph to increase the rated MPG? I figure that air drag at high speeds causes the top gear to have bad MPG. So, the speed is calculated using a lower gear (or the lowest speed in the high gear). --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the reason for setting it that low is because they calculate that as the average driving speed, figuring in local roads, as well. Therefore, it would give a more accurate average MPG for the typical driver. StuRat 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we get two MPG numbers - one for city, one for highway (high speed). The highway test simulates a top speed of 60 mph and an average of 48 mph.[7]. Rmhermen 05:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they mean "highway" in the old sense, which just seemed to mean "road", versus the new sense, which means limited access expressway, particularly the Eisenhower Interstate System. The only other explanation I can think of is that they are including traffic jams in their average speed calcs. StuRat 14:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a fuller description:

1. "The city test is approximately 11 miles long and is a stop and go trip with an average speed of about 20 miles per hour (mph). The trip lasts 31 minutes and has 23 stops. About 18 percent of the time is spent idling (as in waiting for traffic lights). A short freeway driving segment is included in the test. The engine is initially started after being parked overnight. The highway is a 10 mile trip with an average speed of 48 mph. The vehicle is started "hot" and there is very little idling and no stops."[8]

Of course, this is done by the automaker (the EPA only confirms about 10% of tests) on a single car from each type offered for sale. And it is done on a dynamometer, not a road. Rmhermen 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That is great, but it doesn't answer my question: Why would the automakers push to reduce the highway speed in the test down to 48mph if, as the SUV and truck owners claim, the best gas mileage is well above 60mph? The automakers could even get rid of wind resistance by doing this on a treadmill. It seems to me that the best gas mileage is around 48mph, not above 60. But, that is based on the MPG test, not on scientifically testing the change in MPG with each possible speed. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Heidegger

Was Martin Heidegger an advocate of postmodernism? or a 'postmodern philosopher'? or a relativist?. --200.37.94.53 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• See Martin Heidegger for a very full account. He was none of those, but is said to have influenced postmodern writers. --Halcatalyst 00:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

None of them. As is well known, Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. Since you're under the table, you clearly have an absolute reference, so he certainly can't be a relativist. And I believe postmodern philosophy paid slightly too well for an adherent to be considered a 'beggar', boozy or no. --ByeByeBaby 01:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment appears to be funny, and I'd love to understand it... :( but my not being a native english speaker isn't helping me... ( why can he think me under the table?:S...whaaat?)--Cosmic girl 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, I get it now... lol...but still, I think they should've mocked their philosphies and not their drinking habbits :|... like... for example... 'socrates was as anoying as cosmic girl when asking questions' or...'nietzsche was all about the will to power but he was sick and weak...' lol..that was mean :(. (I love Nietzsche!) or...wittgenstein was all about 'logic' yet he wanted to be a priest and he used to hit children... and Descartes was...i dunno...but he was something, therefore he was. or...'kant was really small and bald and ugly and yet thought he was an end in himself' LOL. :| or... i dunno! help me, i'm not creative enough.--Cosmic girl 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Heidegger has been characterized by some as a "reactionary modernist," which is not entirely disconnected from what they call "postmodernism" but it is definitely not what people think of when they say "postmodernism". There are some overlaps in viewpoints but as a worldview they are usually pretty different. (I say "usually" because I don't think there is a very stable definition of what "postmodernism" is supposed to mean.) --Fastfission 18:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

but... what was Heideggers absolute? cause he seems to say 'dasein is the only source of truth' and 'we' are dasein...so... what the heck?:S I mean he seems to be saying ' there is truth as long as dasein discloses it and expresses it' or whatever...--Cosmic girl 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)