Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 20

What is dancecore in relation to euro-dance, euro-trance, and related genres?

I got a Euro-? album by "SveN-R-G vs. Bass-T," "N-R-G & Bass." Well the inside cover says "Big Thanx to the Dancecore - Community for the great support and loyalty the whole time!" The record company is Aqualoop, which was started by Pulsedriver aka SveN-R-G. So I was wondering I really love this cd, but I'd just call it some type of euro-dance or happy hardcore, but just not as happy as most... trance-hardcore?! I'm at a loss of what dancecore might be... Is there any history of this, when has it become popular, is it a very new genre of euro-dance? Anyways, anything would be great, thanks! --x1987x^(talk) 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think genre distinction often turns into a muddled mess, but I'd guess that the dance- part of the genre might refer to the happy part of it, while the -core part might refer to the more aggressive parts. Otherwise, you might be better off googling. 惑乱 分からん 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can dogs look up?

Obviously, my question is from Shaun of the Dead. Can dogs look up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.78.47.47 (talk • contribs) 22:06, November 19, 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Mine does all the time. Pesapluvo 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mine can but doesn't Keria 10:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No they cant! They just sit down and cock their head up. [ Jesus ] 7:43, 10 January 2008

Some do, some don't, all can. When on the trail of a scent many dogs will come to the tree that the prey went up and will realize that the scent goes up and they will start looking up at the tree. Some won't understand how it could be on the tree but don't think that the animal could have gone up until they actually see a prey animal go up a tree. Most will then learn that prey can go up trees. And on the personal anecdote side of things, I used to have two dogs that would run around and around out in a big field watching the birds in the sky ride the thermal currents. They'd do it for quite some time until they got frustrated and gave up. Not the smartest dogs since they, I guess, were expecting the birds to come down to them but good dogs none the less. Dismas|^(talk) 10:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The question is absurd on its face, of course, since dogs make eye contact with their owners, who are usually taller than they are, but Dismas gets at another side of the question. Dogs have some trouble understanding "above" and "beneath." They do figure it out, usually. My previous dog and I lived in an upstairs aparment with a walkway. We would be out there, and the downstairs neighbors would come home. He never could figure out how they disappeared into the floor, despite climbing the stairs himself and having gone underneath them himself. If you live in the plains and hunt, there isn't a lot of "under me" that goes on, so your brain doesn't develop a very good 3-D sense. Geogre 11:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it the question means "straight up", as opposed to looking up at a 45 degree angle. Note that people can't look straight up, without moving our heads. Dogs might not be able to move their heads that way. So, they would need to lie down or stand on their hind legs to look straight up. I don't know if that's actually the case, just guessing. StuRat 00:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell does he mean by this?

Bob Dylan, in Thunder On the Mountain, on Modern Times, says

I've been thinkin' 'bout Alicia Keys/ Couldn't keep from crying/ 
But she was born in Hell's Kitchen and I'm livin' on the line/ 
I'm wondering where in the world Alicia Keys could be/ 
I've been looking for her even clear through Tennessee.

Any help understanding what the hell he's saying (or advice on whether or not I should try to understand) would be much appreciated. Sashafklein 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what it is that you are after: the words of the song seem to be largely self-evident. The singer is looking for a woman called Alicia Keys, who was born in Hell's Kitchen (a district of New York City), and may now be in Tennessee. Am I missing something here? Clio the Muse 06:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bob takes lots of drugs, so he may not know what it means, either. The singer, Alicia Keys, was actually born in Harlem, New York City, but raised in Hell's Kitchen, so I suppose that's close enough. StuRat 06:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there's a recent Slate article ("What does Bob Dylan want with Alicia Keys?" centering on these lines, and looking at Dylan's past history with other black women singers. And it cites Wikipedia, to boot. --ByeByeBaby 07:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen is now referred to as "Clinton," and it is now very upscale, although it was one of the worst neighborhoods of NYC. The lyrics suggest that he's on the border, whether that's the border of Heaven and Hell or, more likely, the city limits (suggesting a city girl/country boy thing), and he's been following her all the way through Tennessee. As for what he wants with her, it's probably not much different from what many heterosexual men want with a beautiful, talented woman. I think, however, that her name is important in the lyrics as a name ("keys"). Geogre 11:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of islands, something like Key Largo. Thanks to ByeByeBaby. -- DLL ^{.. T} 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Song name

I heard a song once, with the line "but your wrong, we just play it like that" since then i have been unable to find any trace of it. deos anyone know what it could be? Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountainmon (talk • contribs)

It would help if you tried to describe the style, the sound, or anything else you can remember about the song. But I think you might be looking for "Play It Like That" by Bardot. I haven't heard it myself, but here are the lyrics. --Grace 11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Only a Northern song. -- DLL ^{.. T} 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Only A Northern Song, which is by the Beatles. Adam Bishop 21:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, thats the one. i had thought it was by the beatles, but assumed i was wrong because it never showed up in lyrics searches --Fountainmon 07:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

name that artist

I need the name of the artist who installed a balloon replica of King Kong atop the Empire State Building on or about March 2, 1983. The picture appeared on the front page the following day according to wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Kong#Pop_culture_references.

(New York) Times Select was less than helpful. Chance to outshine them with footnote if story sees print.

Thank you.

Bill Thom

Robert Vicino of San Diego. (The date of the first attempt seems to be 7 April 1983, with another attempt on 13 April 1983, and finally giving up and removing the thing on 16 April 1983.) Of course, the footnote will still have to go to the Times (Kong Nearly Reclaims Stronghold Atop Tower, NYT: April 10, 1983). - Nunh-huh 11:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC) = more details at the Empire State Bldg site: "The 85 foot, three thousand pound inflatable Kong was created by Robert Vicino, President of Robert Keith & Co., Inc., engineered by consultants Geiger Berger Associates, P.C., rigged by Lime Waterproofing., Inc. " - Nunh-huh 11:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

nationalities

Hi, I hope someone can answer this question. Is Jewish a nationality or just a religion? I was told i was German, Jewish and Hungarian, so I always thought it was a nationality. Now my daughter is being told by her history teacher that it is just a religion. can someone answer this question for me please. Thank You Tes

Opinions differ; clearly the word is used in several senses, and it's foolish to insist that only one of its meanings is "correct". For more discussion, have a look at Jew. - Nunh-huh 13:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just some nitpicking. "Jewish" is not a nationality, since there isn't a "Jewish nation", but it's possibly an ethnicity. If you consider Israel as a "Jewish nation", the the nationality is "Israeli", not "Jewish". 惑乱 分からん 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. It isn't nitpicking. Of course, the question is funny. German doesn't denote race. Hungarian doesn't denote race. Jewish denotes race. I feel that the German/Hungarian can be dropped unless being used in the sense, "She is second generation German" - meaning that she isn't from Germany, but her grandparents were. Flipping it, "second generation Jewish" makes absolutely no sense, but "second generation Israeli" does. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Israel says "Proclaimed independent in 1948, Israel is the world's only Jewish state" and 'The biblical nation fathered by Jacob was then called "The Children of Israel" or the "Israelites."' Sure sounds like Jewish can be a nationality. Edison 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As a naturalized citizen of the State of Israel, I can attest to "Jewish" being a nationality there, likewise "Arab", which terms do not indicate religion (which would be Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc.). Elsewhere in the world and historically, I would contend that an individual's affiliation with the "Jewish People" — some of whose members are secular rather than practicioners of the religion, Judaism — is a form of national identity rather than "race" or even "ethnicity." There's a certain confusion in English as the adjective Jewish refers to both the religion and the nationality. -- Deborahjay 16:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Depends on context. Nazi Germany?martianlostinspace 16:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I know this whole issue is rather unclear (and quite controversial in some circles), but I don't agree with Jewish being a nationality or a race but consider them to be rather and "merely" a religion and a culture, with religion being the main partner. Is Madeleine Albright a Jew? No, as her parents converted to Catholicism. Therefore it can't be a race, as the son of couple of a "certain race" (whatever) doesn't stop being a member of that race even if his parents adopt a diffrent religion and culture. There are Jews of all races (Whites, Blacks like the Beta Israel, etc) around the whole world, but they stop being Jews if they convert (I don't know if they admited back if they "repent") to a diffrent religion. Ppl can become Jews (mainly because and through marriage) which is something noone can do with ones racial background.

It isn't ethnicity neither, as members of an ethnicity can be of diffrents religions. It isn't nationality neither, as there are Jews who aren't citizens of Israel and neither were their parents. The "cultural bagage" (notice that many Jews don't know/follow many rules as the eating traditions "No pork and no shellfish" and many don't know Hebrew) derives mostly from religion which is the deciding factor. I advise you to read Who is a Jew? Flamarande 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well converted Jews are often not regarded as Jewish but they AFAIK sometimes they are, and not just by racists. Also, while the Israeli Law of Return prevents Jews who have converted from emigrating (under that law), it AFAIK doesn't prevent those who haven't converted but don't practice even if they don't identify as Jews including atheists and those who are agnostic. So I would say it's not purely a religious factor. (Would you consider a non-practicing Christian who doesn't identify as Christian a Christian? I wouldn't). Nil Einne 17:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-Jewish (by race) can emigrate to Israel. There are many Israelis who are not Jewish (race) or Jewish (religion). That is why I don't agree with making "Jewish" and "Israeli" interchangeable terms. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty with this question is the shifting meaning of "nationality." Nowadays it's determined by which country issued your passport. Suggesting that citizens of a country have a different "nationality" has the aroma of suggesting that they are somehow not quite full citizens. There are, sad to say, many places in the world where various minority groups are tagged with being of different "nationality" from the majority. As for your specific question, it is covered here. B00P 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a "Jew" can refer to both one's religion and/or one's nationality. The Jews are clearly a nation. The problem is that the definition of the term "nation" differs based on the context, and as such is difficult to nail down. I consider myself, for example, a Jew by religion, a Jew by nationality, a Canadian by citizenship, and a human by race. A big problem is that "nationality" is often confused with "citizenship". The Québecois, for example, consider themselves, and are considered by many non-Québecois, such as myself, to be a nation. Yet by citizenhip, they're Canadians (though of course many of them would like to change that). Similarly, the most "official" term for Canada's Aboriginal Peoples is the term "First Nations". Though they too are Canadian by citizenship. Canada began as a binational state, and once its Aboriginal Peoples gained the recognition they deserved, it became a multinational state. Of course the reverse can also exist. IMHO, the Germans and the Austrians, are essentially a two-state nation. The large Hungarian community of Romania are Hungarian by nationality, and Romanians by citizenship. Same goes for both the Armenians and the Kurds of Turkey. The list is virtually endless.

The Jews are a somewhat unique case, as their religion and nationality have been, historically at least, almost completely coextensive. There are very few comparable situations. The nearest that come to mind are the Greeks and the Armenians. Though even that doesn't seem to describe the Jewish "issue" adequately. Modern Secularism only further confuses the issue. Still, imagining just a few centuries back, the identifying terms "Greek" or "Armenian" would seem to identify both one's religion as well as one's nationality almost simultaneously, just as the identifying term "Jew" would. Loomis 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are claiming there is a Jewish nation that is not a country - basically claiming that "nation" and "country" are not synonyms. I disagree. I believe that nation and country are synonyms. I also disgree that with the concept of a "Nation of Insert ethnic group here". To me, it means that you can pick anyone from that ethnic group and they agree that there are part of the "nation". All it takes is one person in the ethnic group to say "no, there is no nation" and the idea falls apart. I do agree that there is a strong push to form minority groups into "nations". In the U.S., blacks are pushed from birth to call every other black person "brother" and "sister" to enforce a "nation of blacks". Others don't do that. I was not raised to treat Native Americans (or specifically, Blackfeet) any different than anyone else just because I have thin straight hair, reddish skin, and a big nose. But, I feel this is a matter of personal identity. There is no correct answer. I've met white Germans who call themselves black (because it is a state of mind, not a race). I've met black guys who identify themselves as Japanese at heart. As long as it doesn't lead to conflict, I don't care. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The legality of searching movie theater patrons in US

Now, setting aside for a moment that a movie theater should hire its own lawyers to advise it, let me ask: Are they legally allowed to institute a policy requiring such searches in order to enter the theater? Say we're talking california if it matters. --Alecmconroy 14:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your right to not be searched while in public ends when you step onto private property. The theater is not public property. They can make the rules. This is nothing new. People have tried to sue theaters for refusing outside food and drink in the theaters - and failed. It is a private business on private property. Do you really want a country where the government tells you that you aren't allowed to ban access to your home to anyone because stopping people from entering private property goes against their right to freedom? --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But it is a public place, not just private property. They can't ban you because of your race or your gender or a political slogan on your t-shirt for example. But the outside food or drink is also interesting-- if, for example, they can search your bags to check for outside food or drink, surely they can search for recording devices. Do you know of any cite about such lawsuits? --Alecmconroy 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a public place. Kainaw's right, it's private property. Just because they allow you to enter, doesn't mean you have a right to. As for searches and the like, most theatres and cinemas have a whole bunch of terms and conditions printed on the back of tickets. These T&Cs would normally include that the holder consents to being searched and does not bring recording equipment onto the premises. Purchase of a ticket signifies acceptance of those conditions. Sorry but they are allowed to make the rules, if you don't like them stay away. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because they claim, on the ticket, to have that right doesn't mean the law agrees. I mean, I've seen hundreds of signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", but since at least the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that right simply does not exist-- I don't know if it ever did.

There has to be some legal source on this. The closest I've found is Elliot v. United Center, in which the US Court of Appeals found that antitrust laws do not compel a sports stadium to allow outside food, but it is silent on the issue of searches.

If you find it odd that I'm even asking the question, consider: a police officer who sees a suspicious looking character inside the theater and suspects the person might have a bomb-- the police officer is NOT allowed to search him just because. For whatever reason, society has decided that such searches are SO bad, we won't permit them, even when our own safety is at risk. It seems reasonable to ask, therefore, whether the law really would allow a movie theater to conduct them or not. --Alecmconroy 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you get searched going into most venues, clubs and concerts (in the UK anyway) for drinks in glass containers and knives by big scary bouncers and I suspect it might be the same in the US if you try entering a club with a bulky bag, I dont see why owners of a cinema wouldn't be allowed to search your bag (body search is another matter). Why would you be particularly concerned about this? As a matter of privacy or because you DO have a camcorder in your bag? To make things clear, and here again I speak from european experience but a Cinema is both a private property AND a public place (same as a bar, supermarket, shopping mall, etc) meaning that although it is a private property, it is subject to general laws rulling public places. That is because the place doesn't require specific private membership in order to be accessible and that all members of the public as long as they have paid the entrance fee are allowed in (appart from the exception of "the owners reserve the right ... etc" ) i.e. You cannot bring in a knife in such places as you can do in YOUR private home even though the owner might say it is ok. Keria 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My own interest comes because a friend of mine went to a theater recently and they asked her to search her purse. She refused to allow them and walked into the theater. The manager came into the theater and asked to search her purse or leave-- she said it was an illegal search, again refused, and refused to leave. The manager backed down and dropped the issue. We're trying to figure out-- did they back down just to be nice, or was the law not on their side. I wish I could claim that my interest was because I'm a pirate-- I'd get an eyepatch and everything.. but no, I'm just doing some investigating for a libertarian friend. --Alecmconroy 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There's another problem: since taping a film is illegal and it is the responsability of the theatre owner to ensure no film is taped, he has to make sure the conditions are fullfilled so that no film is taped. I think it goes as follow: although the manager doesn't have the right to search you or your belongings if you are a legitimate customer (he didn't catch you stealing popcorn) he has the right to refuse the entrance to anyone who does not accept being search. Theorectically he could have thrown your friend out. If both parties refuse to back down he has to call the only authority abilitated to search you: the police. I think the owner searching is tolerated to make things more practical. Although your friend can refuse to be searched by anyone else than the police (even a security gard doesn't have the right to - however she tries to avoid it she can be forced to be searched by the police, in the same way she cannot by law refuse to have her fingerprints taken) the owner can then refuse acces to the cinema. Keria 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you have the right to refuse the search, but then they have the right to throw you out (although, in this case, I would expect they would have to refund your ticket price). However, I don't agree that the police could search you, if called. They would need "probable cause" that you were doing something illegal. If the manager saw you filming, and if that is illegal, then that might be probably cause. However, if you just "look suspicious", that probably isn't. StuRat 00:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was if the friend wants to go watch her film but refuses to be searched by the manager the only proper authority legaly abilitated to search her is the police. Indeed they need to justifie their search but "looking suspicious" is good enough as a justification. Once the police has decided to search you, you cannot legaly refuse. In most countries you can refuse a search if you are not (yet) under arrest (but that's really creating your own trouble to make a point). Kicking and screaming or even just making a fuss will be considered resisting arrest if the officer is in a bad mood. To come back to the case if the manager saw you filming he has the right to keep you from leaving the theatre until the police arrives (he won't get prossecuted for it afterwards). If he has a suspicion you are filming but didn't catch you red handed (e.i. suspicious behaviour) he has no legal right to hold you. If you are not found guilty after he has held you against your will you can ask for reparation. I don't know about if you are found guilty (probably no judge will ever award you compensation). The manager can always ask a police search on a suspicious individual he just hasn't got the legal right to hold you if no evidence of the crime is yet available. Keria 09:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't know about the US but in most countries there are restrictions on what people can do with their private property and the kinds of conditions they can set. However these restrictions rarely prevent searches as a condition of entry Nil Einne 16:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As private property, the theater's management has a right to refuse admittance to those refusing to be searched. As a licensed commercial enterprise, it does not have the right to refuse admittance based on something like race or handedness. B00P 19:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely the manager was right. Your friend was lucky that he backed down. -THB 22:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a lot of people are confusing what the US government can and cannot do (illegal search and seizure, right to free speech, etc.) with what a private entity can and cannot do. An officer of the government can't search you without a warrant, but a private individual can on their property if they so wish. All those rights in the US Bill of Rights have to do with your rights vis a vis the government, not private individuals. --Charlene 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's only partially true, Charlene. I think a citizen is entitled to leave rather than submit to a search. Anchoress 02:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the U.S. Code, a movie theater is most definitely a public accommodation. This is the category that means they can't discriminate in their business dealings (including serving their customers) on the basis of race, etc. But as long as they're not searching according to race, etc., they're not running afoul of this, as several others have observed. Wareh 01:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, when the police do random searches on the bags of people entering the subway in NYC, if you don't want to be searched, you can refuse, and just not enter the subway. -THB 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very clearly legal. Contrary to public perception, the Bill of Rights protects Americans from government conduct only. In fact, until after the Civil War, these rights only extended to protect citizens from federal action. Theatres do have a special tort status because they invite the general public to see films. Congress passed legislation, the Civil Rights Acts, to enforce the 14th Amendment barring racial, gender and religious discrimination. The theatre can not only search women or blacks or Jews. The theatre can neutrally search for devices to commit copyright violation, a federal law. Congress is given the power to regulate copyright in the Constitution.

A movie theater wants to start searching its patrons in order to prevent people from making bootleg videos of movies. Mostly this involves searching through purses and backpacks to look for camcorders. 75Janice 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)75Janice; 14:36. 21 Nov. 2006 UTC

I disagree. It was only necessary to state that police and soldiers lack that right because they might be assumed to have such a right, otherwise. There was never any presumption that, if you are a guest, whomever has invited you has a right to search you. There is also a prohibition on being forced to quarter (house) soldiers. So, should we assume that, since there is no prohibition on being forced to quarter clowns, that you are therefore so obligated whenever the circus or Bush administration comes to town ? StuRat 07:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with you StuRat there is no official prohibition on clowns being quartered in your home during peace time because the Government has never quartered clowns in private homes… ever. (Your cute comment notwithstanding).

The Fourth Amendment only applies to governmental actors. It does not guarantee a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984). (excerpt below)

“The fact that employees of the private carrier independently opened the package and made an examination that might have been impermissible for a Government agent cannot render unreasonable otherwise reasonable official conduct. Whether those employees' invasions of respondents' package were accidental or deliberate or were reasonable or unreasonable, they, because of their private character, did not violate the Fourth Amendment”

Any public or private facility has the right to employ the security measures that they deem necessary for their particular situation. Have you gone to a Rock or Rap concert in the last twenty years all major venues reserve the right to search you as a condition of entry into the building the same goes for many government buildings and sporting events. As for your assumption that I couldn’t search you as my guest in my home the United States v. Jacobsen says your wrong. If I went through your backpack while you were in the bathroom there’s not a whole lot you can do about it other than get pissed off and leave. The same goes for if I want to search your person as a condition of entering my property you may refuse and leave but entering with out my permission would be trespassing. Your expectations of privacy are greatly diminished once you leave your home or curtilage. Theaters have the right to request a search for recording devices, outside food, weapons or booze as a condition of entry no matter how unreasonable someone feels the invasion is. But by that same token you have every right to refuse the search, demand a refund and leave. A police officer may not be able to search you in the theater but they can arrest and hold you for up to 48hrs if you refused to leave or you make a scene (I’ve seen this happen). At the time of your arrest you’ll then be searched and it will be legal. The original poster’s friend is lucky the Theater didn’t want to press the issue because the police would have ejected her and if she became combative she might have left in handcuffs.72.171.0.141 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Rebellion in the african american community

Hi I need some help on a qustion ask in my sunday school class. are the moral,economic,and social problems in the african american community due solely to the rebellion of the people,or are there other factors that have a bearing on these problems? include spiritual issues and suggested solutions.I am african american and live in milwaukee wisconsin. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.47.149 (talk • contribs)

Any time a question has a phrase such as "due solely to", it is a false statement. All it takes is one counter-example. So, is there one example anywhere of an African-American who has moral, economic, or social problems that are not due to rebellion? How about an African-American soldier who is having economic trouble because he was paralyzed in military combat - an act that is far from rebellion? In my opinion, the whole question is based on the false notion of an African American community. I consider it very racist to consider anyone with brown skin a "group" in which all are the same and all have the same problems caused by the same source. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an American so perhaps this is something that only Americans understand but "Rebellion of the people"? What the heck does that mean? Nil Einne 16:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

129.89, you fool! you told one of the non-Americans about the upcoming Rebellion of the People we were planning to stage all over the rest of the world. Now we have to start the planning ALL over! --Alecmconroy 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a hunch, but I sincerely doubt that there is a general "rebellion" among the African-American population, I have heard estimates that the African-American population is among 20 million, and if there'd be a real "rebellion" among the population, the American society wouldn't function as stable, as it actually does... 惑乱 分からん 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question because I'm not sure what you mean by "rebellion". Do you mean rebellion against God? -THB 22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question either. Are we talking about historical rebellions here? I cannot even 'deduce' what the correct question might be. It's quite perplexing. But please do not be intimidated by this. If you could just simplify what it is you are looking for I may be in a better position to help you. Clio the Muse 23:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can think of a few meanings for "rebellion". The most obvious is riots, like the one in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict. A more subtle rebellion would be kids who refuse to stay in school and learn, "because that's just so we can work for the MAN and get paid chump change". Many of those drop-outs end up as criminals. Both of these things definitely hurt the African-American community, but they aren't the only thing. The lack of fathers in the household would be another factor, for example. Dependency on the government would be another factor, as is putting too much emphasis on sports and entertainment as possible careers, and too little on everything else. StuRat 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Aren't "moral,economic,and social problems" the factors that cause "rebellion" and not the other way around? I cannot think of any situation where rebellion should come first before social problems. Or it is probably the case that rebellion (refusal to accept authority) is inherent in the political position of the black community because they are the minority in (white) American society. There is hegemony manifest in "rebellion" as conflict between the two groups is acted out in different spheres of life. Moonwalkerwiz 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, teenage rebellion frequently seems to be without an obvious reason (although the hidden reason is to cause the teens to go out on their own and spread their genes). StuRat 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"What're you rebelling against, Johnny ?"

"Whaddya got ?" - The Wild Ones (movie):[1] (although one would expect that quote to be from Rebel Without a Cause) - StuRat 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Paris, France known as the City of Romance?

Hello, I am trying to research some facts and history behind Paris/ France being considered the City of Romance, why does it have this reputation? Is this mainly linked to the Literature, and Cultural references i.e..La Boheme,etc.. that originated in France or does its romantic reputation stem from 'A High Court of Love' being established in 1400. Why is this fact taken for granted? Where could I start researching the myths and facts behind this question.

If anybody could lead me in the right direction, it would be much appreciated

Many thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Kian (talk • contribs)

It isn't the only city like that. Venice?martianlostinspace 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC) ps: please sign.

This would be a reputation based on many years of people/books/tv/radio/newspapers referencing it as so. Obviously Paris is not more 'romantic' than any other place (of itself), but there are aspects that might add to the notion of romance. French is a romance language apparently so that might be significant. Also the romanticisim movement has something to do with France and frenchness. All this could be tied towards Paris what with it being the capital. The eiffel tower has featured in many romantic films, so Paris has that link with cinema. I guess many will consider New York to also be a romantic town based on the number of romantic comedies set there.

It'll probably be mostly due to books/poetry/plays/cinema though, rather than anything that is unique to Paris. ny156uk 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Paris has a unique beauty, atmosphere, intimate scale, and patina. The grand boulevards, the squares, the quais, the river itself, the bridges, the narrow little streets like Rue du Chat qui Pêche, the parks with walks of pollarded trees, fountains, cafés, small restaurants, the weather, the bird market, the bouquinistes, the way Parisians dress and speak, all of it combines to produce a romantic atmosphere. And there are three times as many things as I have named that I could name given enough time. There are a thousand good reasons Paris is the number one tourist destination in the world. Go there. -THB 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I rather suspect that this has a great deal to do with the remodelling of the city during the Second Empire by Baron Haussmann. During the first half of the nineteeth century, if Paris was known as anything it was as the City of Revolution. There was very little 'romance' to the old, and unsanitry steets of medieval Paris. The new Paris created by Hausmann was generally more attractive, healthy and less politically volatile than the old city. But if I was to try to date its new image to a precise period, I suppose the Belle Epoque is as good as any. Clio the Muse 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't it got to do with early widespread introduction of street gaslights? The streets would shimmer like diamonds around a young lady's neck. Thats lightely romantic enough. Keria 20:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That should inspire even the most jaded strangler. :-) StuRat 23:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Diamonds? Yes, please. You can keep the gaslight. Clio the Muse 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Call me a killjoy, and though this comment is admittedly extremely POV, I've been to Paris twice...two times too many for me. Now London on the other hand, that's my kind of town. And yes, as incredible as it may sound, to myself at least, far more "romantic" a city than Paris. Give me the warmth of a cheerful London pub with its even warmer and unabashedly flirtatious women (and, unfortunately but fittingly I suppose, a pint of warm beer) anyday over the dreadfully frigid atmosphere of some Parisian café wherein there seems to be some sort of competition between the wait staff and the female clientele as to which of the two can possibly be more unwelcoming. But I suppose I'm just funny that way. :) Loomis 22:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You're a killjoy. Well, you did ask for this! Seriously, I like London too, and certain kinds of Parisians can be a tad on the frigid side. But once you have had a chance to get to know the city properly-oh, la la! I have sweet memories of sitting in a grove of chesnut trees in a park one September afternoon...Les temps de l'amour. Clio the Muse 23:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sweet memories not all too different I'm sure than mine, of sitting one July evening on the bank of the River Thames...But now we're embarassing ourselves! Loomis 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Paris is very romantic if you only look at a very restricted selection of arrondissements (don't go too far out of the center). One element helping its romanticness is its the stupid price people pay for having a roof over their heads which keeps all the less well off away from the shimering streets. You end up with a situation where the highest populations of some areas are the rich (who can afford a roof) and the homeless (who don't pay for a roof though they wish they could). Ok, it's still beautiful I just don't like being shouted at when I go by a baguette. Keria 08:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A problem, Keria, that is not unique to Paris. Clio the Muse 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Career change?

I am a software engineer since last 5 years. I am in the United states since last 3 years. But of late I have realized that my real strength lies in my innovative and creative ideas. I would like to change my line and do something that would require creative and innovative ideas and also give me some sense of fulfilment and enjoyment in what I do. An example of that would be coming up with a concept of some fantasy ride in Disneyland or in Universal studios. Or maybe coming out for an out of the world concept for some casino in Las Vegas. Does anybody know of any courses or certifications or entrance test which would enable me to venture out in such field? I also do not know if such a career is really good or it looks more rosy from outside than it actually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 (talk • contribs)

Off the top of my head, I'd say you'd be better looking into careers which combine your background with more creativity than trying to break into something completely new and different. Have you thought about Game design? Cheers, Sam Clark 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think you're creative then go for it and take on your spare time to create something you're interested in. My advice would be never go trough any sort of course or certification process, that will never make you creative. Courses thought by someone else will never be taylored to your personal need and are very bad at teaching creativity. Although there are classes in "freeing up your mind" and "opening yourself to new ideas" their all design to channel your creativity into a particular type of creative process. Creativity is natural and has to be adapted to the particular field your interested in. An engineer's creativity is different from a painter's is different from a dog trainer's. If you're unsure about your creative capabilities then test them. Go for it step by step, slowly, start small, etc. If you think your "real strenght is lies in (...) your creative ideas" then you've got it already, no one needs to tell you how to do it. Create a project then submit it to the right people and you're on! Good luck it I wish you all the best. Keria 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you could be suited to a career in advertising, marketing, public relations and the like. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Computer graphics might be a good way to combine your software skills with a desire to design and use creativity. StuRat 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all for the guidance - Namit.

Who has the maximum number of wives as of today or this year

Even today, kings and dictators and people in countries where polygamy is legal, have many wives. Can you name a few people who have many wives and the number of wives they have? I am also interested in knowing how many wives the following people have 1) Kim jong il of North korea 2) fiedel castro 3) Hu jintao of china 4) sultan of brunei 5) king of saudi arabia Also want to know which are the countries polygamy is legal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.119.131 (talk • contribs) 18:49, November 20, 206 (UTC).

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not just a reference desk. For example, you can type Sultan of Brunei into the search box and find that Hassanal Bolkiah is the current Sultan. On his article, it clearly states that he has two wives, but the local law allows for four. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For the last question, see Polygamy.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How about the king Mswati III of Swaziland, with 13 wives ? StuRat 21:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why Fidel Castro is on your list. He may be an atheist and a Communist, but he was brought up as a Catholic, and heads a country that is still predominantly Catholic. By law and tradition he could have no more than one wife. He married Mirta Diaz Balart de Nunez in 1948, and was divorced in 1955. He later married Dalia Solo de Valle. Clio the Muse 23:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Saleh al-Sayeri [2] might be in the running. --Charlene 00:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice list you have there 59.92.119.131. Hu Jintao has only one wife, as do most Chinese people at home or abroad. I'm pretty sure the same can be applied to the North Korean people. Kim Jong Il is a different matter. For all I know, he could have a million wives stashed away in different parts of Korea and China. As for polygamy being legal, you could say it's legal in Canada and the US of A. Polygamy exists to a small extent and isn't persecuted as severely as it could. --The Dark Side 02:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why just prosecute somebody when you can persecute them, instead ? :-) StuRat 01:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Prosecuting is good too... --The Dark Side 04:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many reasons for outlawing polygamy. One, underage girls can never enter into a valid marriage. Society has a right to stop pedophelia. Two, marriage involves certain privileges regarding real property and taxation. Women should not be deprived of these rights. Perhaps it is a generalization, women in these relationships tend to have very unequal bargaining rights in these relationships. Children of the union need to be protected. I used to believe society was absurd to interfere between consenting adults. Now,I face reality. 75Janice 01:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)(75Janice 14:43 21 Nov. 2006 (UTC)

Those are not reasons to outlaw polygamy. They are reasons to act to change societies which suffer from gender injustice. Change that, and you might find that polygamy is just another contract mature adults can enter into, with full awareness of how to protect everyone's rights within any union.

To put it another way: by your implied argument, polygamy would be perfectly okay in a society which a) did not allow for underage marriage, and b) established marriage standards which caused all parties in a marriage to have equal stakes and rights re: taxation, property, and other issues of ownership and power. If those issues were addressed -- as they could be, easily, in many countries right now -- would you still object? Jfarber 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be getting OT. Why don't you start it under a different topic? I'm not going to bother to respond properly on topic, given the ridiculousness of that list. Warren Jeffs has be reported to have 90 wives which is more twice the number of wives of the above men combined (even including Abdullah of Saudi Arabia's 30 which is the main reason it isn't x10). Kim Jong Il is a bit of an unknown but I don't see any reason to dispute the official figure of 3. Why would he lie? He may very well have several more mistresses but probably not wives Nil Einne 15:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wizadora..

Does anyone have any pics of the characters from Wizadora, other than the ones from Google Image Search ones?

Chris

US Military Overextended?

From what I can piece together from various wiki articles, the US currently has some 1.4 million troops deployed in active duty. Of these, just under 200 thousand are involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined, some 300 thousand are deployed in various other location around the world, and the remainder, somewhere around 900 thousand are deployed on US territory. Forgive me for my ignorance, but I'm just wondering, given that the coast guard, border guard, and local and state police are pretty much in charge of keeping the peace within the US, just what are the other 900,000 troops doing?

I'm asking because I keep hearing of the US Military being "overextended" due to the Iraq and Afghanistan missions. (Though I'm sure he's just playing "shock-politics", Rep. Charles Rangel (D), backed up by the always straight shooting, absolutely never disingenuous Jesse Jackson, just today actually promised to introduce legislation to Congress to bring back the draft!) This question may be naive on my part, but with almost two thirds of its active troops (not to mention some one million more available reservists) not even deployed overseas, the US Military seems the furthest thing from being "overextended". I'm sure I'm missing something, and I'd really appreciate it if anyone can help to clarify the issue for me. Thanks! Loomis 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all soldiers fight. A lot of them provide support, e.g. logistics, recruiting, military intelligence (such as it is), repairs, training, etc. Plus they don't all fight year round; they get rotated out periodically. I personally was shocked to learn that the U.S. Army currently has a grand total of 10 divisions! Clarityfiend 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There's also the National Guard to add to your list of coast guard, border guard, and police. By the way, does the US Army have ten divisions, or the entire US armed forces? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Our article on the U.S. Army show it to be organized into ten divisions plus 3 regiments and 1 bridgade. See U.S. Army#Combat Maneuver Organizations. Rmhermen 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Marine Corps is organized into four divisions and four aircraft wings, the Navy into five fleets and the Air Force into seventeen "numbered air forces", about equivalent to a division but being reorganized into a smaller number of "Warfighting Headquarters". Rmhermen 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget about training. With relatively short terms of service, and a high level of training, it's not unusual for a soldier to spend half his time in training. Still, if the survival of the nation was at stake, another million or so soldiers could be "found" by extending tours of duty, paring back to essential training only, stopping troop rotations, etc. Later, once a draft could be initiated, perhaps tens of millions more soldiers could be produced. StuRat 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat

Why are some people more intelligent than others? Is it gentics, brain size or simply more time spent studying topics of interest? Some people seem stupid, some people are brilliant. Is this the same way as other animals? I guess I have never seen a dumb bird or a dumb mosquito. They all seem to be genetically equal in their decision making processes. Maybe the dumb ones die off? All I know is I see StuRats postings every where. I always read them and they are always very intelligent. Why is he/she smarter than I am?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.30.40 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps he has spent more time doing smart people things than you. You know, that's how it works. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's always a mix of genetics and social influences. Also, intelligence seems to presuppose the faculty of reason, which, I would like to believe, is also present in other animals, though in lesser degrees. One could say that a trained dog uses some reason to get the consequences that it desires. But then again, one could also look at intelligence as a prop used by a social actor in his front stage in order to successfully act out a social role. With the right use of symbols, one could appear intelligent, while not necessarily being one, to people. Of course, if one is truly intelligent or just acting the part for some desired end, doesn't really matter as long as the performance is successful. Moonwalkerwiz 06:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And which applies to StuRat then? :) Btw, what you are referring to is rhetoric (in its modern sense). But that is about misleading people, so if success is based on that or actual intelligence is not quite trivial. For example, it makes quite a difference if a politician really know his stuff or is just handy with words. DirkvdM 08:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't know for sure. I'm just giving my perspectives. Moonwalkerwiz 23:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think birds don't have levels of intelligence? First of all, some species of birds have been found to be more intelligent (in human terms!) than others, despite their bird brains. But within a species, it is hard for a human to notice the differences because it's at a different level. Or just plain different. That's comparable to all Chinese looking the same if you've rarely seen one. Only when you get to know more will you start noticing the differences that are so obvious to them (themselves). DirkvdM 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I find this discussion hilarious. Why is StuRat smart. Obviously because he spends more time at the reference desks, and thus learns more than the average person does in a year. Simple. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat is much smarter than I am because he remembers where he learns things from. I leave my TV playing documentaries all day just to have background noise. So, I hear a lot of weird facts all the time. Also, my job has me pouring through thousands of medical studies all the time - which again picks up random facts. I often see a question and I remember some fact about it, but I am wary to post anything because I don't remember where I learned it from. The key is to build up a framework of knowledge, but to maintain a way of validating that knowledge. I find myself on Google all the time hunting for something to backup something I already know - just in case it is needed. Or, I get lazy and just say "I read somewhere that..." --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of rats in general, I have trained a great many rats in mazes and operant conditioning chambers, or Skinner boxs, and there are definitely differences in learning ability. Researchers created strains of "maze dull" and maze bright" rats through only 7 generations of selective breeding. SeeGene-environment interaction. Environment has a huge effect on "brightness" of rats as well, and microscopic examination of rat brains shows observable effects of impoverished versus enriched environments. There is also large individual variation within a litter or rat pups, even though they have similar genetic material and environment. Edison 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Above average intelligence is a pathology that goes against the biological principle of energy conservation and pizza/tv law of least effort. Why burn calories reading books and thinking when you could be slouched cleaning your brain in front of the brainwash box? Thinking people eat more and thus add to the overconsumption phenomenon participating in global warming. shriek 8o! . The ref desk is full of very sick people. Keria 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And 75.72.30.40, do not ever envy people who are intelligent! Like Nietzsche said, "the weak have more mind (or spirit) ... One must need mind to acquire mind,—one loses it when one no longer needs it. Whoever has strength dispenses with the mind." Have you watched this documentary on Discovery Channel discussing the difference between the dominant male and the "sneaky" male in animals? The dominant male gets things done (gets the girl, takes her home) by pure strength, by pure beauty, by pure dominance over all other males. The sneaky male (and this is their exact word for it) waits patiently when the dominant male is away until he gets his chance to mate with the female. Clever people are the sneaky males, their weakness in strength, in beauty, in that kind of authority that doesn't need to be proved in order to have some potency, is compensated by their intelligence, cleverness. Deep inside, no one wants to be the philosopher, everyone wants to be the rock star. But then, people always have a way of convincing themselves that their way of life is the right one. Moonwalkerwiz 23:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am delighted to confirm that StuRat has at least as much intelligence as a bird or a rat.  :) JackofOz 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we congradulate him? :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thx (is a congradulation a gradual congratulation ?). After that other post that questioned whether I, and other Ref Desk regulars, have a life, this was a nice change. I promise to mail a brain lobe to whoever wants to study it, just let me know which lobe you want, and return it when done with your studies. Meanwhile, I'll fill the cavity with a chunk of cheese (head cheese, that is). :-) StuRat 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I started wring this before the last edit: I believe that truly wise people know that they know nothing. And that StuRat has not replied in this section is an indication of not only his wisdom but modesty, a rare combination. Now I take it all back! hahaha,... Nah, jsut kidding, you're still pretty smart ;)Vespine 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Stu, you just invented a new word! (with some help from my spelling error of course). I'll take your frontal lobe by the way. Do you actually have a life? Or are you really a Stu(dy)Rat, whose trainers let loose on Wikipedia every now and again? In that case, it's something of an infinite monkey theorem for rats! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that StudyRats don't have lives? That's speciesist :) --WikiSlasher 06:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speciesists beware! The Party for the Animals has just won two seats in Dutch government. And given the difficulty of forming a coalition, they might even be asked to complete a 'christian-left' coalition. Animal lovers rule! :) DirkvdM 07:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)